The West Begins to Dump Ukraine While Media Pretends This Was Always the Plan. Plus: Darryl Cooper (Martyr Made) on Israel-Gaza, Ukraine, 1/6 Tapes, & Censorship | SYSTEM UPDATE #186
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/
- - -
Follow Glenn:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glenn.11.greenwald/
Follow System Update:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/systemupdate__/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@systemupdate__
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/systemupdate.tv/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/systemupdate/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight...
The US government and the EU are finally coming to grips with the fact that their Ukraine war project has failed.
Or, to put it more accurately, the objectives they claim they were attempting to achieve, namely the expulsion of all Russian troops from Ukrainian soil, including from Crimea, is simply not realistic, not attainable.
And as a result, it is time for Zelensky and his Western patrons to sue for peace.
Basically to beg Russia to be happy with keeping 18% of Ukrainian territory that they currently occupy and control.
There are so many extraordinary aspects to this event.
To start with, so much of this was predictable.
In fact, many of us predicted it from the start.
That this war would not protect Ukraine and Ukrainians, but would instead destroy Ukrainians and destroy Ukraine while killing huge numbers of Ukrainians without any chance of evicting Russian soldiers from eastern Ukraine, let alone from Crimea, which Russia has occupied and controlled since 2014 when they announced that it was annexed.
Yet everyone who suggested any of that at the start, namely that the Biden administration should seek a diplomatic resolution to this conflict rather than to block a diplomatic solution, was instantly branded a Russian agent or a Putin sympathizer.
Often by the Ukrainian government itself, I have the blacklist to show you to prove it with my name on it, often by the very same media figures now working to prepare the public to accept the need for a diplomatic solution.
Whereby Russia will govern at least some, if not all, of the Ukrainian land and Russian-speaking Ukraine that they are currently occupying.
Those regions either will be annexed by Russia or will be allowed to have autonomy or semi-autonomy from those that they hate in Kiev, namely President Zelensky and the pro-NATO government.
They will be allowed to be autonomous and independent.
But this is yet another case of how American wars and the media cheerleaders who manufacture support for them in the United States always function.
At the start of every war, every war, they jack up the emotional manipulation among Americans so high that a majority of Americans who will always insist that they are now anti-intervention or anti-war, or that they regret their past support for American wars, come to believe that this time it's all different.
The U.S.
is on the right side, the good side.
And that this time we'll end up proud of what we have done, rather than ashamed.
We're spreading democracy.
We're fighting against the savages and the bad guys.
This is America in its finest form, fueling wars not to conquer, but to make the world better.
And every time all of that proves to be false, that the promises made and the vows issued turned out to be lies, the US media just pretends like none of it happened.
That they were skeptical all along, that they never really endorsed the maximalist vision of these wars, that they in fact demanded that everyone embrace, upon pain of being smeared as being a Russian agent or being on the other side.
And then, as they pretend, they just move on to the next war as if none of it ever happened.
Fully ready to propagandize for the next war, while demanding that nobody remember what they did in the past war, all while they insist they are never to be held accountable for anything they did or said.
We'll show you how the moment that we all knew was coming, namely when the West abandoned Zelensky in Ukraine, is finally here.
And the rats in the media and in Washington and in Brussels are stepping over one another, not just to jump off the sinking ship, but to pretend that they never boarded it in the first place.
Then, in mid-2021, Daryl Cooper, then writing under the Twitter name MartyrMade, wrote one of the most viral and well-read and consequential tweet essays in the history of that platform.
He set out to explain the mindset of the average Trump supporter, specifically why they are so contemptuous of establishment institutions of authority, validly so, That they were even willing to endorse claims that the 2020 election was stolen, to defend the January 6th riot, and to endorse a whole range of views that the media insists that it simply can't comprehend.
That they're just conspiracy theories or obviously false.
At the time of that thread, we noted that this is one of the most insightful and empathetic explanations of why the most loyal Trump supporters see the world the way they do.
And we invited Daryl to publish an article capturing and elaborating on that widely discussed Twitter essay, which he did on our Substack page.
And since then, Cooper has gone on to create his own wildly popular Substack page, doing more of that very in-depth and independent-minded analysis entitled The Martyr Made Substack.
He also hosts two very popular podcasts, The Martyr Made Podcast, And in another one he co-hosts with Jocko Willink, entitled The Unraveling.
And as part of that work, Cooper, well before the October 7th attack by Hamas on Israel, produced and published one of the most comprehensive historical accountings yet of the founding of the State of Israel and the Israel-Palestine conflict in general.
We're excited to have him back on our show to discuss the Israel-Gaza War, various political developments and debates inside the United States over that war, The war in Ukraine and the 2024 election and a lot more.
Before we get to our show, just a few programming notes.
First of all, we are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app, which works both on your smart TV and your phone.
And if you do so, you can follow the shows you most like to watch on Rumble, which we presume includes system update.
And if you activate notifications, which we really hope you will, it means that as soon as we or any other program you like begins to broadcast live on Rumble, you'll be instantly notified by email or phone, however you want.
So you don't have to wait around if someone is late to air.
You don't have to try and remember who goes on at what time.
You're just automatically notified the minute we start broadcasting live on air.
You can click on that link, come right to the show, and start watching it on the Rumble app.
That really increases the audience size of our live show as well as, in turn, really helping and strengthening the Rumble platform, which is under attack in all sorts of ways.
As another reminder, System Update is also available in podcast version, where you can listen to each episode 12 hours after they first are broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all of their major podcasting platforms.
And if you rate and review and follow the program, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
So finally, Every Tuesday and Thursday, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform, where we have our live interactive aftershow to take your questions, comment on your feedback and your critiques, hear your suggestions.
Because tonight is Tuesday, we'll be moving to our Locals platform to do that live aftershow as soon as we're done with our live show here on Rumble.
That show is available for our subscribers to locals only.
So if you want to have access to those twice a week shows or to the daily transcripts of each program they produce, the original journalism will produce there, as well as just support the independent journalism we're trying to do here, simply click on the join button right below the video player on this Rumble page, and it will take you to that community where you can join.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update starting right now.
So I remember the first week after the war in Ukraine like it was yesterday, because you could tell at the time that the media had done a very effective job of because you could tell at the time that the media had done a very effective job of ratcheting up emotions surrounding that war in a way that would ensure that people would not start to question what the United States was doing by arming and funding Ukraine
It was a non-stop barrage Of emotional manipulation showing Ukrainians inside Ukraine who had lost a loved one in a bombing attack, weeping, endlessly talking about the feisty Ukrainians, depicting them as these brave fighters for their basic rights and for democracy, struggling to ward off this
And right from the beginning, you just knew that a majority of Americans were going to be emotionally moved.
A lot of them already hated Russia because of the perception from Russiagate that they had interfered in our election.
Whereas a lot of them who didn't hate Russia started to hate Russia.
Because even though Americans will always say we believe we're fighting too many wars, we shouldn't be fighting wars where we're not directly threatened, the emotions that war can provoke and that the media have become experts in inducing and manipulating are so potent that you can just get millions of people overnight to want to fight a war, want to send arms to a war, want to pay for a war in a country which weeks earlier they couldn't have placed on a map.
And to be convinced that somehow that war is vital To their lives, even though it actually has no effect whatsoever on it.
And before you know it, tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in American resources are out the door into the pockets of the CIA, Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics.
A war is being fueled that is killing huge numbers of people, even though there was never an answer to the question, how are Americans lives improved by paying for that war and fueling that war and prolonging that war?
Nor was there ever an answer to how is Ukraine possibly going to beat a much, much larger country in Russia with a much more advanced military and with a far greater pool of fighting age men who they could tap into to send to the front lines, whereas Ukraine was going to run out of soldiers to say nothing of all their other shortages.
It was clear to see That Ukraine's only option was to engage in the kind of diplomatic negotiations that Russia wanted to engage in before the war.
And once the war began, that all kinds of credible reports, now made clear, were blocked by Joe Biden and the then Prime Minister of the UK, Boris Johnson.
And as a result, here we are, almost two full years later, more than $100 billion in American money gone.
No one will ever know where it went.
We know it went into the coffers of the arms industry.
We know it went into the coffers of the intelligence community.
But efforts by Rand Paul and others to ensure that there were safeguards over this money, that there was an accounting of where this money was going.
That there was some kind of inspector general anointed to follow that money, like there was one in Afghanistan.
He discovered all kinds of stolen and disappeared money, hundreds of millions on top of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Flowing, this aid was, this money was, into a country long considered the most corrupt in Europe, which was Ukraine.
Led by a president who had been elected based on the support of a single Ukrainian oligarch, where reporting suggested he had offshore bank accounts, where corruption was completely rampant.
We're just pouring enormous amounts of money into this country.
And for what?
And those of us who stood up and said, look, this war cannot end well.
At some point Ukraine is going to have to do what they should do now, which is sit down at their negotiating table with Russia and give Russia the security guarantees they need about how NATO is not trying to expand up to the most sensitive part of the Russian border through Ukraine, something that Washington always said was considered an existential threat in Moscow, not just by Vladimir Putin, but by his opponents, by everyone across the political spectrum.
We knew That if we kept promising Ukraine membership in NATO and going to that country and expanding our footprint there, changing their government in 2014, which is what led to the Russian annexation of Crimea, the more interference we did there right on the other side of the Russian border, the more we were provoking the Russians into a war, a war that Ukraine could never win.
And if you go back and look, even at those videos we were doing, those shows we were doing in the first week of the war, We were doing something very similar to what we did, actually, in the week or the two weeks after the October 7th Hamas attack, which was saying, look, obviously the Russian invasion can't be justified, just like the Hamas attack on October 7th can't be.
But don't be guided by your emotions.
Don't let the U.S.
government and the U.S.
media convince you that because you're angry about this invasion, Or this attack on Hamas.
They should now support things that reason should lead you to refuse to support.
That was the lesson of 9-11.
We said that so many times after the Russian invasion.
And we said it so many times after the Hamas attack.
The lesson of 9-11.
Is that you may be righteous in your rage.
You may be completely correct in your view that a despicable and morally reprehensible attack had been launched by Al Qaeda, by Russia, by Hamas.
But that does not mean that everything that is done in the name of avenging that attack or making the perpetrator pay will end up being either morally defensible or wise.
The U.S.
ended up importing all sorts of authoritarian measures into our country in the wake of 9-11 because emotions were so high.
We ended up going to one war after the next, bombing countries all over the world, killing huge numbers of innocent people, provoking more terrorism by people who hated us and decided they wanted to avenge those losses.
We lost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives and over a million people who died during the war on terror.
And very little was accomplished when we left Afghanistan.
After 20 years, the Taliban marched right back in.
Sometimes when you're angry about something and you want to say, I want to avenge this, no matter how much you want to, it can't be done.
There was no way Ukraine was going to beat Russia without the deployment of NATO troops into that war, which could never have happened because that would have been World War Three with a new core in power.
And those of us who said it at the time, and who said this war is going to produce no good, it's not defending Ukrainians, it's destroying Ukraine and sacrificing Ukrainians at the altar of the real American goal, which is to weaken Russia.
We're called Russian agents, we're called Putin apologists, and we lost that debate.
Because the media always succeeds in getting majorities of Americans on the side of whatever new shiny war they present.
Yeah, forget about Iraq.
Forget about Libya.
Forget about Syria.
Forget about Vietnam.
All the times we lied to you.
All the times we told you things were going to happen that didn't happen.
Forget about all that.
We have a new war.
This one's the real deal.
This time we're really on the right, the good side.
This one's different.
And every time it turns out not to be.
And then we get to the end, and if we had a healthy country, we would have a lot of politicians in Washington, a lot of people in the media standing up and saying, over here, hold me accountable.
I'm to blame.
I made a mistake.
I was wrong.
Fire me.
Scorn me.
Put me out of office.
But obviously that doesn't happen.
They all unite and pretend that they never said or did any of the things that they're ashamed of.
And because they unite and all protect each other and no one gets held accountable, they all get to move on to the next war and do the same thing.
Now it's been clear for a while That the U.S.
and NATO were going to have to abandon Ukraine, in part because the touted counter-offensive, this vaunted Ukrainian move against Russia went nowhere.
It was a debacle.
They barely made any inroads or encroachments into the Russian defensive line.
They barely moved the front line.
And yet they lost enormous amounts of military equipment and thousands and thousands of Ukrainian lives, which they don't even have any more to give.
They're pulling men in their 40s and 50s off buses and sending them to the front line.
They don't have men to fight anymore.
It's an all-conscript army.
People are desperate to get out of the country.
They're fleeing and paying money to leave because they know they're being used as cannon fodder.
And the fact that we now have a new war in Israel that we have to pay for, Biden already wants $14 billion, which of course will nowhere near enough.
A war that we care about a lot more, at least right now, than we do the war in Ukraine.
It was already clear the war in Ukraine had to come to an end and now that we have a new war to pay for and to arm and fund and talk about, no one cares about this war anymore and everyone is ready to throw Zelensky to the side.
The first real indication was this Time Magazine article on November 1st.
Where even Zelensky's own aides came to the media.
Perhaps we can put this headline on the screen.
Nobody believes in our victory like I do.
Inside, Zelensky struggled to keep Ukraine in the fight.
And it talked about how public support has been declining.
Majorities don't want to send any more money to Ukraine.
And that even Zelensky's aides know this war is over.
They can't win.
It's at a standstill.
And they said in this article, Zelensky's delusional.
He's the only one who thinks Ukraine can still win.
He wants more and more money.
They called him verging on the messianic.
One of his closest aides said, quote, he deludes himself.
We're out of options.
We're not winning, quote, but try telling him that.
This was the Ukrainians coming forward and saying, save us from this madman who wants to just keep sacrificing Ukrainian lives at the front lines, even though we can't win.
And the fact that this ended up in Time Magazine, and no one really stood up and refuted it, was the first real sign that the US media was turning on their client, on President Zelensky and on the Ukrainians.
This would have been an article unthinkable, even a few months ago.
Now, the US mission to NATO, so it's kind of the US part of NATO, Published a tweet on November 20th.
The meaning is so clear.
Basically saying, look, so it's the time to wrap this up.
They ultimately posted a tweet denying that when everyone noticed what they meant, because of course they can't say it this explicitly, but they did.
They're preparing the public.
They're preparing you to think, oh, we kind of won.
Maybe we didn't get everything we wanted, but we kind of won.
And so we can be proud of what we did.
We're ready to go home.
Here was the U.S.
mission to NATO on November 20th.
Quote, Ukraine has taken back more than half of its territory seized by Russia's forces since February 22nd.
In this tough and dynamic battle, Ukraine's soldiers are fighting bravely every single day, and they continue to inspire the world with their bravery and courage.
They're fleeing.
They're fleeing the front lines.
They're fleeing the country.
And they're dying in gigantic numbers against their will.
We will continue to support them to be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table when the time comes.
We continue to be, quote, to stand hashtag united with Ukraine while they defend their freedom.
So here you see this graphic they put up.
Quote, we are focused on setting the conditions for a just, durable and sustainable peace.
If you stood up and mentioned the phrase negotiating table, which is what they said they were working toward getting to, let alone talked about a just, durable, and sustainable peace that obviously doesn't include expelling the Ukrainians from all parts of the Donbass or eastern and southern Ukraine that they currently occupy to say nothing of Crimea,
If you had talked about, in any this way, just a few months ago, you would have been called a Russian agent.
Someone appeasing Putin, all those names.
But now it's the West itself, trying to prepare the public for, look, this is coming.
It's time to go to the negotiating table.
Be proud of what you did.
All those lives lost, all those billions gone.
Russia from the beginning said, Their objective was to win autonomy for the Russian-speaking provinces in eastern Ukraine that they said were being systematically discriminated against and abused and oppressed by the central government in Kiev.
They've been fighting or funding and fueling a proxy war, a civil war, in Ukraine where these Provinces in Eastern Ukraine that hate Zelensky, that are Russian-speaking, Russian ethnics, ethnic Russians, have been fighting for exactly this, for their autonomy from Kiev.
And Russia's going to get what it wants.
Like I said, the U.S.
has to beg Russia now not to keep all 18-20% of Ukrainian territory they currently control, to give that up, to allow these provinces to be autonomous or semi-autonomous.
In exchange for a pledge by Zelensky not to join NATO, which is what Putin wanted from the start.
We're getting the diplomatic resolution that definitely was possible at the start of the war.
Probably a much worse one now is coming from the Ukrainian perspective.
They lost all those young men and women, mostly men, young men who are conscripted.
All this money wasted, their country destroyed.
Yes, you have BlackRock and JP Morgan drooling like vultures to get in there and rebuild, have the Americans and NATO and the EU pay for the rebuilding.
It's going to be a lot of money made by the Ukrainians, by Western hedge funds, by banks on the reconstruction.
But that country got destroyed, not saved.
Here is Morning Joe, that is an MSNBC program that is speaking to Democrats and Liberals every day, nothing else, and those were the groups most supportive of the war in Ukraine, because those were the groups that have been feeding on anti-Russian agiprop for many years.
And this was ground zero, for the Ukrainians are gonna win, we don't negotiate until every Russian troop is gone, we cannot let Russia win, This is ground zero for that.
They got one guest after the next from the U.S.
National Security State to tell Americans Ukraine is winning and the counteroffensive is coming.
Anyone who questions this is a Russian agent.
I got personally called a Russian agent by Joe Scarborough once a couple of years ago, called me comrade, and said my tweet probably sounded better in the original Russian.
Just these dumb, banal cliches they hurl around from the Cold War.
They're singing a much different tune now.
But first, let's listen to what they were sounding like just a few months ago, in January, the beginning of this year.
Here's MSNBC.
You had on Stephanie Rule, who's an MSNBC anchor, and Michael McFaul, who was the Former Obama ambassador, U.S.
ambassador to Russia, who is a fanatical Putinator.
And this is what they were saying back in January.
Ambassador, I want you to hear some of what several different Republicans have said about the U.S.' 's aid to Ukraine.
Under Republicans, not another penny will go to Ukraine.
Our country comes first.
The days of endless cash and military materiel to Ukraine are numbered.
I will not vote for one more dollar to Ukraine.
I will not vote for one more piece of materiel to Ukraine.
It's a turning point in the war.
I want to compliment President Biden.
The cost of Russia winning Now, you saw there Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz saying we don't have any money to send to Ukraine.
I had them both on my show.
And I asked them, why doesn't that apply to Israel?
I know I asked Marjorie Taylor Greene that.
I think I asked Matt Gaetz that.
And I still would like to ask that.
Why is it that we can't have any money sent to Ukraine?
We didn't have the money.
We have to take care of American citizens before we take care of foreign countries.
Why doesn't that apply to Israel as well, given that both of them are very eager supporters of Joe Biden's desire to send $14 billion to Israel?
But that's a question for another segment.
I'm going to actually talk to Daryl Cooper about that.
That's a question I raised with at least one of them, I think both, and I've raised many times before the Hamas attack.
But in any event, You're about to see what MSNBC had to say.
Obviously, they loved what Lindsey Graham said.
He said, I congratulate Joe Biden.
I'm behind Joe Biden.
But Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz were saying, no more money to Ukraine.
And here's what this panel had to say about them.
Then we have Senator Tom Cotton tweeting today, quote, the reason the war in Ukraine has gone on this long is that Joe Biden is timid and tardy in his decisions.
So we got a couple of senators saying we need to do more.
We need to do we need to do it faster.
Lindsey Graham is saying bravo.
And Matt Gaetz, no more materiel.
And Marjorie Taylor Greene, not one more dollar.
What do you make of this?
Well, it's just there's pluralism in the Republican Party about foreign policy, right?
And I don't mean to joke about that.
There is a strong internationalist tradition.
It goes back to Ronald Reagan.
You heard some of the senators saying that.
But then you have these new forces that say, we just want to pull in and go home.
But there's a giant contradiction in their position.
Because losing in Ukraine means that if the Ukrainians lose, and they lose this battle, God forbid, you know, years down the road, it means we're going to have to spend more to defend our NATO allies.
It means we're going to have to spend more on deterrence in Asia.
And the Republicans love to talk about we need to be tough on China.
If you want to be tough on China, if you want to deter a Chinese attack on Taiwan, you want the Ukrainians to win.
No, that is so stupid.
Why would China now think?
Why was it so important to China that Russia win?
But since they've made this claim, what do you think China is seeing now?
NATO did everything it could to try and make Ukraine win.
It paid all the money Ukraine asked for.
It gave all the weapons to Ukraine that it needed.
Didn't give them nuclear weapons, it didn't give them some of the heaviest fighting forces, but it gave them enormous amounts of sophisticated weapons.
Russia fought against all of NATO and the US and won.
So what signal does that send to China?
That we tried for almost two years to defeat Russia and couldn't.
Now look at this map here.
Russian control of Ukraine.
The amazing thing about this map is that it is basically exactly identical today as it was back in January.
So you have all these tens of billions of dollars sent this year, all these Ukrainian people, soldiers who died, obviously a ton of Russian soldiers died as well.
And this did not move.
Russian control of Ukraine is pretty much represented almost entirely and exactly in this map from January of 2023.
11 months, 10 months of completely futile fighting.
Here is Malcolm Nance, who pretended he was going to Ukraine to help them fight.
We're actually working on some reporting about Malcolm Nance and the absolute fraud that he is and the hatred the Ukrainians have for him.
But we'll get to that in a minute.
But here he is with Joy Reid.
This was on February 22nd.
I believe he was already in Kiev.
And listen to what they were saying back then.
…that we are giving them to defend their democracy. What we find right now, and I've had these discussions with Ukrainian journalists, Ukrainian ministers, the Ukrainian commander of the land forces, some of these Americans… come off as straight up fifth columnists.
They come off exactly like Tucker Carlson, Sakiya Rose as we constantly call him.
They support Moscow and they are now working in the interest of a dictator that is about to destroy the largest, one of the largest fledgling democracies in Europe and quite possibly- - Their stupidity is so stunning, so stunning.
This is rhetoric.
First of all, it's so ironic that the far right used to weaponize against liberals during the Cold War.
Any liberal who stood up and said, I don't want to keep fighting these wars all over the globe, these proxy wars, I don't want to keep overthrowing governments, they were accused of being traitors, of being on the side of Russia.
But to transpose that once the Cold War is done, and say, if you don't support a proxy war to defeat Russia, now a much smaller and less powerful country, You're a traitor.
And all Tucker Carlson was saying at the time, by the way, is we should engage in a diplomatic resolution so that we can peacefully resolve this war without having to fight it, which is exactly what the US is going to do now.
That's what he got called.
By the worst people in all media.
A Russian agent, a traitor.
They killed tens or hundreds of thousands of the 42 million people here who side with America and who want to be on the side of the West and NATO.
You know, and Naveed, I mean, there was intelligence that, you know, Moscow has like a kill list of people that they want to target.
There were journalists, dissidents, members of the LGBTQ community.
You know, this is as serious as it gets, and it is an attack on what used to be sort of collective Western values, but apparently now not for, you know, a huge chunk of Republicans and their media people.
Gary Kasparov... I mean, again, there's such Pathological liars.
The overwhelming majority of Republicans fully supported Biden's war in Ukraine.
There was overwhelming bipartisan consensus, as there always is on these wars, as there is now on the new war.
Here, just to give you one more little taste from December of 2022, and I wonder what these people are going to now say.
When Zelensky is led on a leash to the negotiating table and forced to negotiate an end to this war that involves ceding a lot of his land.
Are they going to call the Biden administration Neville Chamberlain and appeasers?
I'm sure they'll just blame the Republicans for not letting Biden win the war.
Here is MSNBC in December of 2022.
What you see with these lawmakers mirrors what you hear from Republican voters, who one side completely is pro-Putin.
The other side is very traditional Republican.
We've got to counter Russian aggression.
And so in this new fight, who is going to prevail?
That's the big question, looming question that I'm watching in 2023 when Congress resumed.
Oh, she's watching that question.
She's like a real reporter on the ground.
She's going to keep her eye, her finger on the pulse of that question.
The vast majority of Republican voters, Republican office holders, elected officials in Washington completely supported Joe Biden.
This was a fully bipartisan effort.
There were a few dozen, like six or seven dozen, Republicans in the House and Senate who opposed this, and everybody else was on board and in favor.
And this tactic of calling everybody who questioned this war, who raised questions about it, pro-Putin, is of course what was done to people opposing the invasion of Iraq.
They were pro-Saddam.
And what's being done now to people who don't support Joe Biden's support for Israel.
We're pro-Hamas.
It's always the same tactic.
Always.
People opposing the regime change wars in Libya and Syria.
We're pro-Qaddafi, pro-Assad.
So that was the climate in the air at the time.
Now we have a much, much different climate.
A completely different script from the very same people.
And yet they're pretending like this was their script all along.
They knew this was coming all along.
Here is Morning Joe this morning, or yesterday rather, on Monday morning, saying the sort of things that if anyone said three months ago, these very people would have instantly branded them Russian agents.
Listen to this conversation.
Our nation's done an extraordinary job.
How much longer do we continue pushing I think what many people in the Pentagon would think is the unrealistic goal of Ukraine driving every last Russian out of their country.
I promise you, if you said six months ago what Joe Scarborough said yesterday, that it's unrealistic to think that Ukraine can drive every Russian troop out of Ukrainian soil, They would have tried to destroy your reputation.
They absolutely would have called you a Putin apologist, an appeaser, a Kremlin agent.
But now that they know that Joe Biden's hands are tied, that he can no longer fund this war in Ukraine, that nor can the EU.
And even if they did, it isn't going to move this line.
There's no more Ukrainians to fight.
There's no more money to give them.
There's no more artillery to give them.
There's no other way to make up the shortage.
against Russia.
Now that they know that Biden is going to lead Zelensky to the peace table, the negotiating table, to forge a peace deal that involves having Russians keep control over Ukraine.
Now he's saying, of course it's not realistic to drive every Russian out of Ukraine.
That was so obvious from the beginning and that these people insisted that was the only outcome that you could talk about.
Even though it was never any more realistic back in February of last year, or January of this year, or April of this year, or now, than it is now.
Do you see how they give themselves permission to just completely change the rules of discourse while pretending they're not doing it?
Question, Joe, what country?
It's exactly the right.
Every last Russian out of their country.
It's exactly the right question, Joe.
And what concerns me is when people get disillusioned and increasingly come to where you and I are, that as desirable as it is, it's simply not feasible, they're going to increasingly say, and we're hearing it in the House, we're hearing it in parts of Europe, why should we keep doing this?
We're already stretched.
We're trying to support Israel.
We're worried about Taiwan.
Even if we give everything we need to give or want to give to Ukraine, it still won't lead to success.
What I argue, therefore, is the United States needs to have some very direct conversations with Ukraine, with President Zelensky.
Talk about reducing.
There's really nobody more despicable than these people.
First of all, they look at war as a fun little game that they get to just kind of play with on their screens and feel good about themselves with and accuse their political adversaries of being traitors. - Okay.
Seriously, do you think there's even been a one second of thought that Joe Scarborough has given to how many people, how many young Ukrainian men lost their lives in Ukraine fighting in this war that they were forced to fight?
Even though all along there was no plausible scenario in which they achieved their stated goals, they don't care in the slightest, in the slightest about Ukrainians or Ukraine.
It's all a game to them.
And now they just turn around and say, look, of course, what you and I know, us reasonable people, we know there's no way Zelensky Kid won this war and now we have to sit down with him and say, look, the gig is up.
Time to sit down and give away part of your country.
Where they were eager to destroy anybody's reputation who suggested that all along and they are now going to pretend that they were among the people doing that.
These people make me sick.
increasingly put all their emphasis on holding on to what they've got.
In the long run, diplomatically through sanctions, yes, we can try to see the rest of their territory return.
But for right now, let's have 80% of this country safe, 80% of this country rebuilt.
These people make me sick.
They're talking about having Russia control 20% of Ukrainian territory as though that's some kind of victory.
As though they accomplished that, they could be proud of that.
And now we're all supposed to pretend that when they go to the negotiating table and hand over 20% of Ukraine to Putin, that that's some kind of success.
Like, oh, well, we got most of their country back for them.
I'd never believe that Putin wanted to take over all of Ukraine.
He attacked Kiev because of course that's what you do at the start of the war to try and discombobulate the government, to try and destabilize them, to not have them understand where the attack is coming from.
But Russians and Moscow were saying all along that their goal was to liberate these parts of eastern Ukraine that they viewed to be repressively abused by Kiev, by the central government in Kiev.
They've been fighting for that goal for years by arming separatists in the Donbass.
And of course they're going to keep Crimea.
And that's what they wanted.
But anybody who said, oh, let's just give Russia 20% of Ukraine as part of a deal would have been mauled just a few days ago.
And now because it's what Biden's going to do, they're all acting like that's the thing that we were trying to achieve all along.
It's a ceasefire as an interim arrangement to expose the Russians for what they are so we can rebuild support for Ukraine in this country.
But we've had two fighting seasons.
The idea that one or two or three more years of this is going to result in success, I simply don't see it.
Russia's on a war footing.
They have access also to arms from North Korea and Iran.
So I just think, you know, anytime in foreign policy, anytime in life, there's a big gap between what you're trying to do and your ability to do it.
You've either got to increase your means or lower your goals.
And I think here the only realistic option as a tactical measure is to lower our goals.
Lower our goals.
Right on the screen it says redefining success in Ukraine.
Yes, you know what they're doing?
They're redefining success in Ukraine to mean complete and total failure.
A loss.
Another American war loss.
They're kind of proud of themselves because this time they didn't require any American soldiers to lose their lives.
They kept talking about how they're so happy they only pay for it and send Ukrainians to die.
Redefining success in Ukraine, that is such an Orwellian phrase because what it means is accepting defeat and trying to convince Americans we actually won.
So they don't look at us with even more contempt than they already hold us in.
...is to lower our goals.
Well, you know, Katty, the situation is often fluid, has been fluid in Ukraine for quite some time, but we're at a new stage.
Just like we talked about after October 7th.
That war was going to go in stages.
The Ukrainian war has gone in stages and now Russia is dug in defensively.
They're not having generals run up to the line so snipers can take them out.
They're not exposing themselves to aerial bombardment.
They are dug in.
That has been true since at least a year ago.
They've been dug in.
We had Richard Medhurst on our show, who people will call a conspiracy theorist.
He has this little YouTube show.
And I kept saying he was probably the smartest and best person to talk about this war if anybody I've heard.
And I heard him talking about back in February.
The World War One and World War Two trench tactics Russia was using, their defensive postures with dragon teeth and bunkers that were very deep and multiple layers of defensive trenches that the Ukrainians could never hope to breach, he turned out to be completely right.
Obviously, he's not put on the media.
If he was heard on the media, he would be called a Russian agent for sure.
Let's listen to the rest of this.
It's unbelievable.
Do you see there's not one second of, hey, by the way, we should point out that our network for the last 18 months has been saying something completely the opposite of what we're now saying.
Because they know every other network and every other media corporation and everyone in the government and everyone in the Republican and Democratic Party who supported this is all going to get together and pretend that they knew all along that this is what they were hoping for.
Redefining success in Ukraine is what it even says on the screen.
...how slowly those lines are moving.
Yeah, the Russians had enough time as Ukraine was preparing this offensive to build those defensive lines with trenches and landmines and making it very difficult for the Ukrainians to push through.
I was told recently that the Ukrainians have only taken back 0.25% of the land that Russia took in the east of the country.
That is... Oh my god, that is the counteroffensive!
I'm about to show you how these people in the media were saying, this counter-offensive is going to change everything.
It's a game changer.
Just hold on.
Keep supporting this.
The counter-offensive is coming.
They took back 0.025%.
That's basically nothing.
That is nothing.
The Russians actually took more on that.
The reality is the line barely moved, but on that, the Russians took back more than the Ukrainians took back with this unbelievably exciting counter offensive that was going to transform the whole war and push the Russians out of southern Ukraine and then out of eastern Ukraine.
They were going to cut them off, break their supply chain.
Nothing.
And clearly not nearly enough to persuade policy makers up on Capitol Hill that it's worth carrying on funding them.
Now, the Europeans are actually now matching the Americans when it comes to military spending on Ukraine, but they wouldn't be able to pick up all of the slack.
I guess the only question with what you're proposing, Richard, is that would that then look like victory for Vladimir Putin?
I mean, effectively... Oh, you think?
You think it might look like victory for Vladimir Putin if he ends up with 20% of Ukraine?
Despite the fact that he fought all of NATO, which said all along that the only acceptable goal is to expel every single Russian troop from every single part of Ukrainian soil, including Crimea.
Do you think it might look like success for Vladimir Putin if he ends up with one-fifth of Ukraine?
If the U.S.
ends up having to beg him to accept that, maybe he won't.
Maybe he'll want more.
He'll be able to sell that, and he will sell that as victory back at home.
But even if we step back with a more objective eye and think, well, okay, so they didn't take Kiev, but they took a big chunk of the country in the east, and was this an indication that the Russians actually won, effectively?
I don't think so.
Look where Russia started.
They wanted to basically eliminate Ukraine as a sovereign, independent... Oh my God, these people are such unbelievable liars.
They will say anything, anything, They're gonna try and sell this as a victory.
Get ready, that's what they're doing.
Now, just to conclude, in June, so we're talking about four months ago, Max Boot, the neocon warmonger, who cheers every single war and has for 25 years that he never ever gets near the front line, he sends everybody else to fight in these wars, classic vintage neocon scumbag, brought out David Petraeus.
Who was the heralded brilliant general under President Bush who was going to lead to a reversal of the Iraq war with the surge that the neocons were selling that never went anywhere.
And then he was going to bring in these brilliant counter insurgency tactics to Iraq and Afghanistan that changed nothing.
And then he ultimately had a sad ending because he was convicted of giving classified information, in fact the most sensitive type, to his mistress so she could write a hagiography About him.
A book that was going to praise him to the sky.
He's now hurled out.
And there you see the headline.
The Ukrainian offensive is beginning.
David Petraeus is optimistic.
Talking about how he went to Ukraine, met with military and civilian officials, came back so excited about the counteroffensive, understands the difficulties and challenges, but is sure it's going to win.
How do these people never lose their standing, their accountability?
The minute there's a new war, as there is now, Max Boot and David Petraeus are going to be brought onto CNN and the pages of the Washington Post, and they're going to tell you again how to think about this war, even though they have nothing but a history of failure and lying.
The Ukrainian offensive is beginning.
David Petraeus is optimistic.
It was a complete disaster.
And it was predictable it would be.
We had John Mearsheim on our show and other analysts who were saying that at the time.
At the time, not afterward.
Explaining in detail all the reasons Russia could never win, Ukraine could never win, and why this counter-offensive was a fraud.
It's just an excuse to spend another six months giving money to the U.S.
military-industrial complex, putting who knows how much money in the pockets of Zelensky and his cronies in Ukraine, and having more and more Ukrainians die, just to get to this point that we were always going to get to.
Which was having to negotiate with Russia about how much land they were going to take of Ukraine so they could feel safe.
It's not to say people are wrong.
They are morally despicable.
The Ukrainians and the Russians could have had a deal.
They were close to a deal.
They tried to have a deal from the start.
And a lot of people like Naftali Bennett, the former Israeli Prime Minister, and other officials and diplomats said that it was made impossible because Biden, Biden officials, and Boris Johnson said, we don't want a deal.
Because their goal was never to defend Ukraine.
That was the lie, the pretext of the war.
The goal was to sacrifice Ukraine, to have it destroyed, to have Ukrainians die, so they could try and weaken the Russians.
Only they didn't even do that.
Because the Russian military is stronger than ever, and now they're going to have control of a significant part of Ukraine that they did not have at the start of the war.
And then they sent out this woman, Katie Kerr from BBC, to say, do you think it's possible that this war could be sold by Vladimir Putin as a victory?
Do you think it's possible he might sell it as a victory?
Actually, is it a victory?
Oh no, I don't think so.
They only got 20% of Ukraine.
These people are a disgrace.
They're pathetic.
And they do this war after war after war after war.
All right, All right, so we have been talking about the fact that there is somewhat of a war on rumble that's led by people like Media Matters and a whole bunch of media outlets to try and depict rumble as this cesspool of hatred and disinformation with the exclusive goal so we have been talking about the fact that there is somewhat of a war We talked last night.
about how Media Matters succeeded in driving away Netflix by fraudulently depicting Rumble as a place where Netflix ads appear next to neo-Nazi videos or Holocaust denial videos even though those videos that Media Matters somehow found were viewed by nobody except Media Matters that just kept clicking until they found Netflix next to one of those videos so they could publish it.
So we are really grateful to and appreciative of the sponsors of our program who have been with us from the beginning and who aren't going anywhere.
And we hope that you will patronize them, that you will at least give them a try because I have a cause in my contract with Rumble that they can give me all the ads they want for companies wanting to advertise on our show.
And I have the absolute right to say no if I believe that the credibility of the product can't be established to my satisfaction where I'm not comfortable looking in the camera and encouraging people to go buy.
And we have said no to several, just because I wasn't able to.
But this sponsor, which actually was our first sponsor, which is CB Distillery, is absolutely an exception.
It is the CBD product that uses the plant, the hemp plant, as the derivative of the product.
It's what they use to derive this product.
It's entirely organic.
There's no, people hear hemp and they think of marijuana, except marijuana has a psychoactive ingredient, a drug, THC, that makes you high.
This product has none of that.
It doesn't have THC.
It doesn't make you high.
It's not a drug.
It's totally organic.
It's plant-based.
What it does is, and I think it's so important, is because so many people in modern life are confronting things like stress and anxiety, sleeplessness, addiction.
And a lot of people turn either to hardcore pharmaceutical products, antidepressants, or sleeping pills, or anti-anxiety medication, benzos that are either very addictive or very toxic, or both.
And maybe they have a use, but you don't want to be putting any of that into your body that you don't need to.
And then they're also very dependent, they're very addictive, and so people get addicted to them.
Because it's natural, CBD products don't give you any of that toxicity, don't give you any of that feeling of having your body pumped with narcotics.
It's all very smooth, but what it does do is it can do an amazing job dealing with stress.
It can make you relaxed.
It can help with your sleep.
It doesn't just make you fall asleep, but it makes your sleep much more satisfying, much deeper, much longer.
It helps with addiction.
People who are trying to wean off of medications can use this plant-based product, and it really helps with that.
I've taken CBD.
I love it, and the great thing is I never feel like I'm getting addicted to it.
I can absolutely control it.
Everyone I've spoken to has as well.
There are things that you need sometimes to help you calm.
Obviously, people use alcohol for it.
They use coffee.
They use stimulants.
They use all kinds of medications.
The healthier and more natural products you can use, the better.
And there is nothing more natural than plant-based products.
So the great thing is CBD Distillery, the reason why we're talking about it, is because they have a Black Friday sale of 40%.
You can just go to the website, CBD Distillery.
They have drops.
They have spray.
They have all kinds of different ways of ingesting the CBD.
And if you use the code BF2023, BF2023, you get 40% off, 40% off of the entire order.
It can help you with your mood.
It can help you with your focus.
If you have pain after a physical activity, it helps with that.
No need to take those hardcore narcotics, at least not for most of what you need in life.
It's totally organic, no artificial coloring or flavors or preservatives or sweeteners, just these 100% clean ingredients that come from these organic products.
The only place you can't order is Idaho, Iowa and South Dakota because of legal reasons.
In every other of the 50 states, You can order freely.
It's completely legal.
You get 40% off on the entire order with that code, which is BF2023, and patronizing our sponsors strengthens our show.
It strengthens Rumble.
It shows people that they don't need to run away from Rumble, that they can find a loyal audience that will consume their products, and if they like the products, will continue to consume them.
It's CBDistillery.com.
I love their product.
I really do.
I use it and I am confident you will too.
Darrell Cooper is one of those voices that emerged really because there's an internet.
He wasn't working for a major media outlet.
He didn't have the backing of a large media corporation.
One day he decided to sit down and prepared an extremely thoughtful and innovative explanation that was very empathetic, very understanding, very non-judgmental.
of the mindset of Trump supporters and helped explain why Trump's most loyal supporters see the world they do and it resonated so greatly because it was one of the only times people someone really was able to dig deep and capture that mindset that he basically turned into a kind of pundit voice overnight just because of his merit just because he created something that so many people like he since created and built a very popular sub stack
That is called the Martyr Maid Substack.
He hosts two different podcasts, one of which did a very extensive history of Israel and Palestine that I guarantee you is as informed and profound and kind of thoughtful as any you will find.
So we had him on our show before.
We invited him to write that article that time that elaborated on his Yeah, it's hard not to.
that we published on our sub stack.
People loved it as well, and we're delighted to have him back on our show.
Daryl, good evening.
First of all, sorry we're a little late.
I just got a little bit carried away with those nauseating videos, but it's great to see you and I'm looking forward to talking to you.
Yeah, it's hard not to.
I was screaming at my screen watching him, so I understand.
Yeah, I'm going to ask you about Ukraine, so whatever you're feeling that's pent up, if I didn't expel it for you vicariously, you're going to feel free to do yourself.
All right, let's start with Israel and Gaza.
Obviously this war is horrific.
It is ongoing.
The US is heavily involved in multiple ways.
One of the things you did that brought a lot of attention before October 7th is you decided to Compile and then publish this sort of mini documentary of the history of the state of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
What is it that motivated you to do that?
And what is it that you think people needed to know about this history that you thought it would be worthwhile?
Yes, sure.
So I've always been a book nerd and a history nerd and I happened to come across that topic maybe about a decade ago where I started really digging into it past the television news and sort of magazine article level.
And I guess it was the shock that I had when I started looking into the topic and realizing that the picture I had of it, which was the typical picture most sort of Americans who know the topic at a surface level have, how far removed from reality that picture that I had was.
And as I learned more and more about it and got to know people on both sides of that conflict, I found that it's one of those topics that the more somebody learns about it, regardless of which side they're on, if they're on a side and they learn more about the topic, they will become more understanding and empathetic of the other side.
It's just one of those topics where that's always true.
I think it's really easy to forget that you were touching on this quite a bit when you were talking about Ukraine.
It's easy to forget in America what it's like to go through a tremendous amount of suffering and what that can do to a people.
You know, if you think back to Germany after World War One.
If you think about the Russians now, you know, people wonder how they can support Putin so strongly.
Just go to Russia in the 1990s and find out what that place was like, and Putin was the guy in charge when that turned around.
That's going to generate a lot of loyalty.
If you go back to the US Civil War, that was the last time we really had a war that affected Americans on a large scale.
I mean, one out of every 18 or 20 men in America was a casualty in that war.
Down south, one out of every five military-aged males was a casualty in that war.
And everybody, after that war was over, really had this idea that that was terrible, that was a bad idea, even if it ended slavery.
Like, that was just a traumatic experience for our country.
And there was a real push and a real feeling on both sides of the north-south divide that we needed to try to heal those wounds and move past that, because everybody had experienced the pain that came with that war.
That was a hundred and you know a century and a half ago at this point and it was really the last time we had that kind of experience and so now When we look at a lot of these wars, I think we forgot what it's like to not just have your sons go off and die.
That's awful.
But to have your kids die in a war, you know, like your small children die in a war, your wife die in a war.
We just don't remember what that's like as Americans.
And so we end up cheering it on as if it's a spectator sport.
And, you know, in Palestine, I think there's always been a disconnect between, you know, people find it very easy to humanize the Israelis.
They meet Israelis.
They're more or less like Americans, you know, with some differences, and they can relate to them very easily.
Palestinians, they think that, you know, there's a very Orientalist view of the Palestinians as somehow much more foreign.
Obviously, 9-11 didn't help with that, with our perception of the Muslim world.
But when you get to know the people there, when you spend time in the West Bank, you know, the emails I get from people who listen to the podcast series and actually came away with more sympathy for what the Jews were going through in Europe when they were driven to adopt Zionism as an ideology in the first place.
These are just regular people.
You know, these are just regular people.
And they have the same feelings, same emotions the rest of us have, right?
And I think that we as Americans, when there's a conflict like the one that's going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians, you know, we have the benefit of being able to step back of being able to respond not emotionally to everything that's happening.
And we really ought to take seriously our role as a peacemaker in situations like that.
And actually, for quite a while, we did do that.
Say what you want about somebody like Bill Clinton, but he put a lot of work in to try to at least move the ball forward in the peace process.
And we saw that as our role in the conflict.
And that has really all changed since maybe the mid-2000s or so.
When now, I mean, from the highest levels of power all the way down to the people on the street and on Twitter, when this conflict kicked off, this most recent round of violence kicked off, It's as if people see it as their job to egg the other side on.
Look, it's totally understandable after what happened on October 7th that the Israelis were going to be in a nasty mood, right?
You go back after 9-11, it would have been great if we could have stepped back, but that's asking a lot.
Something like that happens, the country involved is going to want to do something about it just to get it back.
And that's fine.
I understand that.
But we as Israel's friend as a country, and one that is disconnected from this, we ought to play the role of trying to talk them off that ledge.
And we just have abandoned that role altogether.
I mean, all over the world.
And we've really sort of adopted a, you know, like during the Cold War, We viewed chaos around the world as a very dangerous thing.
You know, in 1973, When the Israelis and Arab countries were fighting the Yom Kippur War, you know, the Soviet Union was supplying weapons and backing the Egyptians and Syrians.
And we kind of came nose to nose with the Soviet Union in a military sense for the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis a decade before.
And both the United States and the Soviet Union We went to our respective sides that we had influence with and said, hey, enough is enough.
You guys got to cut it out because this could get really ugly.
And that was kind of our attitude throughout the Cold War, because we knew in the Cold War that this could get really ugly for us if things spin out of control.
Since the Cold War ended, I think there's a whole different calculus that American policymakers are making in terms of the cost-benefit analysis of generating chaos in the world.
You think back to in the late 90s and early 2000s.
We had a U.S.
Marine Special Operations Detachment based out of Istanbul that was running training operations and we were arming and funding several of the Islamist militias in Chechnya that were continuing to cause problems for the Russians.
And we did that even after, for several years after Chechnya was defeated and Kadyrov was put in power and that the war was over and there was no chance they were going to storm back and win that war or anything.
It was, it was just keeping the pot boiling.
And I remember I was talking to one of the Marines who was involved with that operation at the time.
And I said, why did we keep doing it?
You know, after there was no, I mean, there was no military reason to do it.
They weren't going to reconquer Chechnya and take their country back.
And he said what everybody he knew, talked to, and the idea that all the Marines he was working with had, was that the idea was just to keep the thing going.
Because, you know, there's a lot of reasons, but it gave Russia something that it had to deal with.
You know, it prevented them from rebuilding Chechnya, from building a pipeline they wanted to put through there to compete with one of our natural gas pipelines.
It made them dedicate military and diplomatic resources to the region.
You know, chaos is good.
Chaos is actually good.
And we have seen this again and again and again in the Middle East, where we don't fear chaos anymore.
We see it as an asset if we can create problems that our rivals actually end up having to deal with.
And that's a very toxic approach, obviously, to take to foreign policy.
Well, let me ask you, you know, it's so interesting.
President Trump, when he was running for office the first time in 2015, prided himself more than anything on being somebody who can engender negotiations and agreements.
He wrote the Art of the Deal, became kind of his signature.
an accomplishment, that he could do deals, negotiate deals better than anybody.
He looked at war as kind of a failure of the ability to negotiate, which is how a lot of people have seen it throughout the ages.
I think he prided himself on the fact that he was the first president in decades not to take the U.S. into a new war.
And his instinct when he first talked about Israel and Palestine, one of the very first times he talked about it when he was running, was to say, we become way too pro-Israel, and as a result, we have lost the ability to foster negotiations because nobody trusts us as an honest broker anywhere.
We have to be much more neutral so that we can regain the ability to get a deal done so that we don't have this instability and these dangers.
Now, very quickly he kind of got into line behind the AIPAC way of looking at things for whatever reasons.
He became one of the most vehemently pro-Israel presidents in history.
Netanyahu loved him, kind of gave the Israelis everything they wanted, although at the same time the Israeli-Palestinian situation was kind of quiet when he was in office.
The reality though is we are an extremely pro-Israel country and have been for decades.
It's been a long time since an American president was willing in any public or meaningful way to confront the Israelis and say what you're doing is harmful to our national interest.
That was in Bush 41 when James Baker and Brent Scowcroft and even Bush said, look, We're not going to continue to give you loan guarantees if you keep expanding settlements in the West Bank, because to do so is to jeopardize the possibility for a peace deal, which in turn harms our national security.
James Baker got widely vilified as an anti-Semite.
They kind of backed down.
And ever since, we've been an aggressively pro-Israel country on a very bipartisan basis.
We give more aid to Israel than any other country.
They get more aid from us than they get it from anywhere else.
We're, you know, the pro-Israel Resolution in the Congress comes up, it passes like 421 to 6, something so lopsided that almost no other issue produces.
And as a result, I think Americans are largely immersed in the pro-Israel narrative all the time.
Our media is pro-Israel.
I know people like to deny this who are very pro-Israel, but you just look at the facts and it's undeniably true.
And so I think what a lot of people believe, Daryl, about this conflict Is that, look, at the end of the day, no matter what else you want to say, you have Israel that's a democratic country and wants to live in peace with its neighbors.
And on the other hand, you have Muslims who just hate Jews and hate Israel and want to take Israel off the map.
Their only goal is to kill all Jews.
And therefore, there's no way to side with anyone but Israel because Israel is the only one there trying to be Humanistic and kind of noble and civilized.
The rest are just these primitive, hateful people who hate Jews and want to kill them all.
What is your, what would you say to people who believe that?
You remember when we were kids and you would have your younger brother or maybe your younger cousin or something and you were picking on him, bullying him a little bit and you're holding him down and maybe you're Just torturing him a little bit, just to show him you're stronger or whatever it is.
And he gets really, really, really angry.
He's like, let me up, let me up, you better let me up right now.
And he starts fighting, struggling, maybe tries to bite your wrist or something to get you to let him go.
And now at this point, you got to hold on, because the little guy is really angry.
And you tell him, I'm going to let you up if you stop struggling.
And he's like, screw you, I'm not stopping.
It's a similar situation to that in a lot of ways.
There's no question.
that, and I think everybody, everybody, even very pro-Israel people, in my experience, when they really learn the history of the pre-1948 period, they come away with a lot of sympathy for what happened to the Palestinians.
I mean, you're talking about three quarters of a million people who got driven out of their homes at gunpoint and not allowed to return, right?
And those people's grandchildren are still in the places that they fled to.
And that's a raw deal.
You can have sympathy for what the Zionists were trying to do because of, you know, the pogroms they were reacting to in Europe and everything.
But there's no question that, like, the Zionists may have been jumping out of a burning building by going from Europe to Palestine.
But they landed on somebody on the way down on the sidewalk.
And that guy got really angry because he didn't understand that there was a burning building that you were jumping out of.
He just knows somebody landed on him and it hurts.
Or he didn't understand why it was that he had to give up his land because the Europeans had a holocaust against the Jews.
Like, the question was, why don't you in Europe give part of your land since you're the ones who did this?
Like, how do we have to give up our land to pay for your crimes?
Yeah, I mean, especially, you know, most people, I think, when I talk to people about this, I realize a lot of the time that The average person thinks this is an ancient, ancient conflict.
Like it goes back thousands of years.
Right.
It's ancient.
You know, it's ever since Ishmael and Isaac were born.
That's just not true.
I've got a photograph from 1913.
So the year before the First World War and the year before business in Palestine really started to accelerate.
And it's a picture from a cafe.
in Jerusalem, or I think it might be in Jaffa actually, yeah.
And it's a picture of a band playing in this cafe, and it's two Muslims, a Jew and a Christian, playing in a band together.
In 1913, it's not that long before the founding of Israel and everything spun out of control.
Things were not, this was not a blood feud Much more than 100 years ago.
You know, this is a modern political dispute that is very much the result of a modern ideology.
It's not even really so much of a religious impulse as much as Zionism does draw on, you know, sort of ancient mythology to tie people to it and motivate people.
This is a nationalist phenomenon.
This is something that emerged out of modernity, out of Europe specifically, where nationalism was on the rise.
And you had this group of people who needed a country.
I mean, let's just, you know, the lesson of the Jews in the last thousand years and the lesson of the Palestinians in the last 70 years or so is that everybody needs their own country.
You know, it's not good to be a minority in somebody else's country.
It's better in some than it is in others.
But it's nice to have somewhere to go, and the Jews needed that, and yeah, unfortunately they did end up landing on somebody who had nothing to do with the situation.
You know, the United States, we actually recognized and had some level of neutrality in the situation up till about the late 60s, early 70s.
You know, Lyndon Johnson was like the first very strongly Zionist American president.
And the president's previous head had misgivings.
I mean, Eisenhower made the Israelis and the French and the British skedaddle from Egypt after the Suez crisis in 56.
And they weren't happy about that, but he didn't care.
He had a Cold War to fight.
Ever since then, we have been lock, stock and barrel only for Israel.
We don't care what the Palestinian grievances are, just like we didn't care what the Russians' grievances were in the lead up to the Ukrainian war.
You know, there was a big kerfuffle over on Twitter the other day because some people were talking about reading Osama bin Laden's letter to America about his reasons for 9-11.
And just hearing for the first time kind of what his actual grievances were.
That doesn't justify what people do or anything, but if there's a long-running conflict, especially We should be having conversations about like, okay, what is it these people are so upset about that they're willing to die in large numbers?
They're willing to take on a state like Israel or a state like America.
They're willing to incur our wrath because of something that's really apparently bothering them.
What is it?
We don't do that at all.
We put everything in the same framing that we use for World War II, where they're evil, They're irrational.
You cannot possibly negotiate with these people.
They don't have any legitimate grievances.
They don't have anything driving them toward this conflict other than hatred for us and our way of life.
And I think that most people don't actually believe that.
But for some reason, maybe it has to do with the media environment, or just the structure of our democratic political system.
The people who do take that line wield a disproportionate amount of influence in the discourse, right?
And so, and this is something that you see drive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially.
People, like you said, think that The Israelis want peace.
The Palestinians don't want peace.
That's totally just a historical nonsense.
Okay?
There are good people on both sides who have worked extremely hard for peace.
You know, the Palestinian negotiators like Saeb Erekat, a lot of people who were very dedicated to trying to figure out a negotiated solution.
They worked for years on it.
And so did a lot of Israelis.
And there are also elements on both sides, like Hamas, like the Likud Party, especially as it is under Netanyahu, who truly do not want peace.
They see a future further down the road That if things keep going the way that they're going right now, that they're going to end up in a much better place than they would if they negotiated a solution.
They believe that.
And they want to keep the conflict going until that happens.
You think about how the, when the Oslo Accords broke down, and within a couple, like a very short period of time, an extremist Jewish nationalist assassinated the Israeli Prime Minister who was negotiating it for what he thought, you know, for what he was giving away.
Hamas lights off a couple suicide bombs on buses in Tel Aviv.
That's all it took.
Years of work down the drain because both sides now all of a sudden are retrenching.
The people who said you can't trust those people, they're animals, they hate us, you know, they got validation and in the heat of the moment In a situation like that, they're able to shout everybody else down.
And so, you know, those the extreme and inflexible maximalist elements on both sides of a conflict like this tend to be able to drag the rest of us down to their level over time.
And I think we ought to, you know, as again, as the outside party, we really ought to work, like, see that it is our, we've got a duty, if we're going to be involved in this, to try to move both sides toward peace rather than egging on the conflict.
Let me ask you about this, because, you know, like, in every conflict, you always are going to have extremists who don't want to resolve the conflict, who want maximalist goals to be achieved, you know, You're never going to get rid of those.
The question is, are you going to do things that drive people into their arms, that cause them to be supported more, to have people view their way of looking at things as valid?
Obviously, one of the reasons Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda attacked the United States is they were hoping to provoke the response they did, making people more and more hate the United States, driving them into the arms of extremists.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
It's something extremely talked about in mainstream Israeli circles that Netanyahu wanted Hamas.
To govern Gaza he partnered with Hamas because he didn't want a more moderate face of the Palestinian movement to be seen or to govern because then he was fearful that might lead to a solution and the same with Hamas.
Clearly part of why Hamas attacked is they wanted the Israelis to do exactly what they're doing so that people in Gaza and in the West Bank start to hate Israel more and drive them into the hands of Hamas and away from the more moderate Voices.
So extremists always want that.
They kind of have a sort of common cause, if you like.
But you alluded to this earlier.
I think you're exactly right.
Obviously, after something like October 7th, regardless of the contacts, regardless of the grievances that preexisted that attack, no country can stand by and watch their citizens you know, killed in the most horrific ways and not take action.
Like, no government would survive that.
No population would tolerate inaction after an attack like that.
So Israel clearly had to do something.
But it was clear from the start, at least to me, given what they were saying and what I know about the Israeli government, the current composition of it, that they weren't saying we're going to go in and kill the leaders of Hamas.
They were saying this is going to be a war unlike anything you've ever seen before.
It's going to be unprecedented.
Naftali Bennett was writing an essay in The Economist saying our real goal is to show the world that we are so unhinged, so willing to kill in large numbers, that we're going to put fear in the hearts of our enemies for generations.
And even though they'll hate us, they'll be afraid to attack us.
And there's obviously speculation that part of the Israeli motive is to drive Palestinians out of Gaza because their goal in reality is to annex Gaza, to annex more and more of the West Bank until they control the whole thing.
What do you think is the real goal or goals in terms of the Israeli government and why it's unleashing this amount of violence and destruction on Gaza?
You know, A longtime mayor of Jerusalem, Teddy Kolek, a very quotable guy, he had this famous quote.
Some reporter asked him, what do you think about the Palestinian problem, or what should be done about terrorism?
And he said, problem?
We don't have a problem.
Problems have solutions.
What we have is a condition, and you treat conditions, you manage conditions, is what he said.
And that's, you know, we hear the phrase mowing the lawn today with reference.
It's pretty macabre, but people use it in mainstream circles in Israel to refer to these periodic operations in Gaza.
And so you ask, what is the real purpose of that?
If the people order, you know, if the people ordering these assaults really don't, they don't really think that they can go in there and They know that even if they go in and round up every single member of Hamas and execute them, that that's not going to end Hamas.
They know enough about this stuff.
They know enough about counterinsurgency to know how this works.
Hamas is an idea.
The idea of resistance to Israel and all this is an idea.
They can't stamp that out by killing even A lot of people.
And so they know better than that.
So you have to ask like, what is it they're really trying to do?
And I think over the course of Israeli history, they've gone through periods, sometimes long periods, where it's just absolutely undeniable that the strategy that they had in mind was simply collective punishment.
And they wanted to terrorize the Palestinian population, the civilian population of Palestine terrorized them enough that Maybe they would turn on a group like Hamas, but even failing that, I don't think they really believe that's going to happen.
We could do something like that in Iraq, say, when we went into Ramadi and actually put real-deal counterinsurgency tactics to work in Ramadi.
We got a lot of buy-in from tribal leaders who ended up helping us out, turning on al-Qaeda, because we made it worth their while and we proved that we can defend them.
But the thing is, in Ramadi and throughout Iraq, the jihadists that we were dealing with there, at least half of them, in a lot of places, 60, 70, 75, 80% of the jihadists, they were not Iraqis.
They were from all over the place.
They were from Afghanistan and Chechnya and all over.
And so it was a lot easier to get these Iraqis to turn on these foreigners who very often were terrorizing the population in extraordinary ways, extorting them, taking advantage of their daughters.
And so it didn't take all that much.
In Gaza, you know, you're talking about, you know, there's a lot of people in Gaza, don't get me wrong, who do not like Hamas.
I hear from them a lot.
But those are still their people.
You know, it's still a friend of a friend who, you know, occasionally runs errands for a guy that is affiliated with Hamas.
So they're part of the same social networks, and it's much more complicated to root that out.
You know, I asked somebody the other day, We've all seen Red Dawn.
How long would it take?
What would the Russians have had to do in the movie Red Dawn for you to turn on an American group that was resisting them?
No matter how brutal and how much you disagreed with the tactics of that group, what would the Russians really have?
And the answer is, there's almost nothing they could do to make that happen.
And so, you know, I think that I think that the goal, and it sounds to our American ears, because we really don't think this way anymore.
There were times in our past when we certainly did, but to our credit, like for all of the terrible things that went down in Iraq and Afghanistan, when you consider the savagery of the insurgency that we were fighting, especially in Iraq, and compare
The behavior of American troops there to the behavior of American troops in Vietnam, which was not that long ago, we made tremendous strides toward having a more disciplined force that really did go out of its way, especially after about 2004, to try to avoid civilian casualties.
You know, when we went into Ramadi in 2006 and 2007, we could have done that like we did Fallujah in 2004 and just sent the Marines in to flatten the place.
But we've kind of learned the lesson that that really actually doesn't help.
And in a lot of ways it makes things worse.
And so we put our guys on the line.
I mean, we put our soldiers and Iraqi allied soldiers at risk to actually go into these neighborhoods and do it in a much more surgical way in a place like Ramadi.
And it was very effective.
I think that the Israelis, ever since the Israelis left Gaza, or pulled their settlers and forces out of Gaza, that really marked a change in the way that Israel approached the conflict altogether.
Throughout most of their history, again with episodes of insanity, they focused on targeted assassinations.
They focused a lot on intelligence.
They were very cognizant of, they treated it like a counterinsurgency.
They were conscious of collateral damage.
They were conscious of the impact on their reputation around the world.
They had the United States telling them, like, we can't have you in the Cold War causing all these problems with the Arab countries.
And so there were breaks on how they handled it.
And ever since they pulled their people out of Gaza, they've really Change to just a full blown military response to Palestinian terrorism.
And, you know, I think when you when you look at what's happening in Gaza, of course, everybody's going to call you an Israel hater or anti-Semitic or all the thing.
Everybody gets pro-Hamas, pro-terrorism.
Right.
Yeah.
But the question is not whether What you think of Israel in a broad sense, it's not what you think of the history in a broad sense, any of that stuff, whether Israel has a right to exist.
The question is, is Israel meeting the standards of the first world democratic countries in the world?
For trying to avoid, at least trying to avoid, civilian casualties.
And that's all.
You know, when I look at what they're, especially in the first several weeks of this conflict, you watch what they're doing, I don't think it's possible to make the case that they were living up to those standards.
Something like when they hit the Jabalia refugee camp, and the Israeli spokesman, the IDF spokesman, was talking to Wolf Blitzer, and Wolf asked him, knowing there were civilians there, you still hit this thing?
And the guy said, well, there might have been tunnels there.
And my ears pricked up.
I was like, might have been tunnels?
And then he said, well, the terrorists that you were trying to hit there, did you kill them?
And he said, we're looking into that.
And it's like, you hit a refugee camp with six JDAMs?
Based on the idea that there might have been tunnels there and that you might have had a guy that you were able to kill who was bad, I would want the American commander who ordered something like that in Iraq or wherever, anywhere in the world, I would want that guy put on trial.
For some reason, we make exceptions for Israel that truly we would not make for our own forces.
There is much more outrage over things that came out during the Iraq war than things that are really pretty overwhelming, overwhelmingly worse when you look at what's going on in Gaza and what's been going on for a long time.
You're talking about a, you really have to remember, you're talking about a stateless population where half the population's women, half the population's under 18 years old, You're talking about maybe 20% of the population are men over age 18.
Maybe about they think 12 to 15% of the population are men between 18 and 40.
So like military age men, broadly speaking.
These are people who have Homemade rockets and AK-47s, and obviously they proved on October 7th that that can do a lot of damage.
That's extremely dangerous and is something that Israel has to take very seriously.
But is that something that merits a regular military, full-blown military assault kind of response?
The idea that Hamas uses human shields, I'm sure there's something to that.
But that's, to me, not really the point.
It's not their responsibility to look after these people.
Hamas is a terrorist organization.
Pretty much every country on Earth Their attitude toward Hamas is if you find one of them, kill them.
That's how Hamas gets treated by the global community.
There's no pretension that they are a first world democratic country that ought to be treated with respect at international events and organizations, anything like that.
Israel is that.
Israel wants to be considered a respectable first world country, and we should hold them to first world standards.
That's really all I ask.
Let me zero in on that then, as far as the situation here in the United States, where you have the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
That seems more unified on this issue than they have been certainly on Ukraine and other wars.
So on the Democratic side, you have polls showing that voters that are absolutely crucial to the coalition that Biden needs if he has any chance of winning the 2020 election, particularly young people and Muslim voters that are crucial in Michigan, are saying, and not just saying, but telling pollsters that they will not vote for Biden because of their horror at his support for what Israel is doing.
All the things you just described, Biden occasionally gives lip service to the need to protect civilians, but nowhere even near imposing a red line on the Israelis, telling the Israelis that if they don't improve that behavior, they're going to lose American weapons and American funding.
He has pretty much pledged support Without any limits, either quantitatively or in terms of whatever the Israelis might do.
And they seem to be sticking to that, the Biden White House is.
Even seeing the polls, that doing so makes them politically endangered.
Maybe they think they're politically endangered either way.
In other words, if they are to appear to be insufficiently pro-Israel, they'd also lose votes, maybe even more votes.
But still right now, they're just plunging into this pro-Israel Mindset, even though they clearly are losing support in their own party from doing so.
But then on the other hand, you have conservatives who, as I mentioned, you know, I'd have Marjorie Taylor Greene or Matt Gaetz, Mike Johnson on my show and I would ask them about Ukraine and they would say, we can't have any more interventions.
We can't afford to fund any more, any foreign countries wars.
And they all turn on a dime, obviously, when it comes to censorship, when it comes to cancel culture, when it comes to victim narratives.
But even the policy itself, conservatives seem more unified than ever.
Obviously, there's a strain.
Connie Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Vivek Ramaswamy, who's a little bit reluctant to get on board.
But that's always been true.
You've had your Poppy Cannons, your Ron Pauls.
But in general, conservatives, who have been telling me and telling everybody for years, They don't want to keep giving American funds to foreign wars, to other countries wars.
They don't want to get involved in other wars.
Seem extremely excited to support Israel.
In fact, more excited by this war than almost anything else I've seen them get excited by.
What accounts for that?
That Biden seems so willing to plunge forward with this pro-Israel posture and then American conservatives seem along for the ride with him.
Well, I think maybe there's at least two prongs to that answer.
One is that there are real political consequences.
If you're a politician, there are consequences for your career if you displease AIPAC or just the Israel lobby in general.
That's a very real thing.
It gets played up by people who have a bad agenda, and that's fine.
That's true of just about every issue that's controversial, but it's a fact.
Benjamin Netanyahu was invited by the Senate to come speak during the Obama administration and went around the President of the United States to come give a speech to the U.S.
Congress.
Really an obscene thing, like, as an American to witness, you know, a foreign leader coming in to give a speech that the commander-in-chief of the country at the time, love him or hate him, or whatever you think of his Iran policy, that he did not It was very disrespectful to the office, to the White House in general, and as an American.
I wasn't an Obama fan, but I was kind of offended by that.
I was doubly offended by the fact that when you watched it, Netanyahu got more standing ovations from the U.S.
Congress during that speech than any U.S.
president had gotten at a State of the Union in years.
And I remember when that happened thinking bipartisan as well very small thing.
Yeah, it's a very small thing, but it really kind of shows you that there's there's real power being wielded here.
I think the other thing though because there is like an emotional aspect to it for people.
And I see this in people that I know.
There are a lot of people I know who are on the right, friends of mine, perfectly rational people except on this issue.
They lose their minds on this issue.
And I think there's a dynamic where Israel is a vehicle for a lot of people in the United States to vent some of the uglier impulses that come with ultra nationalism with, you know, look, it's perfectly like cancel culture be damned.
You can be racist against Palestinians right now in public.
It's fine.
There are not going to be any consequences for you professionally.
Nothing's going to happen to you.
You can be as racist as you want.
You can talk about killing them all.
You can say whatever you want.
It's one of the very few carve-outs where that's the case.
You're allowed to do that on this one.
If there was a bar here in San Diego, where I live, where the gimmick of the bar was there's a room and there's a guy tied up in there and you can just do whatever you want to him.
You can go punch him in the face or whatever.
I might not go there.
You might not go there.
That place would never be empty.
There would be people that would go to that place.
It would be a hop in place.
And, you know, there's a lot of people who, Who crave a socially approved outlet for some of these impulses that in other situations they would be ashamed of, and rightfully so.
And Israel lets people do that.
You know, you can be an ultra nationalist by proxy.
For Israel, which, you know, American conservatives, you're an ultra, you know, if you're an America first person, you know, here in America, there's actually social consequences that come with that.
There may be professional consequences that come with saying that kind of stuff.
But if you're an ultra, you can get those feelings out by proxy through Israel.
And I think somebody like Benjamin Netanyahu obviously spent a lot of time in the United States in his younger years.
He understands Americans and specifically the American right really well.
I think he may have You know, I'll say this.
Our unconditional support for Israel, I very strongly believe it has not been good for Israel because What it's done is it has empowered people like Netanyahu, people with maximalist goals, totally inflexible, belligerent-minded people, to behave in ways that perpetuate the conflict and keep them in tension with their neighbors, long past the point that they ever would have been able to get away with that if they didn't have the unconditional backing of the United States.
I think Israel would have had to make peace with their neighbors and actually deal justly with the Palestinians Many years ago, if they didn't have the United States ready to send two aircraft carrier strike groups to the region to make sure Hezbollah or Iran doesn't get froggy when they want to flatten Gaza.
And that sounds good.
Oh, they've got the backing of the United States.
That's great.
Not in the long term, it's not.
In the long term, what's great is peace and actually being able to take a breath and step back from just being a full-on garrison state for the entire existence of your country.
You know, you're starting to see this is the first time when, uh...
I was really engaged in this issue back in 2014 during Protective Edge, when Israel, I mean, they did a lot of damage to Gaza.
It was not as bad as it is now.
It was real bad.
And there were protests around the country, in Europe and the United States.
I attended a couple of the protests at the federal complex in Los Angeles, where I was living at the time.
And there were people there, thousands of people there, but it wasn't really You know, the legacy media and the sort of consensus establishment narrative on Israel, the one that's still driving the actions of our decision makers right now, was able to really control the narrative very strongly as recently as 2014.
Things are clearly changing now, and partly obviously I think that's changes in the media environment, partly it may have to do with generational changes, demographic change, a lot of different things.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu He might have thought he was doing Israel a favor by, you know, angering President Obama and coming and speaking to the U.S.
Congress anyway.
He may have thought, you know, he, there are people in Israel who have been complaining about this, about him for years, is that, you know, Israel, for it to have unconditional U.S.
support, which is really what it needs in order to continue on the path that it's been on for quite a while, it needs unconditional support.
It cannot become a partisan issue.
And Netanyahu has gone a long way toward turning it into one.
Obviously, at this point, the people who were in office for the Democrats are still, you know, they came up in a world where you can't cross the Israel lobby, and they still behave that way.
But give it a few more years and you're going to have more people in Congress, more leaders.
You're going to have more people even at the federal agencies, you know, in the Foreign Service who have a much more who have a much less one sided view of the conflict.
Or, God forbid, they have a one sided view in the other direction.
And if you're Israel, that's very bad, you know, because if that's the case, if you're if there's the possibility that you are going to lose.
Unconditional American and European support at some time in the future.
Then, man, you better be every every ounce of your effort right now should be going toward trying to make peace before that happens.
Because if you, you know, it's like they used to say in trench warfare, where if the enemy's overwhelming you, you better figure that out early and raise the white flag.
Because if you make them fight and die all the way to your trench, they're not going to be in a mood to negotiate a surrender.
When they get there and and you gotta take advantage of the time When you're actually strong and you look unbeatable, you know, you look like the the party who who's in control of the situation That's when you should use that advantage to try to make peace Because once you're once you're in a moment of weakness people people are not going to be as interested just like you know, just like you're not interested now, so Yeah, I think it's a good lesson for Ukraine as well, right?
And I wanted to get to that.
I think we're going to have to have you back on, though, because we are running out of time.
I wanted to make sure we were able to kind of delve deeply into your reservoir of knowledge about this conflict because, you know, so often it's at most debated between commercial breaks for seven minutes, people screaming at each other.
And this kind of in-depth historical knowledge, I think, is a crucial context for understanding what's actually happening to think a little bit more deeply.
And in the long term, about what the consequences are for our support for Israel as we just jump on this emotional wave of, oh, Hamas did something evil.
We're angry about it.
Let's go destroy the Muslims.
I think that's part of it.
But I think there's a lot of costs that might come to that, just like there was for 9-11, just like there was for the war in Ukraine as well.
But there's a lot more to talk about, including that war in Ukraine.
I kind of vented a lot about that.
The 2024 election is coming up.
I wanted to hear your thoughts on that as well.
So I think we're going to have to have you back on to kind of create some more time so we're not rushed and talking about all those things.
But this conversation was super illuminating as I expected it to be.
And I really appreciate your taking the time to come on and share that insight with us.
Before I let you go, please tell people where they can find both your Substack and your podcasts.
Podcasts are on iTunes, Spotify, etc. et cetera.
It's called Martyr Made, the Martyr Made podcast, and I do The Unraveling with Jocko Willink, and then martyrmade.substack.com.
I post there frequently.
Most of my pieces that I post are as or verbose as I've been in this conversation.
When I get started, I kind of have trouble-- - But it's worth it.
It's worth it.
Trust me, I understand the hazards of writing long articles better than anybody and sometimes airing on the side of verbosity, but I think it's worth it.
I'd much rather have people erring on the side of in-depth analysis than kind of cutting corners and giving slogans and talking points, and you never do the latter.
So I really want to recommend people check out your sub stack.
I've been a reader for a long time, and I always find it super enlightening.
Daryl, thank you so much.
It's great to see you, and I'm going to harass you to come back on the show shortly.
Anytime, Glenn.
Thank you.
All right.
Have a great evening.
So that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form, where you can listen to each episode in podcast version 12 hours after their first broadcast live.
Here on Rumble, you can find us on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms.
And if you rate and review or follow the program, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
Every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble's platform, where we have our live interactive after show, where we take your questions, respond to your feedback and critique, hear your suggestions for future shows.
That is available solely for our subscribers to our Locals community, if you want to become a subscriber.
Which also gives you access not just to those twice a week after shows, but also to the daily transcripts of each program we produce, the original journalism we're going to publish there, as well as supporting the independent journalism that we do.
That platform, that community, is really crucial to the show that we produce every night.
Just click the join button right below the video player on the normal page and it will take you to the Localist community.
For those who have been watching, we are, as always, very appreciative.
We will be back Tomorrow night we'll be off Thursday and Friday because of the holidays, so we hope to see you back here tomorrow night at 7 p.m.
