01:00 Matt’s substack, https://historyspeaks.substack.com/
03:00 Matt’s Twitter, https://x.com/History__Speaks
09:00 Realism vs moralism in international conflict
21:00 The sources of our self-esteem
26:00 The seasons of a man’s life
27:00 Matt is a lawyer (University of Chicago)
29:00 Why did Luke never marry?
31:00 Luke diagnosed with ADHD, Matt with obsessive-compulsive disorder
33:50 Enlightenment means respect for fact
42:00 The buffered identity vs the porous identity, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=149512
53:00 The invention of racism as a moral category
57:00 Luke & Matt share their hero systems
1:00:00 That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=138784
1:02:50 Matt’s activist Twitter feed, https://x.com/History__Speaks
1:05:00 How Matt has been changed by studying law
1:13:00 Matt’s asked about serious thinkers who are Zionists, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris
1:18:00 JPOST: Experts: ICC, UN blamed Israel for a famine that never happened in Gaza – exclusive, https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-806735
1:26:00 Everything, including the category of civilian, is contingent
1:35:00 The “Good War”: Preparations for a War against Civilians, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=155491
1:53:00 Human rights, https://www.lukeford.net/Dennis/indexp2a.html
2:00:00 AP: The war in Gaza has wiped out entire Palestinian families. AP documents 60 who lost dozens or more, https://apnews.com/article/gaza-palestinians-families-israel-war-deaths-a9f8bcfe402c17f1f78903eae67b7a7d
2:03:00 BBC: ‘I’m calling from Israeli intelligence. We have the order to bomb. You have two hours’, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67327079
2:15:00 Black September, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
2:20:00 No, we’re not in a new cold war with China, https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/05/07/cold-war-cold-peace-united-states-china-xi-decoupling-trade/
2:30:00 The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=142846
2:37:00 Matt’s first published scholarly article – did the Nazis plan world genocides? https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17504902.2024.2326262
2:42:50 College protests for Palestine
2:45:00 Mearsheimer: ‘Israelis wouldn’t mind a general conflagration because that would facilitate ethnic cleansing.’, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=153903
2:48:00 Israeli morale has plunged over the past three months
2:52:00 Ze’ev Jabotinsky – serious Zionist thinker, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze’ev_Jabotinsky
2:55:00 Matt’s substack, https://historyspeaks.substack.com/
2:57:30 Dooovid joins, https://x.com/RebDoooovid
3:22:00 BBC: ‘I’m calling from Israeli intelligence. We have the order to bomb. You have two hours’, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67327079
3:36:00 A Short History of International Humanitarian Law, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=155471
4:13:00 Elliott Blatt joins, discusses Juneteenth
4:15:00 Why can’t black pride and gay pride work together?
4:20:00 Human rights as a Marxist motte-and-bailey trick, https://quillbot.com/blog/motte-and-bailey-fallacy/
4:29:00 The reorganization of priorities after a tough illness
AI transcript:
Speaker 0: Good day mate look forward here? Talking to my friend, Matt, who’s a Phd student in history at the London school of economics. Had several shows with Matt, and we talked a little bit about his childhood, but I I grab something Ben Christian I think I pretty much always had pro Israel leaning throughout my life that there was no period in my life where… And I thought Israel was the a wrestler or the the bad party in public with Arabs in the the least. Matt, anything in your childhood that predisposed you to any particular perspective on the…
Our is really complex.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Definitely. So my grandfather, I’m My my grandparents some mother immigrants from Egypt. So I got the opposite, I guess of the norma american, And experience and say that 2 thousands 19 information I got, it was much more from a pro palestinian perspective, although they were also christian, So I think that the the way they characterized the issues is very different than how very muslim family would, they were, , they were very inverse stream muslims, but they had the sense that the, Palestinians were the victims, that the, the Israel was an, kind of artificial imposition on the Middle East that wasn’t 3 indigenous to the region, and, I’m nothing more about my grandma and grandpa now. And also the, the sense that and as real destabilize the region.
It’s bad for Christians and and the nord. So the the kind of prior I had, would I think be the opposite of, conservative Christian America or a Jewish person in America.
Speaker 0: Your your point of view on this conflict is pretty normal is pretty much what 1 would expect. With relatives who who are Christian coming from a a Palestinian, , or Middle East or Egyptian background Yeah.
Speaker 1: It’s. I mean, they’re they’re different Dia. So as far as I know, the… All of the Christian Dia from the Arab countries. Whatever their feelings but muslims, whether they’re good, bad or mixed.
And most people tend not to hate their c coordinates, although there is a there is a problem especially in Egypt with anti cop disconnection. Although even there, it’s it’s complicated. It’s much it it’s regional. It’s much better to be a rich cop person and for most of my my, grandparents actually had the Muslim made and a Muslim Butler. So it’s it’s complicated, but nevertheless, in general terms you can talk about Christians in Egypt, especially, It’s lot worse Egypt and jordan as a discriminated group, But nevertheless in spite of that, it…
That this discrimination has not generally been… The exceptions, it hasn’t generally been cashed out. In terms of sympathy for Israel. And I think the if you look at the Christian, the polls of Christians from arab countries, there’s very they’re very overwhelmingly. With with Palestine.
And it’s kind of an interesting subject as to why that could be probe. I haven’t really thought about that but it’s it seems like a norma kind of assumption that among the Christian community, including, I asked for that your pro palestine sign. Even though there are there are certainly exceptions.
Speaker 0: And to what extent did you feel like a minority growing up in America?
Speaker 1: I mean, like, people would make fun of me sometimes just for being half egyptian. I mean, I I people would… I I didn’t really think about this this too much other than like I mean, junior high, like, is my identity entity I white or am my Egyptian or am I both or am I neither? But the, , what I had a good growing up. I mean, people, but kids will make fun of you for everything under the song.
Right? So I didn’t… I was… My parents were physician, so I didn’t think of myself as groups certainly. But I also didn’t think of myself as having exactly the same with Identity.
As, most of my, classmates, if you will.
Speaker 0: A, I think the the dominant narrative about Israel in the United States, in particular. For the first 40 years of its existence was that this was a pluck state very much the underdog heroic fighting for its own survival in the aftermath of the holocaust. Do you think that’s fair portrayal?
Speaker 1: No. I think that’s that’s that’s proper. I mean, you have to understand. If you look at the… A lot of people talk about the third world and and conservatives kind of a global way is, oh, look at how they failed to develop.
The point of fact, if you look at a country like Egypt for example, or Jordan, These countries are much more advanced than they were, and the relevance to your question is, in 19 48, the vast… When not… Not not fast but overwhelming majority of egyptians couldn’t read. Right? Overall majority Virginia couldn’t read These were countries that were newly independent, just developing, beginning to develop modern institutions.
And, Israelis is outnumbered in the 09:48 war are they outnumbered, the arab irregular militaries consistently throughout the war had better armament after the first truce. So I think And they’re… They… At the this point, obviously not today. But at this point, they were overwhelmingly European Israelis, by European Jews from a…
, from a from sophisticated developed, a society. So I think I think this is this is largely, mythical.
Speaker 0: Right. When I was asking, is it fair? I was saying, is that a fair portrayal of the dominant narrative in American and American media?
Speaker 1: That’s interesting question. I think it’s strange… I definitely was, like, the film Exodus was very popular, But I think I think this is changing. Yeah. I yeah it surely was.
But I think it’s changing.
Speaker 0: So I… I’m interested in… Who determines the winning narrative, and I’ll I’ll give you an example. So during world war 1, and the immediate A aftermath, there were many narratives about what happened in world war 1. But there was 1 dominant narrative that emerged by the late 19 twenties to which all other narratives had to bail down, and that was the narrative of the trench poets.
Right. You had these people with a classical education who served in World war 1, and they produced this stunning poetry about World war 1. And that became the dominant narrative to which all other narratives had to bow.
Speaker 1: Yeah Right.
Speaker 0: And there was no inherent reason why the narrative, of the trench poets who had great deal of anti towards civilians towards women who who’s thought that people in the home front had sent to, boys after dying in this useless war. There was no inherent reason that that narrative have had to triumph. And it’s fascinating. Here, you see 1 dominant now overwhelm all other narratives. Do you have any…
But determines the winning narrative.
Speaker 1: Oh, it’s so interesting. It’s such an interesting question. Clearly, and I think this is what you’re pushing at, Power structures play a huge role. There are… This isn’t an expression of…
The the the the trench poets the narrative of the of the first world war, , guys like John Allen Y that we’re talking about. Like, this is not an expression of, , they’re they’re literally poet. Right? So this is a good example. Narratives appeal to people.
They appeal to a certain time and place, and they’re prop up by power stuff. Pictures. And I think that’s… I I do think morality in liberal as a matters. I’m not, like a John Who or maybe You even who thinks it’s all about power dynamics up in until states and, what appeals to people visceral early.
But these factors play a huge role. And, I think as we see the power dynamics changing in America to some extent, we’re going to see a different narrative of the history of of Israel. Just as as as of, we saw a different narrative of the history of the first war. I also think that it’s possible that… And we could talk about this later maybe.
That we may see a new narrative of the second world war. Not not this wouldn’t net nonsense of nazis. It’s an exterminate people, but perhaps a more sophisticated conception of the conduct of the western powers in the war. And I say that in the context of Israel because I think Israel in the current conflict has invoked the second world war. To justify work crimes atrocities.
And I think that may lead us to look more critically at the legacy of what the Western powers actually did the ring…
Speaker 0: Yeah. So… Ironically, I think what makes it easy for me to have people with different perspectives on on Middle East conflict that come on my show is that I look at it. Primarily through the lens of power. And so I can talk to anyone from any perspective because I could talk to someone from Hamas, and we would…
We would just simply talk our projection. And The fight for survival in the fight against one’s enemies in the fight for for one’s in group So but my favorite analogy for international conflict is that we’re all stuck in an I cage together, and there’s no escape and no one’s coming to rescue us. So that’s my realist perspective on conflict we’re all stuck in an I cage together. I take it that’s… Would not be a very analogy for you with regard to no national conflict.
Speaker 1: No. I think I think it’s 3 4 slow. I think it’s 3 fourth of the picture, and I think genuine moral is maybe a quarter or fifth picture. I think it matters. And I think we’re going to see that.
I don’t think is despite the lack of the power dynamics in terms of western elites, especially the United States both probably still public opinion and definitely a elite opinion are on the side Israel, I don’t actually think Israel’s wanna get way with, violations of international humanitarian and law in the current world. And that’s something that a cynical person looks at power damage just laugh at. What you talking about this international law in nonsense way they have the United States. But I I think that it’s spent that that with the spread of enlightenment values around the world, this spread that after the second world war of some notion of base of human rights, you’re not gonna be able to carry on like they without consequences. But I do yield to the the real conception of self interested, ruthless states trying to maximize their power as true to grit to a very great.
And I just don’t think it’s a whole… It’s a whole picture of human or or or political dynamics. Although we’re seeing that’s In United States it still is winning out. I mean, with Biden administration, I think, I think you’re seeing that there is some genuine liberal there, and it’s currently being credit out by the realities of power structures. But I think the the Liberal is is still, real and international…
Politics. And you’re seeing that with the cases of the Icc and Ic, for example, I I don’t think hey if you look at these international institutions, as just adjunct of the powerful. I don’t think he would have seen the indictment. Well, the the there request for arrest warrants from mister Khan, the at the I icc and and and his colleagues. Against this role.
Speaker 0: So the Icc is the International Criminal court. The Ic is the international court of justice. What’s the connection between them?
Speaker 1: Well, the international criminal quirk is it it it deals an individual, criminal liability for war crime violations if what’s called international humanitarian law which is, like the law on conflict, conventions and so forth. And the international… In its it’s an independent, permanent called at court that prosecute individuals for war crimes, whereas the Ic here is disputes between states. So the Ic doesn’t put anyone in jail, the Icc, a can if upon, , arrest and the conviction in prison, So and the I and the Ic is technically part of the Un and the Icc is now. But yeah.
I think that’s kind of the the just…
Speaker 0: Okay. So let let’s get your your world view. I think it’s fair to say that you’re a classical liberal. Is that true and how how would you describe the made tenets of this perspective?
Speaker 1: Yeah. III very much think. But, I think that the enlightenment for all of its, for all of its, centrist and exaggeration and dreaming that these ideas have been extraordinarily beneficial for human beings and have led to scientific advancement, decrease in suffering, the spread of notions of human rights that at end of at least classical slavery. I mean, people have are modern slavery. The child slavery is largely, eliminated.
Traditional slavery really. So I think that these ideas have had real world consequences and it’s to the good , ideas of of human rights articulated after the second war, but they’re having enlightenment ante. Yeah. I think that liberal, , like, a within a broad spectrum of of potential economic this agreement, like, a a market economy, for you speak. I think these are…
Is are the the best ideas. I I and I also… People are very cynical about, Oh, what… This is… Maybe it works for the Western world, but not for the third world.
Even the third world has moved into direction of of more human rights? Like, for example, , talking about people look funny about all these horrible things that happen in the middle East or Southeast Asia or so, but look at, for example, take a child marriage. Right? I mean, the rates of child marriage now, have compared to a couple of generations ago, way lower. Right?
Egypt had slavery in 19 twenties 19 thirties doesn’t happen it anymore. So there there is there is progress, and there is… There all… Even countries that it may be absurd for question to call them liberal, have have to some extent and buy the notion of universal human rights since influence. So I think these enlightened ideas have been very much for the good.
Of course, though, it it’s not even to say that’s just how the world works in total. No. This is… I think these are… This ideology is important.
What I believe in, but power matters astute. Right?
Speaker 0: It’s interesting as, I I listen to you speak. I just realized that… That’s it’s Both of us are also post modern in the sense that each 1 of us does not believe that there is 1… Narrative that is sufficient to the complexity of reality.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I agree. I mean, look, And… And that’s the problem I have with realism. It’s probably Have with, like, liberal theories international relations.
I I really think people wanna wave a big bright banner. Whereas there’s a lot of things going on. Right?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. And the the keyword that I… I took from your talk 2 minutes ago, was the word progress. And and that is where liberals distinguished from international relations realist in that international relations realist do not believe there is progress.
And t of probably in general, suspicious of this idea of the progress. But if you are a person of the enlightenment, and if you are a liberal, you do believe in moral progress, is that an important distinction?
Speaker 1: III think so. Yeah. I mean, within… With morality defined, it doesn’t mean you have to subscribe to some meta realism. But I think when morality defined in a kind of common sense consequential sway, like, longer life expectancy is good, less exploitation of people is good.
I think there was a clear directional. So… I mean, I, like, , people could… What Either to say, what the investment is disaster this crazy country is. But, like, like, only 80 percent people can read or whatever.
Well, better than, , 10 percent generations ago. Right? I’ll will look at how poorly addiction workers are treated well better than slavery in the 19 twenties or thirties Egypt. So, yeah. I think or or, like, rates of child marriage in the Middle East way lower than they were.
And then Latin America way lower than they were. So I think in general, indices that common sen we accept as educating people as conducive we became about life expectancy. Right? Education. Societies are are generally progressing in a more liberal direction, and just takes time.
Right? It takes… It’ll take a lot of time. And and they might… It doesn’t mean that in all respects, liberal is ideal.
Right? Either. It it doesn’t mean we we adopt liberal as a religion. But I think in general terms, what could Broadly characterize this enlightenment values have proven to be conducive to science, human well being and and so on.
Speaker 0: And and I want to hand it to you in that most indices that we have for quality of life, a length of life do indeed show progress. So I don’t believe in… Human progress. But I wanna hand it to you and and admit that most inter indices do indicate progress. Correct?
Speaker 1: But Yeah. Yeah. I mean, everywhere. If you look at if you look at, almost every country in the world, actually, Ga is a… Guys is kind of an exception in that it’s it’s had , backs sliding since the 19 nineties.
But, yeah, if you look at almost every region in the world in clean regions that people on the… Hard right would say it would Developing country. While they’re doing better than they were. I mean, that’s just the empirical reality. Right?
And if you don’t realize that you just didn’t realize how bad things were are these places 50 60 years ago, ?
Speaker 0: And if you abandon the your your belief in progress, you would no longer be a man of the enlightenment and you would in all likelihood that longer be liberal?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. III think this is a core, foundational norma belief of mind. That, , with with with asterisk because I think liberal can lead to harmful mutations and excesses.
Right? Like, like, V And , blank slate, These are excesses of liberal that have could be very harmful. Right? And can can move and take enlightenment values, like a quality and in human rights and so on, and move them in a in a direction that requires us to it to endorse propositions that are false, so that can be very dangerous. And also some traditional values are our adapt like, multi generational families.
I think, , you you have this in the in the Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. You have this less often in in Western Europe. And I think these are these are adaptive institutions that help people, survive and and safe and so on. And and kind of the individual is the culture of liberal, I think can can degrade fam meal ties to some extent. So it’s not as if we have to just blindly endorse every Western norm that comes, we ought not do that.
But I think in general terms, the enlightenment values have proven, have proven to be highly attractive to people around the world and highly conducive given moment. I mean, even countries of sale were Eastern, , they they’ve been highly influenced by enlightenment values. Right? They may not believe in human rights. Sense that people do Sweden, but they believe in human rights in a sense they didn’t been 1800.
Right? ? So you that would be my argument. Right? Sense
Speaker 0: So I’m just thinking out off the top of my head to to veer the conversation somewhat, but I I think it’s also related. I was just thinking off the top of my head. What are our sources of self esteem and 1 way of assessing that is how do we spend our spare time? So when I probably spend about 5 to 10 percent of my spare time on Twitter, I probably spend… About 50 percent of my spare time on social media, meaning preparing for and delivering Youtube shows, live streams, creating essays for my blog.
And so if I’m spending, let’s say, 60 percent at my spare time on social media it’s probably fair to say that 60 percent of my self esteem comes from what I do on social media, And and then I’m thinking about 1 very beautiful girlfriend I had, who even though she was 41. When I asked her what percentage of your self esteem comes from your looks. She said 100 percent. So Mh you spare you spend a fair amount of time on social media. So how would you break down the sources of your self esteem, and would it be reflected by your choices in how you spend your spare time?
Speaker 1: Well, in terms of spare time, since the seventh of October, I would say other than exercising and occasionally socializing with with colleagues a social media has been the large large, large majority, reading about the war specifically. And I think it reflects some, maybe personal, personnel personality, tendencies to obsession, to ob accessing over specific issues. I even had that with with Holocaust denial in the past. And now I have that with this. Combined with, like, a sense of moral of moral outrage.
So in terms of so I actually would differ there with you because I’m spending a vast amount of time on social media since October seventh. I… I’ll spend a lot of time but much more. So since then. And I don’t and I don’t feel like my ego is tied up in a 1 to 1 way like, here like your ex.
I’m not saying it isn’t. I’m not saying I don’t have the the vanity, but, honestly, the more time I… Interestingly, the more time I spend on social media, like the less sensitive I get to criticism with me and social media. I don’t know if you had that phenomena but it just kind of the the thing of it begins to wan.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I noticed a lot of people saying that I’m skeptical of the claim. It it may be true. It’s it’s not verifiable. But just just for laughs, if if I say broke down my sources of my self esteem would be say 60 percent of what I produced on social media and my blog, 20 percent, what I do in a volunteer capacity, 20 percent, my participation in organized religion and accompanying social networks that I I developed from that.
How would you break down the sources of your self esteem? Would it be 100 percent Your good looks?
Speaker 1: Well, I I don’t really I don’t really, know if I’m good looking and I don’t really… I mean, like I… Yeah. I’m not gonna nonsense. But the, this is a good question though.
I would say… Far more self esteem. I’d derived from what I’m doing like, right now. I’m going… Like, I’m gonna be going to the archives in Dc, for extra days.
Doing historical research driving… Like, getting up pub my first peer publication in history, that was a big self esteem boost. Right? Like, when I shared that with you I felt cool, for example. So I think I think that for me, the professional, even if I’m spending in a given period of a couple weeks and spending more time on on the social media and the professional career.
, if you look at total hours. I still would say I get much more satisfaction and self esteem from that, than from the social media. For me, the social media is, I mean, yeah. You you get you’re ego tit, and that’s fine. But like for me, it’s more about trying to get get myself out there as somebody with a voice on on on matters that I can kinda know much more about than average public intellect.
Sc or Pun. And also the hope of of of of getting some extra money of the stuff in the future. So talk about the issue that I’m concerned about amplifying my voice and maybe making a little extra money on the side. It’s not really about seeking, the stipulation of my eco.
Speaker 0: Now you’ve experienced the love of a good woman. I’ve often found that absolutely into. What what percentage of your self esteem at various times such as when you’ve you’ve been in love you’re. Developing a relationship. What percentage of your self esteem would come from that.
Speaker 1: I think a fair amount.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Into. Isn’t it?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah yes. Like, I I heard 1 analysis that I I’ve never forgotten. And that is who we are in love is who we really are because it strips away our defenses. Yeah. Like, more than anything else is it’s our raw cells.
Right? Out our presentation.
Speaker 1: The other rather though. Mh.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, though, I think we behave much more empathetic to people were in love with than is our, like, true base level of empathy. Right? So in some sense, you put up a false. Even if you’re not, mister P yourself. You put up a false, you can’t help but put up a false image of yourself because if you’re in love with someone, you’re going to show her, , more compassion and and more and and and and less selfish than your, , than your base level of those things.
Speaker 0: Right? And may I ask how old you are?
Speaker 1: I am 30 33 years old.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I… This is… Woman Alison Armstrong who puts on these seminars, trying to help women develop better relations with men and she released this talk on seasons in a man’s life. And she essentially makes the point that usually for a man from about mid twenties until about age 40, they are primarily devoted to building their kingdom.
Right? They’re primarily devoted to establishing that place. Then after 40, they start having more room for for their children. By participating in the community or, other concerns aside from building their kingdom. Do you do you resonate that with with that as someone who’s to…
Speaker 1: For me… Mh. For me, I I was a… I actually got… I don’t think I told you this before.
But when not… Been in in 2006 team. I got a Jd from the university of Chicago. I’m actually a lawyer. I I don’t I don’t tell people about this because my my legal career as you can imagine from switching to Phd and in history, didn’t…
I didn’t… I didn’t like being a lawyer, but I I was I was because the good school did well and it was on the law review at your Chicago point of that. But so yeah, I don’t know. If I got that tangent, but point In terms of what this woman said, I think that’s correct. I I want to basically carve out my place in the world.
Before I settled down with a family and and become more other oriented if you will. Like, I of I think my level of selfish at least hope is higher now than it will be in 5 or 6 years. When I… Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah You’re gonna be spending almost all your efforts. Your your energy. For example, we we only have my dad theorized this, and he he accomplished 2 Phds. He says you really now only do about 6 hours of hard intellectual labor a day. And so you are dev diverting your prime hours to building your kingdom.
There.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think so. I mean, I think that’s that’s true. And yeah. It’s very much self oriented, I think.
And those there was kind of a hole in the back of my head that at some point, I’ll be able to be more. Specifically devoted to to others to children and her wife and and and so forth. Luke, by the way, did did you ever we’re doing the personal stuff… Did you ever… Were you ever married?
I don’t know if for that.
Speaker 0: I’ve never been married. I don’t had children. I’ve never…
Speaker 1: Why You never get married. Did you never find something you liked or did you… Was… Was it… Kind of like, what I’m going through.
I’ll be at younger underage, like, you’re focused on your own endeavors. And too selfish to to make the sacrifice of marriage children.
Speaker 0: So as as I understand it, and and my my narrative may well be not 100 percent accurate, But my life was crippled by poor health until 3 years ago. I discovered beef organ capsules. But I was raised the vegetarian, I’ve only eaten vegetarian my entire life, and that has imposed significant health problems on me till I discovered beef before capsules. So I only was able to even a normal amount of health and vi starting 3 years ago. So I was bedridden through most of my twenties and had to drop out nasty, And so because I’ve been h by poor health, my entire life that’s made it very difficult for me to to get married and to to you have to support a family.
I was doing a show on what is masculinity last week. And I said Masculinity boils down to your ability to support a wife and and kids. That that that’s my primary definition
Speaker 1: this understand. I that’s a pretty… I mean, I wouldn’t… I think that’s definitely a prerequisite re to almost university understood notions of masculinity.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean and I was unable to do that because of my poor health until 3 years ago. Also, Matt, my life was completely changed about 8 months ago. I got diagnosed with Adhd and dedicated for…
Speaker 1: Usually, that happens at when at age 15, but Right.
Speaker 0: Not normally that happens in childhood. Yeah. My life would have been completely different if I’ve had been diagnosed with Adhd in childhood. When I just think of the wreckage that Adhd has caused me. So for example, it…
It’s not just an inability to maintain focus. It’s it’s excruciating to tackle the mundane parts of a job or or life. With someone with Adhd, and you have these extreme emotions such as extreme sensitivity to rejection. And so my life has just been constantly, , way up it and down. And I I would not have been capable of sustaining a relationship.
As long as I had un diagnosed un unregulated Adhd because I was just constantly searching the the stimuli and when I forget to teach take my Adhd medication. It’s such a dramatic difference. And so I just was not fully functional is a normal adult until I got Adhd medication saturday. The.
Speaker 1: What you’re talking about is it kinda reflects my view of these. These things. It isn’t that there’s nothing good. And, of course, there’s is I don’t agree with, like, these traditional qualities that are characterize virtue often are virtuous. And I think I think Masculine scent described certainly is…
However, I think that a problem people on the right often have is they just say, okay to do it. Do be like this. And I think that the world is much more deter than this. It’s. Like, as you say, you had these is path apologies of the mind that led you to.
Struggle to meet your obligations in this regard and to be productive in the workplace, and then you get a certain, prescription and it changes you. And if… I think that’s that’s very much true. I mean, for for for myself, I’ll I’ll, since we’re we’re doing open talk I had Ocd. And I still have it.
Like, some type… Like, it it can consent that as be sc velocity and some, like, did I accidentally assault that person, like, I saw in the hallway because I slightly knocked into them. They hurt, . And but I got the proper, treatment for this and it just gave me much more ability to talk in a freeway and not ob access over. Oh, did I say something that hurts someone or I say something better hurt myself.
Like I just kinda go with life. And I wouldn’t… But I wouldn’t be able to do that, just by having Andrew tatum leaving aside his ethical props. But but leaving… Like, if if I wouldn’t be able to just say no I’m just gonna go through life and do my best and not worry about what the code happened right by accent.
I wouldn’t have that if I just had gone to a seminar heard Jordan Peters and say this, do this. Right? It was through a a specific therapeutic method and also through medication that allowed me to to be liberated of this? And do like do you feel liberated? Yeah that you Yes.
It’s liberation, actually.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It’s just 95 percent of my problems go away upon taking a pill.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, isn’t that something. I didn’t I I feel like that’s what happened with me too. Yeah. .
Speaker 0: Okay. Question, 1 1 Pit definition, the enlightenment is respect for fact. Is that is that fair? Is that a key part of the enlightenment respect for facts?
Speaker 1: I think I think there was there’s truth to that in the sense that… A core element of of of the enlightenment is p, and and and the scientific revolution and the development of the of the scientific. Of course, there was scientific experiment… Experimentation inductive argument augmentation on before, the Enlightenment. It was of kind of as a method of looking at the world, this does come out of of enlightenment thinkers that we lock and and so forth.
So I think I think that’s a decent actually. That leads incomplete, but it’s a decent to decent them the way of looking at, really. I mean, plenty of these men were of the enlightenment were religious. So it you can’t… Characterize it’s as atheist.
But here’s 1 example. So like Can’t religious man. He he doesn’t… He thinks Morale… It’s necessary, in core alignment thinker.
He thinks morality is not religion is necessary for a morality. Right? Nevertheless, though, can’t in in particular reason take practice. I think we particular few or this stuff in college. But can’t, goes through and cares apart the traditional arguments for God’s existence.
Right? And that’s a very enlightenment way of of of looking up the world that you you question things rationally, you question things empirical. So I think even if some of these men the did believe in in in the supernatural world in the sense of their religious, the the a core of enlightenment is, and it’s kind of directional the way the arrow will be like is pointed is toward, cy, And, yeah… So I think it’s it is a a decent way of looking at up. But I think liberal, you can’t just reduce it too.
Em the scientific of it method because I didn’t the questioner wants to. It’s there’s also an element of of liberal. Right? Of of individual rights of of what later becomes called human rights in the twentieth century, free speed, inquiry and so on. So there was a norma component to it as well.
And I was focusing more on that earlier, but but definitely, the the question is correct. That… Also questioning things. Right? So no longer, even even enlightenment philosophers who believe in God, are questioning the arguments for god’s existence.
And are, at least in principle, open to arguments against god’s existence. So I think this is important too. Like a sense of question. Right? That that that that is…
And then that that ties into the sang as well, obviously.
Speaker 0: Now also, doesn’t the enlightenment deposit that human nature is basically good?
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it progress… III would disagree with that. I think it it it I think it pos the the the viability of progress. I don’t think that… , I don’t think that we have to equate the alignment with, like, Ro conception of, of of the Noble savage and how we have a decent an an underlying decent nature.
I don’t think that’s that’s necessary conceptually. But III do think there’s an element of of progress and optimism, even if there isn’t, even if I think this claims a little bit too strongly. Enlightenment thinking is tied, in principle to, , but
Speaker 0: Well, let let me let me elaborate all right wing perspectives on politics, pos that human nature is not basically good. And Right. Pretty much all left wing perspectives on part… A politics deposit that human nature is basically good. Is that fair?
Speaker 1: I think there’s I think there’s a tendency. In liberal and also marxism, deposit some kind of good nature of human beings that are corrupted by civil institutions. I think there’s there’s truth to this. Yeah. But Yeah.
And and I think the right the right kind of maybe comes at it from… If you look at the western right, maybe from a perspective of, like, original cent. Man is corrupted and man needs the Descriptors of god’s state to, behave and live.
Speaker 0: Alright. Pretty much every right wing perspective doesn’t trust individuals. It it means it believes we need the family. We need community. We need the tribe.
We need the nation. We need the state. We need religion. We need traditional structures to discipline and direct the human being, and pretty much all traditional and right wing perspectives believe that meaning and purpose and morality exist outside of the individual. And there’s morality and and standards for for hero.
And and for meaning that exists outside the individual and the individuals task is to follow these external standards for right and wrong, while it’s much more of a liberal and left wing perspective that the individual should follow his bliss, and that the individual is capable of deciding right and wrong, meaning and purpose within his own mind within his own buffett identity. Is that fair?
Speaker 1: Right. But but then, again, you have you have , colonialism, for example. You have a colonialism carried out, especially by it France and… Written in the name of enlightenment value. So that they don’t think that the natives and their conception of global.
They don’t think the natives can just spontaneously choose, to advance what they… What they would call the values of civilization or whatever. They think that it needs to be a d process, a process. So I think that, paradox to advance these values there have been thinkers and movements and policies that believe in a, , a kind of d c process to make you could it would like Must Kamala in Turkey. Right?
He he obviously believes in enlightenment values, but also a big murderer a big authoritarian. So he to make his country secular and democratic which was his vision. That’s what he clearly wanted it. Right? He he thought we need to exercise a lot of.
So I think that paradox, a lot of institutions and and policies that believe in enlightenment values have found it necessary and how about necessary ticks to use coercion. To advance what they consider to be these values. Right?
Speaker 0: So do do you believe in the Buffett identity and let me explain what I… Mean by that. So I am traditional in my perspective life so that I believe what happens with my neighbors has an effect on me. That if my neighbors are committing adultery or having same sex sex that that affects me because I believe that I have a por identity I believe that everything that’s going on around me affects me. While the liberal enlightened perspective is that we have a buffett identity, and thus, we’re able to develop morality right and wrong, meaning and purpose from within our own buffett identity, and we’re not we’re not contaminated or der range by what’s going on around us.
So last Charles Taylor wrote about this, in his famous 2007 book a secular age. So when a Modern is feeling depressed, or mel colleague, he’s told it’s just your… In brain chemistry. It’s your biochemistry chemistry. You’re you’re hungry, you’re having hormone malfunction, you’ve got Adhd or whatever, and then you feel relieved, Right?
Because you can take a distance from this feeling. So when I’m not medicated for it my Adhd, I can feel somewhat relieved that I forgot to take my medication. And that’s why I feel the way I do. So the modern, meaning the child of the enlightenment is able to dis, from what’s happening in his mind and body, and and he’s able to see what he’s experiencing right now is just some contingent cause of perhaps a lack of medication, But a pre modern is not helped by learning that his mood comes from, say black bile, Right? The pre modern perspective does not permit this distancing.
He just knows he’s in the grip of a real thing. And so for the pre modern angels and demons, And so sources of contamination are all around us. And so for the pre modern, right, he has a perspective of the poorest self. That their important emotions and spirits outside of you that can come into you and and affect you that there’s not such a clear boundary between you and that which is outside of you as while a modern enlightened bounded itself sees sees the boundaries between oneself and others that there’s a buffer and the things that are beyond you don’t need to get to you. So do you believe in the the Buffett identity or the por identity?
Speaker 1: Interesting point. I… , in in practice the way I go about my life, I would be more isolated in terms of how I find happiness and meaning and so on. If if a neighbor was doing something, rep if it reached a certain level, I’d I’d call the authorities. If it were…
Even if if it were like, delta, this wouldn’t do anything wouldn’t care particularly. And I think that that’s a difference with you and even in the case of a serious crime. I tell the authorities I wouldn’t feel, like, I’m contaminated by what they’ve done. It’s it’s some horrible thing that happened in my vicinity. It’s something…
Not something that happened to me unless I was an actual victim does that make sense. So I I think I to get from your.
Speaker 0: I feel contaminated by same sex marriage. Like, I feel violated and to me, same sex marriage. Hurts me as much as a punch in the stomach because it’s a violation of my heterosexual system that marriage is something exclusively between a man and a woman you do not feel contaminated or violated by the existence of same sex marriage.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I’m sure we… You as ortho orthodox true have a have a very negative view of how much sexuality, and I’m much more charitable to to, , I don’t care if people who are are homosexual. But it in a more… If we raise level of general. If people are engaged in behavior, I find morally obnoxious, but it doesn’t reach a certain level of.
Of harming others under the lawn in a way that actually is serious. I don’t really care. And I think you do care. Alright? That’s a difference we have.
So is it still a I… In terms of homosexuality, couple of questions, is there a version to it rooted as I… Assumed in your ortho orthodox judaism as 1 and 2. 0, have you always felt this way or did you have them tolerant you with.
Speaker 0: It it’s cognitive. So my aversion of homosexuality is pre cognitive. It’s it’s prior to orthodox studios any ideology any, any rationality. It’s a pre cognitive revolution. It so so much of traditional morality is simply based on revolution, instinct pre cognitive revolution.
Speaker 1: Well, but how do you… How do you explain the fact that I mean, look, as I say, my mother’s in Middle East I in Middle East, so that’s what 95, including secular people. Right? Because they’re secular people in Middle East. That’s how 95 percent of people think about at least male homosexuality.
They’re harsh on in female. But so I understand what you’re saying. But how would you explain the fact that through, education through media, it seems as if the aversion to homosexuality in the West is, definitely gone way down from what it was in the… I mean, for example, in the 19 seventies, there was a fellow David Mix, And, if who he is. Okay.
Few would know who is. He, he was a major organizer of the… Anti war movement. It’ll vietnam anti war movement. And he was very keen to remake to keep his homosexuality as secret because he thought he would lose his standing in the anti war movement if you were out this.
And, of course, this is about his left wing as mainstream politics came at that point. Right? The anti vietnam war movement. So it shows you and these guys were screwing any girl would have them. Right?
So that they weren’t practicing a chastity. They just had AAA version to homosexuality. But it seems as if this has changed and, and and I think that that perhaps interesting questions about how much. How much capacity we have for to change people’s visceral this… Oh that’s gross reactions.
I’m moral issues although it doesn’t seem to time I effect with you But do you have homosexual, colleagues or friends? Because part of the thing too is that there are there are homosexual who… Who behave in an ethical and and decent way in their interpersonal dealings. And given that for me, at least, it’s hard to to have a contempt for them. Right?
Because, , they they have this different sexual urge, but they’re , they’re decent people in so many cases be… So do you have any homosexual friends or collaborators or anything like that? Or, no.
Speaker 0: I I not quite sure the difference is between acquaintance and friend, but I’ve had many positive. Mh interactions with homosexual, and and I like specifically in in real life, many homosexual, and my devotion to homosexuality is not necessarily against homosexual, but none of my closest friends are homosexual. And I think people internalize generally, they internalize incentives. So people have internalized incentives to rep repressed all sorts of expressions, whether it’s devotion against people who it’s just simply different from them. I think a natural norman human tendency particularly when under pressure is to be revolt by that, which is different.
But if incentives are substantial such as that you would lose your job. You would lose your social standing, you’d lose your career. If you expressed your or rev devotion then people will learn to master it.
Speaker 1: I understand you’re saying right. I also think that the that the institutional… For dynamics of pressure as you say, to not be anti homosexual. They would have never… These institutional norms have never come about if the aversion were as strong for for most people in America today, as it is for you.
So I I think the level of a version and an just visceral early has has definitely changed in the west compared to say the 19 seventies or sixties or eighties. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I’m not sure it has because I don’t think that my level of. Is different. I just think I’m more raw on this show than the way people publicly present themselves because I have never gotten into trouble publicly in any of my interactions for the best of my knowledge for or devotion towards homosexuality. Like, it would never come up. I would never mention it in most social interactions.
I would never met mentioned it in a workplace or in an educational setting. I’ve had, cordial relations with homosexual in my life, So I’m I’m able to rep press it as well as the next guy, I think when incentives are strong enough, people learn to rep request expression of the most basic desires. For example, the the basic desire of men is to have sex with attractive women and to hit on them. But if the penalties for so doing become, Severe enough, men won’t curb that tendency. And so since that me too movement, I I expect many men have repressed this basic instinct to a greater d degree than they did prior to the movement.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, they’re they’re definitely are our incentives people have. , if if awkward flirting is going to get you punished. If the woman doesn’t like it, you you may twice if it’ll get you punished socially however, I also think that that there are moral inhibition too. Like, if you’ve seen an attractive woman and you knew you could get away with it you wouldn’t…
I think most men wouldn’t just grab her, like, a assault if they knew they could get away it. I don’t think most people would do that. I don’t think it’s just that you’d be socially condemned. If So I I again I I guess I always… I’m trying to drive in the direction that there is some morality on these issues.
There is a moral oil sense human when beings have. It isn’t just self interest in calculation. Although, of course, that’s Playing role too I’m not… , it it’s like the ab evolution of slavery in the west. There…
So it’s interesting because there’s a strong moral realistic element. But nevertheless, ab ambition as such, not, of course, my group shouldn’t be enslaved. That group by shouldn’t be enslaved. This was all over the place in history. But Yeah.
Idea that slavery as such a human beings is wrong, really only emerges in the industrial revolution, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence because this is when they’re actually become some, capability of labor fulfilling, human needs slavery fulfilled, with machinery. Right? That you don’t know that you can actually… Society is wealthy enough now that we can actually afford in introduce people. And the induce were were harsh.
Like, you hadn’t insurance and so on. So then induce some different than what we have today, But you can induce people to engage in labor, for compensation, and we can have our needs met as we couldn’t in antiquity. So… But, nevertheless, I think the moral is also real the of the ab evolution, of course, and the… Crusade of the british empire to especially to to get rid of slavery around the world and , great money and lives were spent for this.
So I think I think these things coexist exist and also, if it becomes more practical for us to do what’s right. Defined in general liberal human rights sense if you will. Then we’re gonna be more apt to do it than if it’s impractical, which is, I think is why there was no universal ab movements until the enlightenment. , Other other as opposed to particular risk movements were trunk, which don’t equate to opposition to slavery as such. That that didn’t exist in antiquity.
You just didn’t have… It didn’t… Doesn’t exist any of our religious traditions either. It’s very interested actually, that 1 of the things that I think people think is most most universally immoral slavery. There isn’t even opposition to it as such.
Until relatively recently in human in in in the human store, ?
Speaker 0: Yeah. And, I mean, it’s similar with racism. There’s no such moral. Category until the twentieth century. None of the great historical teachers on morality from…
There’s socrates a Plato to Aristotle to Jesus to the prophets of the Hebrew Bible to the key figures in the the new testament to the great Islamic Jewish and Christian thinkers right at the twentieth century, none of them had a moral category of racism. Jewish
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I actually think that, in this regard, Islam is actually and Mohammed were fairly progressive. Mohammed said in his last sermon that there’s no difference between a white and a black, by White meant like, Gulf Arabian. So it’s not as necessarily white as we think it a But he said there’s no difference between a a white and a black, except through Pie. So that the that that is actually a stronger , to…
IIID extremist is muslims earlier but without now I’ll Credit Islam a bit that that is a fairly early expression that is is… It isn’t, like, the parable, the good samaritan where you really have to do a lot of an ana to make that anti racist. Right? You really have to do some ana work there to make that. A general condemnation of voices rather than get most much general mess, But the…
I think the… From Ham, there is actually some interesting statements, of condemnation of anti black racism, for example. So his, his companion Bi, his mother was was a black woman. Black slave, I believe, and, Mohammed, kind publicly cha sized a a an era, among him a follower of has, who was making fun of him for being black. It was making fun the law for for being black.
So I think islam as maybe a bit of an exception. Although norms against racism. Yeah. In the… In a minor sense they didn’t exist.
That but I think I think in terms of anti slavery, I think those are different things. There’s… There’s more of a history of racial comm ming, ancient engagement ancient world and so on and and and marriage and this company. Then there is of anti slavery sentiment for example. I think, Slavery sentiment is really is really a creature of the enlightenment.
I mean, the the, the the religious, for know, the the moral teachers or religious teachers. They talk about being kind to slaves. Right? They talk about, not, you being Arrogant. That’s very…
That’s common them. But there isn’t this sense of we are going to abolish this institution. Right? They you don’t get this in Jesus Mohammed you don’t get this in Aristotle certainly. he’s just people are naturally certain classes of people are naturally safe.
So Yeah. Morality human is changed radically, essentially.
Speaker 0: If you were to your hero system, your system of what is heroic and what is the opposite of her, that which con you to something that is transcend in the eternal versus that, which is to and un how would you articulate your hero system. And I’ll let you think about it for for an additional minute as I try to articulate mine. So I see myself as Heroic to the extent that I pursued truth. I I see… Yeah.
I guess that’s that’s the key component of my hero system, Also, I I believe that Jews have a transcend transcend role to play in the in the world and have played. This influential role in history. I I believe in God who punishes evil and rewards good. So that… Those are some of the components of my hero system.
How how would you describe your hero system? And and let me set it up, give you a little bit more time. So the time here system comes from Ernest Becker and his, I think 19 63 book the denial of death. And he argues that our greatest fear is not death, but insignificant. And so we all cling to a hero system to give our life transcend meaning.
And we usually inherit our hero system from our community, but we all buy into some sort of hero system. So even if you’re moral relative and an atheist and secular human, you still believe in a transcend, hero system in that you believe that certain actions, comp with that witch is heroic. And that way you take your individual insignificant idea, and you tied into a much larger identity such as science or the pursuit of truth or courage to stand up against… Ignorance and bigotry. And and that way, we get to overcome the reality of our significance.
Speaker 1: Yeah. This is really interesting point. I think I… For me, for my psychological well being. Yeah.
I I mean, the notion of of grander or significance is kind of our romantic monetization. Intellectually, it seems to be ridiculous. But psychologically if I’m very attractive. Right? Intellectually, , we’re all we’re all significant significant in the in the infinite run.
From a from a atheist perspective, which isn’t my perspective. And certainly, the number of people who are remembered after their lives is outside, like pedantic academic circumstances is vanish vanishing small, and I’m very unlikely to be. Among them. But I think you have to… In order to…
Especially if you’re engaged in in the kind of things we are, like, trying to get your ideas out in the world I think you have to kind of attach an unrealistic rem monetization to your ability to make a difference. Right? Yeah. So for me, I guess, I’d say, we was the characteristics talking about, like, I think, risk taking. Being other focused.
I mean, you have… You again you have to be realistic here because we’re all very selfish. Right? I’m not claiming not to be. But, I guess trying to indulge and amplify whatever part of you is not selfish.
Right? Which is which is the minority of you. But is, part of you. So trying to be other focus and and and make a positive difference in the world, like, for helpless people. I think that’s…
That… That’s something I find a more attractive, and, , I think overcoming fear of of of social exclusion or or physical harm. Is is something that I find admirable, the people that that manage to do that. Although I think I think the more comfortable we get talked earlier about how the enlightenment is boosted life expectancy has made the world safer for. I think the more comfortable we get with the more coward we get in no way, ?
Because it we have more to lose. Right? I mean, a soldier in the in the in the first world war had less to lose than than a Israelis told let’s say in in gaza today. Right? So risks are risks are scarier in the sense that there’s more to lose for a mob person there was for somebody fighting in the nineteenth century, ?
Speaker 0: Did you ever read Peter Novo book that noble dream, the objectivity question on the American historical profession?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Of course.
Speaker 0: And 1 of the great anecdotes in the story is about a historian. Think his last name was Lin, who who got into trouble for a tend contentious marxist distortion of facts, and he essentially got dragged out of the historical profession and instead he became a lawyer. And, And where he could put his talents to to work. And so I I think 1, 1 way of understanding the legal profession is that you are crafting a narrative for your client and d the Well
Speaker 1: the premise that’s uses is the term use as Zealous advocacy. You’re supposed to sell… And you’re you’re basically a prop… This is what I didn’t like about the law. Alright and you’re basically AAA prop.
Yes. Your your prop… Well, the the the way this… The logic of this system, I don’t like our legal system either. I think that that…
Civil… I don’t like a common law system. I think the common law system which you see in the United States, United Kingdom comes out of, of course, is very conducive to an a grand of lawyers, AAA highly culture. And if you look at the amount of money in the legal system, in the Common lock countries compared to similar countries of Britain, sorry. Like, Germany, France, Italy.
It was much less money in law. Like, being a lawyer is a much less prestigious was… It’s lupus prestigious was… Positioned that must less so in the continent than in britain your United States. So…
And Also, I think that this this propaganda element in a in adversary legal system is incentivized in a way it isn’t in an there’s over simplistic. But in an in quiz system. Which is more of the… A truth seeking system, whereas ours is about the 2 sides, basically in litigation propaganda against each other and theoretically the jury and the judge finds the truth. Right?
I don’t think that’s how we we find truth. I think that that leads to a culture and too much money in the law, too much lawsuits.
Speaker 0: So on a 1 to 10 with 10 being total propaganda, and 0 being no propaganda just purely the empirical pursuit of truth. On a 0 to 10 scale, how would you rate the proper propaganda quotient of your twitter fee.
Speaker 1: Well, let me let me talk about… I’m not… I’ve been a dodge question a, but I’m gonna give you an interesting answer. So the twitter my content on Gaza Israel is activism. It is not pandemic.
So I would never claim it was academic, and it would be it’ll be inappropriate that this call that. Like there some people who say, oh, you’re such a terrible academic for… No, again, this is not… These are different realms. Right?
That said, I do care about facts. And if you… I think like… When it tested that and what is rare in act this writing. Is that if I make a factual and and when news it’s coming in, at such a quick level, you do make some.
And I haven’t made something in the war They’ve generally been small ones, Haven’t been like on big things but I have made batch errors. I correct consistently. If people point out my Vms are open to people point out to me that this is… Unfair or that this fact is wrong, I will correct consistently. And it’s it’s…
If 1 just searches through my feed, who can find that. But The speech is not… The speech is prime… The speech Engagement is primarily directed at gal people who agree with me. Or persuading people who disagree with me.
So it isn’t the same kind of exercise as a historical paper will be. And it it shouldn’t belong in that realm. I think the the the the problem I ever with the word propaganda is that it’s been… Although of this isn’t true, this isn’t true as a matter of fact. It has been associated with gi and therefore people think of it as lying.
Right? Whereas, I prefer the term activism, because I think activism shows, hey, Your angle is to persuade. To make people emotionally engage in the issue to gal your own team. It isn’t an academic exercise. It isn’t primarily about fine…
Just finding stuff out. Right? But I think within that context you can be honest, I believe I have that. However, I think that the motivation and the nature of the speech has to be taken into account and should be by a serious, person. Another interesting question is, can you engage in academic scholarship, historical scholarship on a subject where you have such strong moral views.
And I think that’s tricky. I mean, either normal… Norman single send is an example of this he does know a lot about Gaza, but I think that his books are sometimes looked at even by people who are sympathetic to his views. As having a bit of an asterisk as histories. Right?
Like his history at operation Cast, I mean, because he’s he’s so morally engaged in the issue. Is he engaged in, in a, historical project or a activist project Right? So for now, I’m not interested in mixing activism with academic. With academic discourse because I think that’s… That leads to trouble.
Although it need not be in theory, but, it doesn’t practice. So but III… The reason… I’m I’m not I don’t wanna answer your question is because I think propaganda has a connotation of, of lying, but the nature of the speech Have engaged in is aimed at norma concerns is not aimed at. , discovering new things.
So it isn’t… It shouldn’t be called strictly speaking historic historical discourse. Right? Although, I, again, I’m I’m I’m very much a stick with facts. And I think I I…
That an honest appraisal of my. Work in this regard there’s set out. So long answer, but I think you get the gist. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I I get it. So, how have you been changed by your legal studies and your your ascension to the to the to the law to be becoming a lawyer?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So… Well, after law school, IIII worked in criminal law, I really didn’t like it. And the the tote experience of law, and seeing these people as kind of prop. And also, like, not being very disappointed the intellectual quality of the people.
It isn’t that they’re not smart. Like, going to school like you of Chicago, everybody, nearly everybody’s is gonna have a very high set. But there there there was just a shallow to everything. A material… A kind of extreme material.
And an ind to truth. Right? So I I sort of think that people get the… They hear the rationalization for the system that hey. You’re playing a role in the search for truth.
Your role is to prop your client. They wouldn’t put it like that it basically. Yes. And the system will all work itself out. And then they just use that as moral an intellectual permission to become just half in so many cases.
I mean, look at use an example. Look at, like. Alright. He’s obviously very high. Cute.
He got… Who’s was any number 1 in Yale law school. But or Ted Cruz is another example. He must… I mean it’s kind of mister to me how could be how he speaks, but he must be very high iq.
We think he was top of his class at Harvard. These guys are not serious thinkers. They’re propaganda. They want to just grab onto a narrative and defend it. Without any regard for facts.
Right? And I think you get a lot of those type of characters and among the lawyers in that’s what I found most exhausting about the profession. It’s it’s there’s a sole and nihilism in that that that that I perceive.
Speaker 0: Matt, when I look at a garden, when I look at a landscape, the first thing I notice is the drainage because I I work for 3 years in landscaping and so how gardens and landscapes drain is just something that got drum into me by my work. Also, when I started studying calculus and economics, I lost my ability to appreciate the poetry. And when people learn a new language, they don’t just add, to their linguistic abilities. They also lose their abilities in other languages. And so everything comes with a a price and and we we’re profoundly affected by whatever we study and whatever we do.
So with that as the… Introduction, how have you been affected or shaped by your study of of law, aside from your revolution, but but surely, just as I can’t help but look at drainage when it comes to gardens and landscapes, just as I lost my ability to appreciate poetry for 2 decades due to my study of calculus and economics. And just as when people take on a new language, they also lose in prior languages, how give give me more specifics how you’ve been shaped by your study of law.
Speaker 1: Well, when I read a passage, the way lawyers are trained. Is to try to d language that D facts and con torque them into logically plausible, but, kind of 10 contentious constructions. Right? I mean, like a very famous example would be, president Clinton’s lawyers arguing that oral sex is not sexual relations. Right?
To try to protect them from from the the per charge. If you recall the
Speaker 0: the yes. Yes. I recall that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And you could… You you you can you could chop it up and say, like, oh, look at these dictionaries, look at these surveys of people, . And so yeah. I I think when I read a passage, I sort of look at, try to occasionally find myself looking for…
Ways to d constructive if that makes sense. In a way I wouldn’t have, before the law. Like sort of logic chopping Right? That’s how I think of of these what these guys do. They’re, like, chopping logic essentially.
Like, okay. This means that, but couldn’t… There’s some team little ambiguity can we can throw into this? And sometimes when I read passages, in my history work, I find. I’m…
I’m I’m engaged this kind of, tend contentious for or reading.
Speaker 0: And and there seems to be that quality too much of your Twitter fee as well.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. I mean, IIII sure hope not. And Tonight. I don’t think so. But we’re all we’re all influenced by our by our by our past certainly.
Yeah. I also hated being even though it it’ll help me and and after I finished this page. I hated them, I was actually the online article editor for the University of Chicago law review. And I just despise that even though I would love to be a referee in a journal now. It’s just…
Also lawyers can’t write well it’s strange. They’re smart but they cannot right well.
Speaker 0: They them can. I mean, many of them…
Speaker 1: I mean, would you say general right less while. Our story about it. Like, especially if you’re if you if you’re reading, like, a historian who’s British from 19… Like, acute Trevor rope, I mean, he had this huge embarrassing with the hip diaries. But if you read his his work, like, like, the last days of Hitler.
I mean, my god. It’s just so far. I I mean lawyers No. I don’t… I I think in general, they’re very poor writers.
And I I think it’s read a lot you ever. I mean, it’ll be a difficult experience for you.
Speaker 0: Well, I’ve read a lot of law review articles, but they were law review articles overwhelmingly by professors and so many of them just incredibly el. I mean, 10 out of 10 on an el, just the sheer excellence of the writing. And as as as a journalist, I’ve I’ve interviewed so many lawyers in Almost universally, I was struck by their eli. So what you just said has not been my experience.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We’re we’re just gonna have to cross swords. I mean, like, like, think of the 2 examples I gave, like Ted Cruz and Ellen Shorts. These are both people who were at the top. Of the profession academically.
And do they strike you as as as as it’s highly el speakers.
Speaker 0: They do. I haven’t done… I haven’t studied them, but they do strike me as el speakers.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: You mentioned sirius thinkers was a a phrase that you used a couple of minutes ago. So… Who would you say are the serious thinkers who are also zion?
Speaker 1: That’s interesting question. So So in… Benny Morris, this… It would be my go too there because he’s he’s… That guy is an essential historian and he’s he hates palestinians.
How time really hates them. He reads his book 1 state 2 states. He he basically thinks arms. He basically his core argument is cultural and maybe even have racial inferior of arabs, and that’s why we can’t have 1 state. He says even arabs who who like Israel, they they commit more crime and so on so we can’t have and once the guy hates Palestinians and and he’s zion, but he’s he’s he has been the most important historian at finding out what happened in 19 48, and debunk, popular mythology, which still is very prevalent in the in the in Israel like, David was Goliath, completely decimated in in his book 19 48.
That no Palestinian has been during some spell. Who’s devastated birth of the rec… Of the Palestinian refugee problem. , most moral army and, purity of arms, , both of the books I… Both of the volumes I mentioned and and many others will With them just the stories.
So Morris is is extremely serious and formidable, person who was who is zion. And and and and we’ll always be taught But so people think all a left wing his story blah blah blah, like could… , yeah. Most of the profession is left wing, but more is despite his provocation against air of He’s always gonna be taught. There’s no there is no, like, nobody’s gonna teach history of Israel Palestine.
No Serious person. And not assigned anymore. No 1.
Speaker 0: Okay. Who who are some other serious thinkers who are also zion.
Speaker 1: Oh, god. Is a good question. You’re kind of you’re kinda trapping this. So who has me these these arguments in compelling…
Speaker 0: So I’ll let you off the hook. I mean, you you you you have a… You’re gonna have a very difficult time because you don’t engage with… Quite quite serious thing as who who are zion, and overwhelmingly zion or a
Speaker 1: acquainted we consider
Speaker 0: him anti zion. Right, Miss zion would consider Benny Morris anti zion. So… But go ahead. I interrupted you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well. So… Okay. Now I’m gonna I’m gonna save myself by I thinking about historical figures.
Like, like, these guys, like, theodore to Her hang Wei man and, , even Ben and these were high Iq people. Like, IIII think that they they had a bail influence on the region, but they’re very serious people. Intellectually speaking. I think it actually the new generation of Israelis is atlas less intellectually impressive than than prior generations interestingly. I think the the intelligence of Israel’s was weaker was, like a generation, for example.
Speaker 0: Is… Is that because there’s less need? In Israel now for an ideology of zion ism that now is taken for granted that we exist, and therefore, we we should exist while in the creation of the early years of Israel, there was a greater need for zion ideology, and so a supply design ideology arose to meet a need, and now there’s no longer that need.
Speaker 1: That could be true. Yeah. But I I just think that the intellectual culture of of Israel today is weaker than it was 20, 30 years ago too. So it didn’t even even leaving aside the… The realm of science.
So by way, look, at Curiosity, who have you who have you correspond? So what would your answer be to this question? And where I have to give Morrison in a bunch of historical figures. Who would what would be your answer?
Speaker 0: Oh, who was serious sinus thinking YH0,
Speaker 1: yeah. That’s not… Like, that guy is… I’m I’m not I’m not a fan of of, I mean, the movement in general he’s created on a fan, But go ahead. Keep on.
Speaker 0: But I I would… I grant you that is highly pole. So as far as a pure intellectual, and because I don’t seek ideological justification for the Jewish state. I I don’t mh. I don’t seek Ka.
I I don’t seek pro Israel sentiments. I I I’m I’m largely un concerned about the morality, of the conflict.
Speaker 1: Right. Which is why it’s easier for me to talk to you, because Yes.
Speaker 0: Right. Because he said it’s too. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Like, like, for example, Douglas Murray the other day said Oh, Israel’s is the most moral army ever. And then also people on them, people on Twitter keep because I I believe cr, frankly. The international organizations are now questioning whether the starvation, Gaza has reached famine level, which has a specific definition. Right? There’s a specific level of death that you have to have or have test to be coming around the corner, for there to be famine and their skepticism.
So people are saying, okay. Nobody served. But they’re just just not true. Right? , But but yeah Mean…
Speaker 0: There are devastating photos of starvation in Gaza, devastating. And may
Speaker 1: not be… So Famine is there’s there’s a scale for this. Famine is, a certain scale. And and it may be… There’s it’s called the…
Integrated food plus security based classification scale or scale. And Famine is 5 at a 5 and it may be 4 or the 5. So tomorrow people are saying, okay. There was no starvation because it’s it’s not 5 out 5 and it’s 4 to 5. ?
Speaker 0: Right. There’s an article in… In the Jerusalem post yesterday, some Columbia university professor say. We found that food supply entering Gaza is more than sufficient in the feed or 2200000.0 gaza and therefore, to whether extent, there is starvation in gaza that’s the fort of Hamas. And to me, it’s irrelevant how much starvation there is in Gaza and who is morally to to blame for the starvation.
So I would not be… I would not be emotionally upset in any any direction here because I I see how selfish my perspective is, know I
Speaker 1: I primarily concerned about the. Right. I get you. And that’s… That’s 1 of the reasons we can could have a quick most.
But the the problem with just factual empirical, the problem with this argument. Is that it wasn’t. So the level of food down maybe I I don’t know if that’s true what they’re saying. But maybe let’s see say if Argument going say sake it is, in March in February, it was well below what people needed. And March, especially as when people started start…
Or March and February where people were starving with death. There are dozens who start with that probably more that we didn’t get recorded, but but not in the level of famine certainly, and it’s gone down now. Right? But, why… So after the world Central kitchen issue, Biden, called Israel apparently friend to cut off aid if they didn’t open more crossings and Lawn war aid and apparently Israel has done that.
But it so this argument, maybe it’s true, but it doesn’t explain why was so much less food led in. In March in February if they can let in this much now, if that makes sense.
Speaker 0: Right. If it’s so for me, this is the equivalent of being in a dark alley. And I’m fighting for my survival. I don’t really care about the human rights of my opponent who I feel like is trying to kill me. And so 2, that’s how I emotionally experienced.
I’m not saying it’s factual accurate. I’m saying, this is how I emotionally experienced the Arab is israeli conflict. That I am in a dark alley with someone who’s trying to kill me. Therefore, I don’t care about their suffering. I’m able to then step out of that and recognize that the opposition has suffered tremendously, but I I wanna be honest, I don’t care.
And because I don’t care, it’s easier for me to talk to you and other people are anti zion because I didn’t expect them to to be different from me. We all have these these instincts and and different hero systems because and and the more intense the conflict, the less likely it is if you’re already emotionally aligned with 1 side, it it would be irrational to care terribly much about the suffering of the other side, except for public relations and propaganda purposes.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah. To I do think though, I don’t think the israel’s is going to get a… So this is where I differ with, obviously, like, the moral sentiments are expressing Agree I think it’ll be interesting really to dwell on that. Because it’s just how you feel.
Right?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But I… But just in terms of how the world works, I I actually do not believe israel’s real is going to together with. I think… That this will hurt them a lot what they’ve done. So, like, like, the starvation, for example, the the United States…
So there’s no famine I don’t believe there is. I think actually these people are correct. But the United States believes Israel obstructed aid for months. The the the Ns 20 released by the state department alleges this. It says they’re no longer doing it.
Okay. Maybe it they’re no longer doing it. But if they did this as a strategy to try to get the… As as the Icc allowed just to try to get the hostages back. Or to get the guys to cap.
I mean, and people died as a result, you have these dozens dozens of starvation deaths well, , that that that would clearly be under the law, murder crime against humanity. Right? So I and I don’t… I… My understanding of how the world works is there’s enough seriousness in these institutions, Israel’s is actually not gonna be living away with this despite having powerful friends like the United States.
I’m not saying that in Netanyahu out who’s gonna go to jail, I… What I am saying is I think that these that and that being indicted for these crimes. Or and also the bombing, , the Bombing, if you look at Air wars, the bop… Israel was repeatedly the first few months of the war, bombing homes deliberately. And we have testimonial evidence from 972 magazine about why they were doing it.
They had a program called Where’s data. Where if a hamas fighter, like a junior militant went home, they would just bomb him to death in his home and with, like, a 2000 pound bomb or 1000 pound bomb and killed the whole family, essentially. And and the air wars website, If you look at the the airs strikes they’ve they’ve recorded Deadly airs strikes, it the percentage that are on homes is shocking. So III think that these these these crimes israel’s also is not gonna be able to get wait with for the… And it’s not about…
I mean, obviously, they have moral agreement on this. Strongly, But the more interesting point, I think is does… Is there enough liberal wisdom in the world? Does liberal is actually matter to human rights matter in practice? There’s a lot on conflict matter at all or is it just power structures.
And if if it if… But it… I think that it does matter to some extent. And the crimes israel’s israel’s committed this time when they were so enraged after the massacre seventh October. Are gonna hurt it a along reputation, and economically and and so on.
Now maybe maybe I’ll be wrong, but I don’t think they’re gonna get away with what they’ve done.
Speaker 0: Well, I I agree with you that morality matters, and I agree with you that countries, nations develop reputation just like individuals do and that that has some effect on your international standing. So I’m not just purely purely a realist. So. III agree with you that. Let me let me formulate.
Me formulate a question. So I I’ve been reading about the whole concept of the civilian. And apparently, the word only developed in the late nineteenth century, and prior to World war 2. There was essentially no concept in
Speaker 1: correct.
Speaker 0: The the laws of war that that military should be expected to for their objectives to protect the rights of civilians. But post world War 2. We’ve had the development for the first time. This
Speaker 1: I 19 10:49. Yeah.
Speaker 0: For the footprint. Now it’s that militaries should often fore many of their objectives if it would mean a large loss of life on the part of civilians. So acted that there’s a great academic word that I actually love and believe is an important word for common sense, and that is contingent. And so notions of human rights, international humanitarian law, concepts of the civilian, war crimes, like everything else, these are contingent. They were socially constructed by actors who had differing interests.
So, for example, 1 of the cofounder of Amnesty International. Used to be ahead of the Irish Republican army. Right? It was head of a terrorist organization. So these things are contingent.
And I just find that important because if you don’t have this deeper awareness, you think that the category of the civilian is some eternal. Category that’s just gone down through millennia history. Anything you wanna say on this?
Speaker 1: No. It’s a very good point. IIII would just say this. There are… There’s a very un way of defending enlightenment values, which which assert that these are universal.
Or even that they’re… Maybe he wouldn’t even say that, but they that that they go back, , from Pat memorial. Like, no. Not true at all. As you say, the fourth geneva convention 19 49 was the first to deal with protection for civilians and war zones.
So yeah, these con… And also, if you look at how the United States behaved in Vietnam and Korea, we didn’t take the fourteenth convention particularly seriously. We had standards of conduct. It isn’t like we just said Don’t don’t kill civilians if you want to. But, in France in Algeria, oh my god, or we’re into China So the western democracies did not take these more these moral norms in international human and legal norms seriously, but they do now.
They do know. And, I’m not saying perfectly, but they do much more, like, in Iraq, much more effort was made to comply with international humanitarian law than the big violation was torture, and also the war… The war itself was aggression. Right? So there were war crimes.
But if you look at just the conduct of Us soldiers in Iraq, very different the kind of Your soldiers in Vietnam around Korea. But to your point, that regarding civilians, yeah, it’s, the protection for civilians is a new concept. And also, this goes back to the point Was speaking about what world war 2 earlier. In World war 2, we committed acts that under international humanitarian and law would be considered mass murder and crimes against Humanity. By way, I don’t mean the Russian.
I mean like, the Americans and the British. I mean, the the atomic bombing of Hiroshima Na nagasaki worked tar… It wasn’t targeting civilians for genocide, but it was targeting them. Telling them to try to get Japan to surrender, that is under the legal semantics, university universally understood of of the law I’m conflict in the rome statute. That would be murder and crimes against humanity, same with, like, the terror bombing of dresden and so on.
And I think it’s actually significant that Netanyahu captain invoking World war too early on. I think that… He was saying to himself. I have a cause that justifies splitting Big work crimes the way that, , by modern standards, the the Western Nations eating 7 good guys are churchill and so on. I did World war 2.
So, yeah, These standards are relative. The They are new, but I I still think they matter and should be enforced. Right? There is a a sophisticated way of defending this stop at un. Like, and and you have to you have to add the asterisk set they’re new.
They’re not intrinsic human nature because they haven’t existed through the best part in the history.
Speaker 0: So until…
Speaker 1: O’clock. You go. I mean, also 1.1 practice 6 so Go ahead and look.
Speaker 0: Oh, I just gonna say, until 19 47, it was taken for granted by the most sophisticated elite observers that civilians would share the fate of their state. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, to some extent… Also like the there… There’s shocking documents from Britain, for example, during the first and and second world war about how Well, we don’t have to take great care to avoid bombing hospitals, if they’re… If if the hospitals have been placed close to…
So we’re not talking about mil hospitals. We’re talking about hospitals that just happened to be close to military basis it’s like… But we’re not gonna… That’s that’s a problem of they built them too close. We’re not gonna make serious effort to avoid bombing the hospital if we need to hit place in your nearby.
Right?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So, yeah. There were… There were… No. , it’s it’s not true to say, , there, no standards, like, like, for example, in the United States, , we had in the in the civil war, there was the lever code, which which which does call for, humane treatment of of civilians.
This is an a the 18 60.
Speaker 0: Right. 18 64.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. So and and there are ante antigens to this in religion and for humane treatment of civilians, but the concepts are much fuzz. I mean, for example, rep massacres, there were scholars who set who argue. Looks scholars of military sign.
In the west who argued in the thirties and forties. Okay. Rep replies massacres of civilians in war… Alright. And if, like, a civilian population gets in terrorism.
It’s some kind of rep appraisal against them. Could be justified. But so, yeah. I mean, this stuff was changed a lot after war 2, and there was a lot of hop in n bird, not just on the soviet side with Kat, but also on our side. Right?
Speaker 0: I we bought into the Marxist narrative that delay, N laws. It was essentially a lenin narrative that the main crime of World war 2 was imperial colonization, and you had this invention of 2 new moral legal categories, a aggressive war. That was the, the main accusation against the nazis that they engaged in aggressive war because we’re seen through the perspective of lenin that colonization and imperial is what drive drove Germany. And Western elite sport into that narrative, Western Elites brought into this Marxist lenin communist narrative that the biggest crime of World war 2. Is that the Germans were colonizing and imperialist.
Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, IIII think I I would I wouldn’t call. I would call Berg. Kind of activist liberal. I wouldn’t call it, activist liberal with a lot of hypocrisy. That’s what I call it.
I wouldn’t call it didn’t characterize this marxist in the in the preliminary use. But but, yeah. I mean, like, the Tokyo trials we… Like, the Chinese wanted us to prosecute Japan for, for, ind bombing. Right?
For for deliberately killing civilians, but we couldn’t… Because we deliberately killed civilians to try to get Japan to picture late. Right? So we we could we couldn’t do that. We we’re very suspicious about the Captain Massacre and look the other way on that issue.
So, yeah. I mean, also, I think another thing people aren’t aware of, which has been revealed in recent scholarship is like the level of rape committed by Us soldiers in Germany. Is astonishing Miriam Get part, is written the best book in my judgment on, sexual violence, against German women and world 2. And and the figure she comes up with, for American soldiers is of of german… Against your german women is a hundred and 90000.
That’s not a of… Now Not mistaken. I’m not roman. It is a hundred and 90000. So, yeah.
I mean, the hypo the notion that, the kind of rec con of World war 2 was we were so noble. I mean, we committed acts, that would be considered the contemporary laws of on conflict mass murder or crimes against humanity. And, , you could even argue reg genocide with respect to the ethnic cleansing of Germans post war. Right? You could you could even…
If that happened the day, I bet you most people would consider that
Speaker 0: could be.
Speaker 1: So I I think that the world war 2… Now, I’m definitely I’m in the camp at the worst the worst group lost. , the Germans were were worse, but we were incredibly vicious, and we’ve sort of re con. But Rec of war that was motivated ultimately by. Of all, the proxima causes were attacked Pearl harbor, but the Us intervention is motivated by a desire for Germany academia.
Europe cent. , if you’re looking about our support of the Soviets in the the British before for a harbor. And we’ve con into it we wanted to stop German gen That’s why we did it, and it’s just the rubbish. It’s not what… That that is what happened is a result a happy result of the war.
But that is not the motive at all.
Speaker 0: I’ve been reading a lot by Amanda Alexander who’s a senior lecturer in law at Mary… Australian Catholic University and she she wrote this a lot of interesting essays, but 1 from 20 16, the Good war preparations for a war against civilians. So essence, she’s arguing that the narrative of the trench poets went out against all other narratives and the trench poets lead that civilian should… Suffer, particularly, women should suffer and why is it that only soldiers suffer. And so the dominant narratives prior to world war 2 is that it was only right and just that civilian suffered, not just soldiers you.
And so I’ll just read a few sentences to from Amanda Alexander, She says the reason that Aerial bombardment was accepted so readily during World war 2 was that it was not universally seen in the inter war period as a def defer of the idea of a good war. It was not seen as illegal. There were some sentiments, the the bombardment of civilians was immoral or illegal, but there was a strong. Cultural narrative that said a war against civilians was an appropriate way of waging war. Why?
Because the story of the great war, was established by the end of the 19 twenties, was strongly antagonist toward civilians. It blamed civilians, Non combat for sending young men out to be sacrificed while civilians remained unfairly safe from the horrors of war. And you see the same account at the work of the leading military strategist the leaders of the nascent air forces, and international lawyers, Right? We’re unable to pos any strong legal moral prohibition on the bombardment of non combative. So The hostility towards civilians that emerged from the great war left aerial bombardment is an unsettled legal problem, any military possibility that was eventually embraced in World war 2.
Any thoughts?
Speaker 1: Right. No. I agree. And and I think… Particularly by 90 key…
I also wanna contest the claim at this was military necessary. By 90 key by 19 44 90 45, in which when the terra bombing is just proceeding with total abandoned. The war is 1. Now, it is true that more soldiers are gonna die. If you, , if you if you don’t engage in in in this kind of contact where the item bombing.
Right? I do believe I’m I’m in the camp of the ceremonies mountains deadly to a quicker German individually. Right? But we made a decision to basically commit what would be considered murder under the contemporary laws of Un conflict. Right?
Like, intentionally killing civilians to get the pick a picture late. And people defend this regarding Japan today. They still defend, even though it is… It’s… Again, under without losing moral holistic language under the contemporary laws of war, the atomic bombing were murder.
Right? They weren’t genocide, but they were murdered. But, , it it’s it’s spared… Our troops. So renovation also had the happy effect in our view of…
Preventing a Soviet invasion of Japan, which was impending, and and and they would have certainly occupied and and and and and and trying to create as part part of Japan as as a Soviet satellite after the war. So, yeah. IIII agree with this. I think that there was a sense that they… I and I think it’s actually stronger with regard to Japan.
If you see all the racial. So car of Japan that we’re just putting mainstream through American culture about Ja. , it’s it’s quite horrifying. The… And then there’s Poland suggesting that, most Americans supposed on on on Twilio or the other day.
Most Americans during the war supported the Dean. I actually was arguing with someone who was saying the Palestinians are the worst people ever. Because of the majority supported October… Support October seventh of Polling, and I was showing, like, the level of extremism in the mount American public opinion to where the Japanese million population was was it’s really been white washed. You not only have all these strange episodes of of mutilation and, like, trophy taking.
Right? But you also have… And you also have the racial propaganda on, like, disney. Right? In mainstream, in entertainment.
But you… There’s Poland showing that most Americans wanted to den natural and expel all the Japanese Americans. They’re about half favored just, like, ind criminal attacks on Japanese civilians, like, with gas, and in Japan, Latin America, And and that, a good minority, like, , maybe 1 in 8, 1, like, literally answered yes to question should we kill all the Japanese like, every metal. Child, like 1 of the 8 said, yes. So I I think people underestimate the the capacity of human beings for cruelty and and and selfish and the supporting violence against out groups, and, , that that that is a, I think a naive of contemporary discourse.
Something…
Speaker 0: Right. So just as Americans reacted to pulp the attack on Pearl harbor with outrage and and an inclination to commit genocide against the enemy, so to Israelis reacted similarly with regard to the October 7 attack by Hamas.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I… Yeah. I I think so. And I I think that Netanyahu who’s repeated in vacation of World 2 meant something.
And, , it with which this been widely report even Biden Biden got mad him for talking about the phone because he’s like, he actually mentioned that we have, war… Laws of aren’t conflict, we didn’t have background then. When Netanyahu, kept saying in World 2, you killed this money. How come… Why can’t we do this, ?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. So it’s often used by pro Israel pole paralysis that the Palestinians are horrible because they want to destroy the Jury state and Jews in the Middle East. But the millions of Jewish Israelis would love for the Palestinians to disappear. And I think the the raw brutal fact of human nature, is that when a people feels like it’s struggling for its very survival that it will be quite happy for its enemy to disappear.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Although, look, here’s where I where I’d say look goes matters. Israel has changed its behavior to some extent. From October and November to now. In the Us…
Like, like, here’s an example. The first 2 weeks of the war, there was… They were letting no food in. They were blocking everything. And, reportedly, it was in the Jerusalem post, Biden made them let through them.
And moreover, they were obstructing a according to, the 20, published provider state department until about April when they stop them constructing it And that is what 20 says. It says they’re no longer doing it, but they were, and the bombing… I mean, the first 20 days of the war is israel real kill. I… This is…
I’m working a sub second list. It’s real killed. It’s either 6007, let me get the specific number.
Speaker 0: Got thousands of
Speaker 1: yeah. Yeah they were obviously killing
Speaker 0: civilians proportionately than they were.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. And and I… That that I think shows that these l institutions have some, is Hip critical as our support of israel was meant They have some sway.
I mean, they were on pace after October to either for a quarter of Palestinians to be killed wounded or or missing in in a year, and they’re not doing that anymore. . But so, how would you explain the you’re you’re totally like could be Wise Israel’s, the rate of killing, also why they like in food. Like, it does seem like there are some… There some liberal pressure that is…
Speaker 0: Yeah. Confusing everyone responds to incentives. So in a a religious age you invoke god. So you see this with the most cynical Israeli politicians. They will welcome evangelical Christian support.
And and they will even, , bow their heads as the evangelical Christians, , Wax on about know, the the divine plan in history and the role that Israel plays. And so Israelis like every other people, they respond to incentives, And when the incentives become strong enough, you’re going to change your behavior. Israel’s responding to incentives, they are taking more care with regard to how gaza and civilians than they were initially.
Speaker 1: I mean, still not much, but but more… Initially was in Insanity. So, like, here the the first 20 days of the war. There’s 6747 guns and they killed. And these are fully identified fatalities.
So even the pro israel real people with they with the fatalities, what they try to dispute. Are the unidentified. But the fully identified aren’t are are very seldom dispute even by, like, neo conservative groups like Because they have not only the names, the ages and the and the dates and so on, but they also have their Id numbers which are Israel issued. So… But anyway, the first 20 days, it was 6007 or 47 deaths And III broke down these demographics because children can be misleading because older teenagers can fight, and just saying military age men, that can be misleading because elderly men don’t fight very often, like 65 and l hole up It’s very common.
But if if you break it down into categories, literally a hundred percent of whom were civilians in the previous Israeli. Guys awards the 2 big ones. It’s 63.3 percent. Are either female, male children, 0 to 14 and elderly male 65 so those are gonna be virtually all civilians because they were less time around. And then, a lot of them…
A lot of the remaining people males 15 to 65 will be civilians too, like, men over 50 met meant 15 16 17. Yeah. Some of them could be bad. But a lot of them are gonna be civilian. So, essentially, I calculated that in the first 20 days, it’s most likely, at least like, , 88 percent or something like that or civilians that were killed.
And it’s it’s a lot lower now. But it was insane in the first 20 days of ramen.
Speaker 0: So, obviously, 1 cannot be an expert. On everything. And so if you’re discussing public issues as often as I do, you look for shortcuts. And here’s a a shortcut that I use on I ask how is what a public intellectual or a pole or pun saying. How does this?
Advances his self interest. So for example, you get a lot of hate porn on Fox News and the equivalent because that draws in views.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: And so… But let’s extend their say to professions. So I think all professions like individuals are primarily out for their own interest, not the public interest. 1 economist estimated human selfish is operating at about a 95 percent level, which strikes me is is fairly accurate. And so it’s For example, take the mental health profession.
It is in their interest to keep expanding the definition of mental illness. For to create more demand for their services to create, therefore more jobs for their skills to create more status and prestige for their profession and to create more income, more opportunities to go on Tv and more opportunities to feel great about themselves. And I read this by a friend of mine who’s has a Phd and worked in academia for years, and she talked about her particular area of specialty in Phd and how that became the prism through which she saw everything, and it didn’t occur to her until I presented her with this argument that she was also advancing her own self interest. And so what do you think about that prism as a as a useful heuristic for understanding, current current affairs and arguments about current affairs.
Speaker 1: Again, I think it’s too red productive I think it has to be part… Yeah. It’s definitely there. Self interest for states and acted is always there, and you should be sn of… And of claims to individual and collective morality value.
I I don’t think I think we can’t be completely red productive either.
Speaker 0: Oh, of course I’m just saying it’s hey.
Speaker 1: No. It’s characteristic. Yes it is. And I think I think in liberal societies, we can tend to be a little too good faith in judging people. I mean, I I think social media is revealed that a lot of people just don’t care all about facts and just wanna waive their big bright band or whatever that is or it’s Israel and Palestine.
And then that that includes, supposed public intellectual, and I mean, people are are are are are are promoting absurd misinformation disinformation on both ends of the scale in the war. Right?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You’re absurd absurd stuff.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It’s it’s weird that public dialogue and the news. Takes it for granted that people say what they mean and mean what they say when people almost never say what they mean, and they almost never 100 percent mean what they say.
Speaker 1: Right. Right. You definitely.
Speaker 0: So here’s here’s the further development on that thought. If you are an expert in international humanitarian law, if you’re an expert in genocide, if you are an expert slash… Activist in human rights, you are strongly incentivized to weigh in on the Israel gaza conflict. Are you not
Speaker 1: Yeah. Although I would say this, the the George Clooney wife, Got account Yeah.
Speaker 0: I’m mile Ama mile clear.
Speaker 1: Yeah. She has kept completely quiet about this issue until she she was 1 of the experts who support the indictment for, against Netanyahu yahoo for murder and so on. And and the Gall. So sometimes it can be important to… It can be helpful in your interest to not talk about an issue to maintain them impartial or the appearance and impartial.
Like, for example, I could never if I do end up working in international human humanitarian law, these kind of things or have an appointment. I’d never be able to ethically or cr work on anything related to Because I’ve engaged in activism for so many months. Right? Yep. So it it can be in your interest to be to be a little soft spoken about these things too, but I think there’s a role for for everyone.
The problem is confirmation bias it’s is so powerful too for human beings. That, persuasion is difficult. But I I would say this. I think that over time, when emotions cool, it often becomes clear what were the bad arguments when we’re the good argument. In the heat of the moment, you’re not gonna convert people.
Unless they’re on the borderline line. If they’re already on the borderline line, you might be able to. But he at the moment, it just human beings don’t work that way. They’re gonna they’re gonna dig into their confirmation guys.
Speaker 0: Right. So I’m a convert to orthodox judaism. Tend to be highly neuro people to begin with. And as a convert to a tribe, you are going to be more insecure than someone who’s born into the tribe and the… Facts on the ground are if you are a jew whose anti zion, most jews are going to shu you.
So there’s just no way for any normal self regarding J interested in his own, preservation in his community that he’s going to be anti zion unless the community that he primarily wants to belong to is is above the the tribal. It’s a, a community of intellectual, community of professors, a community of experts in international humanitarian law or a community of certain type of political orientation on the world. Do you do you agree with these basic sentiments?
Speaker 1: No. I. I mean, I I think we were never… We can never retrieve ourselves from from bias from community from tribe and that these these things are always gonna affect our our judgment. But it doesn’t mean that there’s no em no.
You can really… Let’s say, , you’re on a jury, and you see an orthodox Has clearly commit, like, the… It’s there’s, like, a video of him committing. So Robbery let’s say. Mh.
, you’re… I think you’d still vote to commit him. You may be… If the if the facts are more ambiguous, I think I’m gonna think out a little bit against him. Yeah.
I think that maybe your, tribal loyal will distort your reasoning. And I’m accent to you specifically with everybody. And your bias will play a role, it’s if it’s a close call or even if it’s a little bit against your your fellow ortho orthodox true, But I think sometimes the empirical reality is so clear that you really can’t. Like, if here’s an example, on the famine issue, They’re their Palestinian who want. To pro propel any people who wanna say that there’s famine.
And but I think I think that the, , the number of that… Of that’s, what I think is probably gonna be in the many dozens or maybe hundreds. From starvation is is horrible and real, but it’s the argument that that’s famine is not gonna be sustained… I think it was on the verge of being famine. In March and what people are in the Israel says in all the human rights groups are they’re all fake.
No. At if you look at when these predictions were made in most cases, I think we were moving in that direction until a lot more food done in. But regardless, I don’t think that the claim that the starvation that occurred amounts to family will be will be sustained. I think people are able to look through… To see through obvious lies once their motion settle.
Right?
Speaker 0: Maybe, so it kinda goes back to one’s basic view on human nature and I want to, present a perspective here from I saw john Mis, he he said something that I thought was incredibly profound. And and that is that we’re not primarily individual. So you as a liberal look at people, 1 by 1, primarily is an individual, and and me as someone who is not primarily liberal and who’s more tribe list and a nationalist. In my perspective, I I see people primarily as members of a group. I simply don’t have enough bandwidth the process people as individuals.
So when when I interact with people who are strangers to me, I I sla them as, , gay, Jewish, black. , Arab, Muslim. And so this is what Jam Wrote. He says my view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our life, and that individual is a individual is a secondary importance. So 1 argument that I would use to support that is that almost nobody I encounter has anything unique to say, particularly with regard to politics.
Almost everything I hear from people on politics is simply a resuscitation of something that they’ve heard from their community or from somebody else. And and so liberal tends to downplay the social nature of human beings to the point of. Ignoring it instead treating people largely as optimistic actors. This is mis shi. And he says political liberal is an ideology that is individualistic at its core, ignoring and assigns great importance to the concept of ina rights.
I… For me, I never talk about rights. I don’t believe that Israel has a right to exist. I don’t believe that any nation has has a right to exist. So this concern for rights is the basis of liberal universal that everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights, And this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies.
And so the public Scholar elite discourse about liberal since world War 2. Has placed enormous emphasis and what a commonly caught human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the west, so human rights says samuel moines from Harvard. Have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities state and interstate. They evo hope and they provoke action Any thoughts on what I just said?
Speaker 1: Yeah. , I think human rights… There’s a sense in which human rights had a quasi colonial concept because it’s like, we’re going to exert our power to change your society whether it’s Israel, not combined with a law of or in conflict whether it’s human general mutilation, whether it’s the abuse of of of migrant workers in the in a, the gulf or Singapore wherever like, it is kind of a, a moral, and kinda quasi colonial because it’s, like, we’re also implicitly claiming a right to interfere with your with your internal affairs because we believe we violating in your violating human rights. In terms of the other point about that you were making. It’s really.
Yeah. Those people, it’s just like the… It’s like the quack of a duck. I I don’t know if you… I can’t know the guy’s name, but the novel 19 84 really Yeah.
Speaker 0: Joe Joel.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Right. No. I I’m talking about the guy. There’s a character in the book.
Speaker 0: Oh,
Speaker 1: who, who is, like, Winston that perceives him as as the way he speaks is, like the quack of a duck. It’s like he doesn’t even think about the speech… He’s expressing these very strong political views in line with the party, but winston instance, like, it’s like the quack of a duck. He doesn’t even think about what he’s saying. And it’s more passion than even…
Even though, superficial these are propositions. It’s more kind of, like, boo. Yeah. , it’s not… Yeah.
A lot of most political discourse you hear from people is is kind of, like fat. But I think that the rational element, does come though. I think it takes time. In the hear the moment, people are gonna be with their… Look at the Iraq word, for example, in 2004 you could not convince 98 percent of republicans that the war was unjust or that we weren’t acting in self defense or whatever nonsense they believe.
Even though there was no serious argument for for, I mean, unjust justice is is norma, but there’s no serious argument that we were acting in the self defense and if we thought they had weapons in mass destruction. Night. It was a, , it was a quasi colonial effort to try to build a a friendly country in the region essentially. To to protect our security. I’m not saying we wanna Conquer territory or anything like this.
We didn’t. But it was not self defense. We not believe a iraq was going to, destroy the United States or whatever, , Conquer but they they they they would have believed that, and they you couldn’t have moved them off that position. But over time, when the passion settle, the truth often wins out, I think. And I think that’s a difference we have.
But I agree with you that , most people are are are kind of just repeating slogan they’ve heard and not really thinking about them. Right? But I think over time, the facts even with regular people tend to tend to win out.
Speaker 0: So I would rank reason as the least important of the 3 ways that we determine our preferences. So I think the 2 most important ways that we determine, our moral code and our our preferences, our, genetics and social imprint or social incentives or socialization. Mh. And so
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think those are more important reason. I think reasons more important than you think, but I think we’re on the same page that because look, I mean, if you look at how, , everything study history. If you look at how human… Like, the example I gave earlier, if if if if we had been born in, , 500 years ago, there the chance that we would have fought slavery in world is what, 0.
Right?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: So , it’s just not or even things like, like, child marriage were largely… Even in… In like, the Anglo American world where it was less common. Child marriage was still tolerated. Yeah.
Most people were not marrying minors when come miners today, but it was legally allowed, and it it was practice more in other parts of of Europe and the angle american world in the , like, a, Southeast Of Europe, for example. And it… So, like, the 2 things that people think are most immoral are probably, pe affiliate and slavery, and yet visa were tolerated for most of human history. So I think that that is a good example of how of the extent to which a culture really does determine moral morality. In terms of genetics, I don’t…
I think genetics play a role with how clever we are, how how we look. I don’t think Genetics play a very big role in morality. I think I think morality is more of genetics play a big role in how clever you are, but I don’t think they play a big role in in your moral beliefs I… I think because, again, if people with the same connects born than 500 years ago ahead a completely different moral. Playing with you have the world.
Although, they’ll they’ll they’ll still have similar brain power, ?
Speaker 0: Yeah. We we talk go ahead.
Speaker 1: Yeah. , that’s kind of my my my point. Yeah. I don’t think I can pay that much morality, but…
Speaker 0: Okay. So when when Jews came to America. So for the first generation or 2 Jews in America, they would be overwhelmingly likely not to vote to convict a fellow due on a jury. So I’ve served on j, and I’ve done jury in particular where they were black women with a high in group identity, and they would not convict the black defendant even though the evidence was overwhelming that he was guilty. So it would seem to me that the higher your group identity, the less likely you would be to convict a member of your in group.
Speaker 1: Right. But I think… I mean, , you’d have to look at this empirical, but I’d I’d be very surprised if… I’m not saying this isn’t occur. But I’d I’d be very surprised if…
In most j, African Americans would refuse to convict, an African American who may consider to be guilty. I mean, , like, yeah. Of course, their are differences with different communities, but, I think people do under us… Probably because I look at the things historically. But I think people really do underestimate how much people in different races in this country have common.
Like, the average black guy, and White guy in America, let’s say, black, cornell West supporter or Biden supporter or whatever, Like, let let’s get some left wing. , where political affiliation, and then a a white Trump mag guy. They’re gonna have a lot more, in common in their ethical sensibilities and the white guy would have with the white guy from 18 80. I mean much more billy. So, yeah, I do…
I just don’t think genetics or or race are that important for… They’re important. I’m not the 9 they’re they’re not important. But I I think for… I think we do under underestimate…
Because we we kind of focus in differences as naturally as human beings and differences are very real. I think we underestimate the extent to which. Our society essentially has a succeed and also is has largely shared has to a great accent shared shared values. .
Speaker 0: Well, when you talk there about society, succeeding, you’re talking about society succeeding in diminishing the intensity of in group identity. Obviously, not all Jews. Not all blacks have an intense in group identity. Those who do have an intense in group identity are gonna to be less likely to convict a member of their own. And so you’re saying society is succeeding by reducing the intensity of racial tribal and religious identity and increasing social identity.
Instead.
Speaker 1: Sure. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Or or or or identity in terms of a of a of a sense of, I have some very basic show values like fair play.
, like like like, the law is the law. , we’re not talking about about shared values across the board, but some very basic label both values. I think I think we do have that in the country.
Speaker 0: Well, it it depends. Some people don’t. Right? Some people have a 10 out of 10 in their group racial or religious identity and they don’t give a to about why a society.
Speaker 1: True That I would I would never deny him. But I think I think we’ve , we’ve we’ve succeeded a great accent break. I noticed some 1 Vm really quick as Gonna do did they get 3 years.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So so do you do you need to take a 2 minute break or just go ahead. Monday you’re coming to you from monarch? Bay in Southern California. Today, we’re gonna do kind of a big picture economic ticket at the United States.
Because, , a lot has gone down in the last 25 years. I think it’s good for me to kinda of put my stamp on the ground and where we are. So you can’t hear, Matt what playing in the background, but I’m just playing some about lecturing.
Speaker 1: So I’ll soon.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So do what you need to do and then let me know when you’re ready to come back in. Or, We might be getting back to some version of Normandy. It is kind a bunch light here. We kinda spell that out from the backside.
If you remember back to the transition from the Trump administration to the Biden administration, there was a contest among the 2 of them, about coup Americans would like more because they had been paid to like though. The incoming biden administration it made it very clear, that the first thing was gonna do was a trillion dollar stimulus that we put money in people’s hands to get over Covid And as soon as Trump heard about this. He’s like, well, I wanna do that too. So I wanna be like my administration to leave on a high point.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I think… Like forgot that way, but So you describe Douglas Murray as as a liar. I I… Basically agree with all of Douglas Murray sentiments are not gonna, like, support anything individually, but those are my type of politics. So I would I would submit to you that Douglas Murray is a pharmacist, fairly similar to the way that you are a pole in a lot of, your Twitter feed and Sam Harris is a p with regard to Israel versus Gaza.
Mh similar to the way that you are often a on your put feet. What do you think?
Speaker 1: Look, I I don’t I don’t think that’s that’s fair. I think I definitely am… We’ve become my pole, I think that is for. I definitely engage politically in the the rhetoric cut engage in in Israel house, and that’s totally fair. But I do care more about factor.
At Mary. I mean, Murray, here here… 1 of Murray core contention in this debate is that Israel’s is the most moral army because they engage in warnings. Is and this is just a a miss statement of… So it there’s 2 problems with this.
First of all, in the past, Israel has engaged warning. So is true. They have… Occasionally texting people and so on, given them words. But so here’s the problem with that.
And know, he’s representing this as if this is, some unique moral innovation of israel in fact, it’s just with the laws of our conflict acquire when military pop… Momentarily possible. The second thing is for the current war, they’ve changed their policy. They’re no longer given even occasionally serious warnings. Like, we’re about to bomb apartment or your neighborhood.
They just say we’re about to bomb your city which people know already. From the news and soldiers moving. It’s… There’s sham warnings essentially. So…
And they they specifically said they no longer engage in the roof knocking practice. So it’s just a a like, a complete statement of fact, and I’m sure he’ll never correct it. So, yeah. I I do that as dishonest. If you make a statement of fact, and you don’t correct it, I do view that as dishonest.
I don’t think that’s unfair. And I do Like… Yeah.
Speaker 0: Well, you you say the warnings mean was always dis discontinuous. So… It’s not important to me that Israel’s, , more or less morals. So I haven’t studied, the warnings, but I have seen enough news articles. Detailing what seemed to me in my limited knowledge, , extraordinary efforts that Israel at times has taken with regard to warning.
So, if there was some factual validity to what I read, then your sentence here would be false and your sentences. The warning mean was always dis. So Mh. If there is factual validity to Israel going to above average this efforts to warn, then the satellite
Speaker 1: that well like like like like Cast protective batch.
Speaker 0: I’m sorry. Is it…
Speaker 1: You’re fact… You’re clearly not doing that now. You’re talking about. No.
Speaker 0: I’ve… I’ve read that now about the early stages of… Well, you will find all sorts of news articles alleging this. I don’t know if it’s true.
Speaker 1: You they’re getting on onions. But they’re they’re, like, highly general. They’re like, sitting mass texting people. We’re gonna bomb your city go south. Like, that’s the nature the warning.
Inside. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You’ll find news articles where the Id has contacted 1 person in an apartment building. And given him the assignment to go warn people in a certain building nearby that is about to be demolished. And Okay.
Speaker 1: If we talked about… That’s a different thing that you’re talking about on. Evacuation of buildings that they’re destroying versus airs strikes.
Speaker 0: That they’re about to they’re bet to demolish a building. Okay. And they they choose around individual and they say, go to that people the residents of that building and tell them that this building is about to be demolished, and they keep him on the hook for days and days and days, and he hates it Yeah No…
Speaker 1: Let me make a clarification here.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: They’re not warning people about the bombing. They have warned people when they have engaged in these controlled demolition. Of universities and, gosh prestige apartment buildings. But here’s the problem with this argument. The…
First of all, again, they’re nothing works for the bombing. Second of all, these are already war crimes. So specific cases I’ve of evacuation, and they have backyard of these build. That’s correct. Are all attempts to destroy civilian infrastructure for obvious champ to punish regions.
Like, like, they… Like, for example, they’re you may have seen the videos on Twitter, Where they’re blowing up universities, like c universities. And they say, oh, somehow masks were trained there. It’s obviously a bullshit, excuse for collective punishment in my judgment And, yes, In these context they may have evacuation orders. But there isn’t an active military presence.
Right? They aren’t fighting. It’s not like the bombing where they’re trying to kill Hamas. And not doing that. They’re destroying infrastructure, and, yes, they have given evacuation orders in these cases.
But the warnings… No. They’re not doing this anymore. Other than, like, mass text we’re gonna bomb your city go south. They have
Speaker 0: it okay. So know the news article, I was talking about contradicts. What you’re saying, which doesn’t mean the news article is accurate. The news article talks about 1, particular Palestinian, getting unwanted calls from the Id, and saying go out to a nearby building and warn the residents that we’re about to bomb this building.
Speaker 1: And what is going to
Speaker 0: building after build… Have to dig it up. I read it a few months ago. But if there’s any factual validity to what is talking about where the Id is choosing 1 Palestinian and telling him, look, We know everything about you. And now you must go to this building nearby and tell them that we’re about to drop bombs on it, to evacuate it, and they send him out to building out to building after building.
So if that is indeed accurate, that would indicate to me that at least in this area that’s above average effort with regard to warning.
Speaker 1: I I think that this story is either mis remembering it, it was it was in the late part of the war perhaps or like, like, very recently. Or, it was it was an evacuation for a demolition, a control demolition of a building. I think you’re we’ll what we can communicate this, but I think you’re you’re you’re ran here mis member Lee not… In fact, I associated press just yesterday or the day before. Reported that…
In all these deadly, they’re talking about, like, bombing, which Killed whole families that no warning was given than any of them this is a.
Speaker 0: Right. So you’re you’re saying that the whole warnings meme is completely dis january. So if there is evidence that Israel has engaged in above our average efforts to towards
Speaker 1: that wouldn’t be I would
Speaker 0: contradict you in that’s in that area Yeah. And it’s not important to me. Like, I’m not…
Speaker 1: Right. I get you. I get you. I’m not saying you’re being chemical. I’m just saying I’m I’m confident right about this factual actually.
But, , if you can send me the evidence. You have.
Speaker 0: Now you’d say what a sick lie Douglas Murray is to be pe this most moral army rot. Isn’t he just another pole rather than a sick lie? In fact, he’s the opposite of Sick because his social standing in large part depends upon being Israel, so he’s in fact being completely adaptive to his situation.
Speaker 1: Okay. Let me quick read a quote from this Api. Like, it was this kind of supports what I’m saying in the way. I didn’t realize. Israel has said it takes measures to mitigate against civilian harm direct morning to civilians in past conflicts.
But this or, this method has been partly, and the word you would wanna latch on to you as partly if you wanna make the case. Replaced by evacuation orders for entire areas like cities and so on, but not everyone is willing or able to obey, Sanders are clearly member blah blah. So the the the the argument you might want to make is they still have in some cases, but I don’t think there’s any evidence of that, that they’ve given in a significant number of cases specific warning. So… So I think this package supports what I’m saying, although, You could you could latch onto the Adverb partly.
But… Yeah.
Speaker 0: Well, it’s like in the legal profession, if you want to alleged medical malpractice. It it would be… Did you fail to perform at right level that’s expected of a doctor.
Speaker 1: And they…
Speaker 0: So has has Israel, performed above or below or at what is to be expected of an army in this context.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, the the… There is 1 case Talked about this. Story where they had a white flag on a building and the comments so I’m just found the house and no warnings for any of these. So Yeah.
Right.
Speaker 0: And I’m sure they’re they’re, like, very persuasive articles in in many different directions, and it’s not something that I’m I’m particularly invested in. But let me ask you the the incentives question. So I don’t think incentives… 100 percent determined.
Speaker 1: When me 1 statement about your your point about Murray though. I will say this… I’ll I’ll be self enough to say this. People engaging in the same in… Intellectual and factual shortcomings is Marie on my side, I would criticize, but I would be…
I would definitely be softer on. To be honest. I would be less inclined to assume the worst of them. Like, like, for example, I’ve been very critical of people on my side who deny. That sexual assault happened to Israeli women at a significant level for me.
It just… , you have 3 3 fat first of all, there’s a very, very high, a priority, likelihood of, sexual assault or rape at massacre. A second of all, you had a number of female, female victims who had, clothes or removed in sensitive areas, , and then you had witness testimony. So for me, those 3 facts together made it extremely likely that many cases, I’m not saying I know the number, but many, let’s say, not 1 or 2. Cases of sexual assault or rate happened.
And, , there many people on my side who wanted deny this. But, , so I I bring that up to show. I do try to have some sc and seriousness as of purpose while I am engage in activism, but I am self aware enough to recognize that, I am gonna be… Less hard on the Douglas Murray on my side than I am on the Douglas Murray of the other side. That’s just true.
Right? It doesn’t mean I won’t criticize them, but the the tone and the and the the assumptions of bad faith, that would be different.
Speaker 0: Right. And which which Middle Eastern armies would you say set the the gold standard for moral conduct in war?
Speaker 1: I would I would say another dude.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: I would say, like, like, the, Turkish military is more, probably more than the Israelis, but they’re not… I don’t think any any Middle East army, complies with the law on conflict.
Speaker 0: Right. So it would be hard to think of any war where they were not… Numerous warm crimes committed by both sides.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think that’s for Under… As we understand a lot. It doesn’t mean that no, it doesn’t they don’t have any standards, doesn’t mean, like, if Egypt Fought Israel, they behave, like, hamas. They wouldn’t.
But they wouldn’t abide by the law of on conflict sc as we understand it. They would not. But they wouldn’t behave, they have standards if they’re lower than, But the the standards include war crap as we understand. If that makes sense.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I mean, which which nations in in the world have militaries that most closely approach the gold standard for respecting human rights.
Speaker 1: I think the United States and France and and Britain definitely are. In Canada are definitely cases that… That that that do that do take train… That do train soldiers for compliance to the law Conflict in a sc way. Doesn’t mean United States isn’t come commit work crimes, but , I think the way we we conducted ourselves enough gas and and Iraq is very different than how was real conducting itself.
And, in Gaza and that… In… Like, for example, the 2… Israel repeatedly dropped 2000 tom bomb on homes to kill individual Hem hamas fibers and later with their families their families are killed. On the air wars website, all these cases of clearly of homes being targeted.
It’s consistent with testimonial evidence of the so called Where’s the value program where their favorite of mom and people to deaf there with the families and kids. The United States wouldn’t have engaged in that Iraq. The United States didn’t engage in the work kind of torture, though, as I’m sure now. Right? Yeah.
So it’s nice as if we… Like, actually, the the reason we left the Icc is that the Icc was looking into investigating in the United. States military for torturing detainees in Afghanistan. I which I’m I’m sure we did because after 09:11, essentially, we we legalize legalized torture in some forms. Right?
The d factor facto. But look, if you wanna be totally cynical, Obama reverse these false these Right? The United States is not Water can use anymore. So I I… That there…
I just think they’re counter examples, these of that show that, these norms are taken seriously to a degree. In terms of this current war though, you wanna rid of other the the middle eastern militaries, I understand that a reasonable thing to do. But the level of killing in this were really is remarkable. If you look at the rate of killing, of killing civilians, it’s it’s higher. I mean, obviously, more far more civilians were killed in Syria, right, over, , over a decade war, but the rate which is just flexibility is really stored.
And higher than than syria.
Speaker 0: I Also… I mean, Jordan Slaughter is something, like, 25000 Palestinians in in 1 or 2 days when they they put down a Palestinian uprising. So there there is a great brutality to Middle Eastern war frequently.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, of course, there’s… There’s no denying. I mean, also the the… 19 80 to summer Tele massacre, of course, these these countries engage in brutality, but we shouldn’t tolerate it from them or from Israel.
And, moreover, I would say this that, when the United States, is providing armament. There’s a special responsibility. To ensure compliance with our standards and israel’s is not not doing that. Now, I think a allowed to more sophisticated defenders of israel we’ll will make a kinda argument that you’re making which is, like, okay. We’re not the most world army.
We’re kind of shitty, but look at our region. ? That’s an argument that I think is don’t think it’s a winning argument. But I it’s more honest and, , the typical has borrowed stuff.
Speaker 0: Right. Now I wanna make it clear. I’m not making that argument, I am… Not necessarily concerned with the morality of Israel. I…
Speaker 1: You just… You’re you’re giving interview and you’re you’re doing a good job. So yeah I, actually, it’s fun to be probe. You.
Speaker 0: Right. I… But I I wanna make it clear. I just don’t think in terms of the morality of Israel’s conduct very much. I mean, of course, 1 can’t help instinct.
Doing some of that, but I don’t don’t spend much time arguing for the morality of Israel. So I haven’t… I’m not gonna pro complain that Israel’s shitty or non shitty in the way it context, its war. I just see 2 groups fighting for survival in in a very brutal context. And so if these were 2 completely different groups in in a in a different location, but the same sort of, vicious
Speaker 1: I just Sorry. I would specifically pretend you that that the 25000 estimate you’re getting for black September is probably comes from out all effect. But but your general point about about the brutality that the Virginia regime show is is correct. Anyway.
Speaker 0: Now, Pal city when they’ve moved to Jordan or to Lebanon and possibly even Syria have often proved to be a disruptive force. Is that is that fair? And where do you think that is?
Speaker 1: Well, I think in the sense that AAA large kind of radical, displaced rapid refugee population is apt to be. Yeah. But in Jordan, I don’t think that’s the case anymore. It certainly is historically, it would be silly to deny it. But, Jordan, I think they’re very well integrated at this point.
There isn’t inter intercom communal problems. There’s some discrimination against them and hiring and. Like, for good sake, though, the the queen is is housed. Right? The that that represents a level of integration that you’re mirroring into the royal panel, And, yeah, Their pal and all walks of Life in Jordan, they’re well integrated.
They have citizenship. I think Lebanon is different because they live in, like, a part had conditions in Lebanon. They’re treated so badly. And , I think there’s crystal. There’s some weird racism and lebanese are, like, on the wider side of their.
So they they think they’re better, and they also just have a kind of arrogance, , toward the Palestinians, But there also is the demographic concern. So so Lebanon for all of its problems, and for all of its horrible in your communal history. It… The 1 thing that they’ve improved on is, there is good relations within Christians and muslims in that country right now. Like, if you look at Polling, if you look at…
If you go there, people are doing along even date there, , across… That is 1 area where lebanon on is actually improved. And they’re worried that if they give the palestinians citizenship. That that will screw everything up because then the Christians will go from, like, 30, 35 percent wherever they are now to far less percent of the population populations since Palace refugees are almost all. Overwhelmingly muslim.
Really almost because the Christian got and ship Christian Palace refugees. So that is why they… They’re afraid of giving them citizenship. And Jordan, it’s a different story. , obviously, there’s historical incredible history of violence as you allude to.
But nowadays, it’s it’s it’s good. Although in the current war, obviously, especially Palestinian Are very angry with the… With the regime for not cutting off ties of Israel or pressuring Israel more and even for , the the role Jordan played in in protecting Israel effectively. From the iranian, uranium bombardment, the other, several weeks ago. So I think it’s…
I think there’s truth what you’re saying about. I don’t think there’s something intrinsic Palestinians or anything that. Think.
Speaker 0: I absolutely agree that there’s nothing intrinsic to to Palestinians. Because, like every other people in the world, they are a product of their genetics, their history, their socialization, and their circumstances. So Palestinians in completely different circumstances again to express themselves in a completely different way.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I… But even today, like Jordan versus… 50 years ago. It was just yeah.
Their status is totally different. It would be unthinkable for, Ge damien King to Mary Palestinian woman, , 50 years ago,
Speaker 0: And I wanted to put a correction, so it was Ara who claimed that the Jordan killed 25000 palestinians, but both… Estimates put the number at between 2034 hundred.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. That’s that’s that’s that’s more in line before I’m saying. But, no. I mean, , it’s certainly…
And even even in cases where we try to hand hold. Like, so for example, the the the Saudi yemen war, the the bombing actually was not that bad. Because we we really handheld them a lot. And the result was, I think fewer than 10000 civilians were killed from the bombing. But this horrible siege, and I don’t know all the facts about how much Hoo are of blame sell are in blame, But the huge casualties civilian casualties team, of course, in the in the famine that came about as a result of the war.
So, even in a case where we actually really were trying to in ensure compliance. Right? What… Because we were funding the saudi these in this war, give the environment. And we wide compliance with our standards, you still had this horrible siege even if the Bombing wasn’t packed, dudley, ?
Speaker 0: So I read an article in… I think foreign policy couple of weeks ago, and it said, 1 1 reason out of 3 listed or where there’s so much talk about. The United States being in a new cold war with China is that international relations, scholars need jobs. And by h a cold war, the With China, they are creating a demand for their services. What do you think of that type of analysis?
Speaker 1: Sorry. Can you repeat the question? Yes I think.
Speaker 0: So I read about 3 weeks ago in foreign policy and essay sa, that said we are not in a new cold war with China, and then it listed 3 reasons why there’s so much talk about the United States being in a nuke cold war with China. And 1 of the reasons listed just blew my mind. And 1 of the reasons listed was that international relations scholars need jobs and by typing a new code war with China they create a demand for their services and it talked about how after the end of the cold War, jobs for international relations scholars drop, pre. Right? There was less income and less prestige to the profession of being an Ir specialist after the end of the cold war.
And so I our specialists are incentivized to hype cold wars and to hype dangerous dangers overseas. It’s in their own interest to create jobs and to create a demand for their services. And I just found that a fascinating analysis. And it it fit with my with my world view. So I I resonated to this idea when I heard it.
Do you have any thoughts?
Speaker 1: I think that the big the big issue we perceive from China is that they’re a genuine competitor. I so III I’m… , I think we don’t like the human rights record and so on. I think the big… And and people want jobs to hype it up maybe.
I think the the big issue is we see a state that is un that is 1, a genuine pure competitor that’s gonna overtake us in terms of… Economic power. That is now… I mean, they’re they’re coming along quite impressively, really. They they…
For years, they were just like AAAA big factory. Right? But they had so much… They had so many people and so much… The they had a capacity for a lot of develop…
Right, just from stealing some of the money from from all these people engaged in labor. And at this point, and and and and they’ve educated their people. They now have AAAA genuine middle class. They stole Western technology for years. And now they’re engaged in genuine innovation.
Like, they have an innovative footprint on the world that is substantial. So I think we’re… We don’t like the fact that they’ve shown us similar to us safe they’ve sold technology and that they’re pure competitor. And we don’t like their human rights record, and we also don’t like the fact that they are are men their neighbors. Right?
Speaker 0: So I my my question was about the analysis, which blew my mind. I never…
Speaker 1: I don’t think I think that’s too simplistic. Yeah. They’re people
Speaker 0: that play. Is any role
Speaker 1: in I you guys. Right I you guys play somewhat. Like, even the Palestine thing, they’re are people who don’t want the conflict to end because then they’re out of work. Yeah. They’re relevance.
And they’re are people who… Yeah. That there also are people who , we don’t want this award because Know And I think that’s sick, but they… Those people exist. There are…
Yeah. Sometimes incentives, often incentives will make people into moral per. But I think I think to to say that is a defining. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I didn’t say defining. I assume
Speaker 1: know is 1 reason listed. No. I think it plays at role.
Speaker 0: Which is which is fascinating. I… Was it George O who said you’re never persuade a man of something. If his income depends upon leaving believing.
Speaker 1: I don’t know if that was are well, but there’s a lot of, of course. Like, we generally speaking, we do need to be more cynical, I think. Of people’s motivations. I think you’re correct about that. I I do…
I… I I’m someone of cynical as you are, but I think the main line, if we go into mainstream kind of liberal society I think there’s too much credibility.
Speaker 0: Much literal. The yeah. That that… That’s my objection. That that we just take things stated as as literally the what said on the surface, and and everything as you understand is contingent.
So it would not surprise you to learn that many experts in genocide have fallen out with each other in a stop speaking to each other and because they have different definitions of Genocide.
Speaker 1: Right, especially over the Gaza issue, , there’s no question about that.
Speaker 0: But, not not just Gaza, people in the genocide profession. Mh. Alright. Scholars of genocide fell out and stopped speaking to each other over a different definitions of Genocide, 25 years prior
Speaker 1: to the over oprah perhaps the… , that allegations of Genes, which I which I certainly would with the endorse so against small eviction.
Speaker 0: No. No. I’m… Not Of… Well, not necessarily over specific allegations over different definitions of what constitutes Genes genocide.
What constitutes Genocide among experts on genocide is a hugely controversial area. Contest the
Speaker 1: only thing.
Speaker 0: That’s the word that academics use. Like, what actually is genocide is highly contested. Among those who devote their lives to setting genocide. Is that
Speaker 1: It’s like it it’s like… Another issue is human shielding. Like that which is now very politically relevant. Traditionally, if you look at, how how the concept of human shields was defined. It was definitely.
It def… Like, what Hamas does definitely generally, I’m not saying that it happened been maybe a few cases but generally wouldn’t fall under that. But what human rights scripts have said for years now, is that the kind of conduct come hamas is engaged in, like, embedding self civilians doesn’t to even shield. So now they’re kind of in a… Contradiction, they have to say Ham hamas has engaged in human shielding and even though a lot of these groups don’t want to do that because it…
It it feeds into the Israeli narrative that high casualties are all because of of huge. Yeah, you have to have a you have to be open to post modern critiques of of of how people use language of science and so on. But I don’t think you can… We also have to realize reality has some something to say, and that people have some rational empirical responsibility reality. It’s a it’s a mix, I think.
I think we… I don’t think we’ve even disagreeing us necessarily about this step. Like, clearly, there’s a huge role confirmation bias plays, lying plays, lying to oneself, politics, but I think I think also truth
Speaker 0: Right. There’s more… Yeah. So the the more the more genocide scholars you have, the more human rights. Scholars you have.
The more demand they will feel to create the prestige importance foundation for for their profession. And so just like mental health professionals and psychiatrists will continually seek to expand the definitions of mental illness to create demand for their services so too. Many genocide scholars will feel a need to expand what constitutes genocide to create a foundation or the the meaning and purpose of their lives
Speaker 1: How, I don’t know about that about that. I mean, I I don’t know. I mean, that that’s a that’s a difficult light I to think about that. That’s very… Inflammatory point.
It doesn’t mean it’s false. But I I think I’d have to just think about that before engaging.
Speaker 0: Right. I mean, you understand Genocide scholars has want jobs. Like, every Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Of course.
Speaker 0: And that, the more impact you can show as an academic with regard to getting funding, No.
Speaker 1: III believe get funding exist. But I I don’t know that that… I think these exist. But I don’t know that they they be cashed out in the way. Of, like, people systematically, , I think that the the definition has changed, but I don’t know that that…
It’s because of these kind of crude centers. I think it’s just people are more sensitive to human suffering. Like, like, I mean, the examples I gave earlier, we talked about earlier. , people saw the the kara bombing atomic bombing is is appropriate. In World war 2, Western people did, generally.
Like, their polls showing overwhelming, favored with Truman did. And today, there’d be more much more controversial and, in fact would be considered murder under under understanding of of the lava conflict. And same with the treatment of the Germans, at the end of the war and and after the ex the Germans. I think with how many died, I think that would probably be considered on a aside today of happened. The treatment of of Ave Germans after the of at the end of and after the war.
So I I think that there is some greater moral sensitivity, and that may have led to a broad definition of genocide. I don’t think it’s as cra as you do. Although, I’m not denying there. There are people who have these weird incentives to inflate concepts. I I do think that this is probably a a lesser factor than you do.
Speaker 0: Alright would it be fair to say that prior to the 19 sixties human rights was understood primarily in association with what a state grant citizen? And then since the 19 sixties, we have Amnesty International and all these human rights organizations who proposed that human rights, are something that does not depend upon a nation state, but rather a universal.
Speaker 1: Oh, no. I think I think that the the human rights movement. Develops after the second world war especially. I think the… Before the the sixties.
I mean, the sixties, you have these these notions, but you have, like, the university universal declaration human rights in 19, 48. You really have a in these these ideas resonate the to people a third world, Latin American countries, , colonial colonize people who want self determination and so on, and also, they’re both used as propaganda tools by the Soviet union and the Americans in the cold war consistently. The Soviet Union, for example talks about the how how can the… How the West claims the mantle of liberal, but the West has a history of colonialism. How can they be serious with human rights?
We’re the ones who believe in that? And they talk about racism and , and segregation the United States. So the the these these ideas were very much c, and political politically salient after world war 2. Now no. So I think I think you’re correct that if you go back a century earlier, definitely, you don’t have this notion of universal human rights.
You have maybe ante this to them in philosophical and religious traditions, you do. I mean, like, like these like, utilitarian of John stuart mill. This is implicitly kind of, human rights notion because Everyone’s utility matters. Right? Cons kinda go comparative.
Although con wants exclude certain races, from from his ethics. So he… But still, if you if you conceptualize it more abstract away from his particular racial prejudices there there are an enlightenment moral systems at the scene mister the human rights. But you’re right that it it isn’t… Really a politically salient concept until after the second world war.
I I think I think look, part of the problem… Part of the reason people are so cynical of these concepts is that they’re not defend very well. People just they’re not very sophisticated the defenders of them, you have to admit their… You have to admit their new. You’re gonna get destroyed intellectually if you don’t.
But those concessions don’t to me destroy the concept of human rights by any means. I think these is 1 of the great inventions we’ve had. And I… I it’s made a difference. I…
It really, like, the way people treat each other generally, treat the other even in the third world. It’s not… Obviously, it’s many things would shock our conscious. But it is not as bad as it was in the 19 fifties. I know.
Speaker 0: Right. The the 1 of the the great things that Academia does when it’s pursuing scholarship is that it takes all sorts of categories that we think of as eternal and show how that they are contingent, they were created by actors who had various interests. Working in regard to certain circumstances at a at a particular time in history. And I think that’s a a valuable contribution in in scholarship.
Speaker 1: Right. It isn’t interesting though that these new ideas that don’t even really… That really weren’t even mainstream within the lives of many people. Like, when Biden was well, I mean, that’s borderline. But, like, I’m, like, let’s say when Biden this born here, , 19 42 whatever ever.
Yeah. When the president was born, I mean, the president’s is not really alive and he also it’s not
Speaker 0: the best example but.
Speaker 1: Let’s say he’s alive for argument sake. When the president was born, these ideas aren’t. Really norma innovative. But now he probably believes that that, well, to the extent that he has beliefs. He probably believes that human rights is, like, a eternal concept or something, So, I mean, that that that speaks like the success and the appeal of the concept that people now believe this is somehow human universal lance been around for No.
80 80 years ish. Right?
Speaker 0: No. Is it fair to say that we cannot be objective about that which we hold sacred. So for me, the the Jewish shade is sick. And I cannot be objective about that which I hold Sacred.
Speaker 1: I think you can be fairly objective. Like, I think for example, if you look into the warnings thing. You might find that they’ve done this in a couple cases, but I think you’ll find that my general narrative is much my than Mer. And I think that you’re capable, , I’m not just speaking that up self indulge a little that’s part of it. I did that I I think by point is, I think that you’re…
My sense of view is that you’re capable of you’re quite capable of, like, swallowing adverse facts about Israel. So I think that you actually are credible. A capable of credible analysis of the war. Like, you’re not not capable of of norma Persuasion, but that’s not really what we’re talking about here. So.
Speaker 0: And you just published, I think your first scholar article. So what was that about?
Speaker 1: The article was about the Nazi Holocaust in the question whether it there was a plan, a specific plan to extend the Nazi Holocaust outside of Europe. And I argued very much to the country. And I specifically, tried to debunk 2 allegations. At 1 there was a plan, and this is developed by many scholars, including, calls, Michael Mom and Martin Cooper’s, there was a plan to exterminate the Jews of the Middle East, and also, a book called the Fu plan, by Marvin To Mary Schwartz, that alleged the same essentially for Jews who were in the Shanghai ghetto, and I basically question the evidence, provide by these scholars and provide independent evidence showing the, most likely there was no such plan. Although I do caveat it by saying, while this is technically not the role of the historian.
If you were engaged a political now says, if your a politician at the time. Of course, you’d have to conclude the Jews… Any Jews in the world of a nazi occupation. Well because of nazi belt that challenge their worldview. We’re in the grave danger.
So it’s nice as if, like, , it’s it’s it’s not as if the the what was I thinking. It’s not as if… I’m saying, yeah. They were definitely safe, But I’m saying there was not in fact a concrete plan to annihilate at Jews outside of Europe. Yeah And either even our cases, like, well the the the Germans had carte blanche in Tunisia for 6 months.
It was even… The was even there, and they didn’t exterminate the dues there. They also gave Jewish slave laborers in Tunisia, adequate rations, which of course, they did not. For Jewish slave laborers in Europe. This is 19 43.
So there just was a different policy for Said, europe, could they have changed, Of course, it could’ve have Do I think it probably would be. I actually do. But we can only… It’s historians why historians deal with what happened. And need neither extermination nor plan for extermination developed in my view contrary to to what other scouts have argued That’s excellent.
Speaker 0: So your view on the Middle East conflict seems to me right down the middle for intellectual in Europe. Is that fair?
Speaker 1: I think III think most intellectual and historians are more sympathetic Palestine, than israel. The new the new historian some people who… Because what when Israel, , when Israel released a lot of their, maybe classified a lot of documents relating to the founding of the state. That’s when the new historians folks like Morris or papa, or, abi sc, when these these guys it came about and I know the other guy is really good. They have his spoke of my desk with the hell name again.
Tom s sig. Yeah. I’ve heard like 3 what’s the first his name. Most of these guys took a critical view of his Morris is actually the name that outlier politically. But…
Yeah. So I think I think I’d be fairly mainstream, which shows a the professional… I mean, look, at the beginning of the war, there was a lot of social pressure not to go even in birth not to go against Israel because it’s horrible in half them. And I was like, I’m gonna speak out even if it hurts me. And now it’s like, these kids are crazy.
Like, like a lot of them are… I’m not gonna say most. But there are kids who are pro ms, and I have never taken this position. And I think it’s I think it’s this liberal wisdom. You can I can’t?
But I understand the the horrible argument that it’s put the issue on the map and palestinians are more likely they get a state now. That’s argument they make essentially. But the the the the the smarter ones among these spoke from most people. But, I mean, they massacred people. Right?
How can we condone this get that many of them do. So it’s… It’s interesting how… I also think this look it’s… I think that the…
The Western Muslim and arab dia, where if you look at pulling right after October seventh, basically, the overwhelming majority were against it. Not in the middle East. They were for mostly. But in the West. Right?
They were they thought it was wrong. I think they’re moving in the direction of of of more people ex ex it. Like anecdotal. But there there was a Christian Lebanese friend of mine, , you wouldn’t… She wouldn’t strike it as a political radical.
Who told me you just confessed to me. Yeah. I would… I’m I’m for what they did. She just confessed to me recently I don’t what the fuck.
, she’s in American. She’s not from Beirut or anything like this. Wouldn’t be surprising if it… Like, in the Middle East, , they’re all talking like this or most people are depressing. But I was actually the denial about this for a while because if you look at, like, support for Isis, which I think kinda stupidly, but nevertheless, often hamas is compared to.
Know, people don’t like Muslims would like to say, oh, isis. But the overwhelming majority went to All Poll were anti isis. Even the majority even support the coalition, Americans kill them. Right? So they didn’t support.
They do support Hamas. They do. Even Christians do. Like, there… There’s a pool of Lebanese Christians right after October seventh 60 percent favor of Hamas.
So, , that that, I guess speaks to your your world be more because when It came to Isis, which didn’t really have a… A national cause that inspired people, people were happy to say they’re evil, what they’re doing is wrong. In arab are people in the in their our world. Yeah, when it comes to Hamas, they make excuses for it?
Speaker 0: What significance do you see in the pro Palestine anti Israel protest that to swept American college campuses over the past few months.
Speaker 1: I think it’s quite significant. I I think that the… There’s an… It’s terminology analogy, not obviously very pretty. Simple ones of it the Vietnam were protests.
The protests were unpopular in the Vietnam era, but they did raise awareness about the issue. And I think more the more awareness… Public awareness is raised the more silly that will be in the war. So I think overall, they’re positive. I think also that the threat they pose allegedly is hugely exaggerated, like, the they’re attacking juice or whatever if that’s mostly fake.
So I’m I’m generally sympathetic. Now I don’t I don’t like I’m in a little awkward position because even though I’m a liberal, I think I’m on the center right politically, which obviously obviously isn’t the contradiction as . But If without, , but the center right liberal role who doesn’t, like Trump and, yeah, like I… Somebody likes free speech this kind of politics. So lot these people have really awoke views of the world, so I’m not necessarily in locks with an ideological, but I am sympathetic to the cause, and I think overall, they’re going to have a positive effect.
Even if they are not personally liked. Because remember the anti were protesters in Vietnam era, the counter they weren’t popular. Among Mainstream 2 Americans, but they raised awareness about the issue, and they may people think about it. And I I think they’ve been overall have a positive impact. From my my world perspective.
IIII think… Like, look, I’m not sure this will happen, but I can’t predict the future However, I think it’s much more likely than not it. Israel’s gonna have a serious reputation hit from from this once the facts about the war get out. I don’t think it’s just emphasized or… Crazy.
I mean, the genocide claim is we can talk about. But I think in terms of either purposefully or ind permanently killing civilians, like, in this program of targeting people when they’re in their homes, which clearly happened. , I don’t think they’re gonna be away with these kind of things. And also the starvation, yeah. They start a famine.
They did stop but they get kill people through this. And I think I think they’re gonna there’s gonna be accountability and their reputation damage.
Speaker 0: Let me share with you something that John. Miss shi said a few months ago. He says the United States does not want escalation in the Middle East. United States would like to see Israel win in Gaza, whatever that means. And end the wall so that we have a stable Middle East.
The Israelis are a different matter. I believe the Israelis wouldn’t mind a general complication that would facilitate ethnic cleansing. I think the Israelis are interested in cleansing, not only Gaza, but also the West Bank, a general complication but make it easier for them to do it. The other reason Israelis 1 escalation is that they have a huge problem on their Northern border, about 200000 Israelis have been displaced from their homes. How do they move those people back to Northern Israel until the conflict with Hezbollah is saddle and hezbollah ba stops firing rockets into Northern Israel?
As long as the war in Gaza goes on, I believe Hezbollah will continue to target Northern Israel. The Israelis want to escalate because they think they have escalation dominance. They’d like to inflict massive punishment on Hezbollah and on lebanon and reach some kind of Mo Vi with Hezbollah, that allows them to move those 100000 Israelis back into Northern Israel. When you think of that analysis?
Speaker 1: , I think that Israel has… I I think they’re slowing down it, but I think they’ve acted in a very fit and impulsive and irrational manner since of October. There’s is 1 of the reasons I’m not a… Even though I I pick and choose from these ways it’s looking at well. I’m not a realist because I don’t think states are always rational and seventh similarly, I think right now, the emotional sense of having Susan’s displaced is making Israel act in a way.
That is not in its interest. I think they’re very, like… I’m not saying certain, but they’re very likely to lose if they invade separate defeat if they invade Lebanon to try to distort his not to escalate this conflict. I don’t think it’s a rational move. I think that they’re lashing out because the people were displaced and they just were massacred.
I think that they should be working with us for d escalation, but I don’t think they are. I think they they want to to try to eliminate this problem and I don’t think it’s a irrational solution, because I think they’re likely to fail.
Speaker 0: Do you think that But but do you think he… He’s right that large parts of Israel and the Id idea would like a wider complication. Yeah. So that they could do very nasty things the Arabs in them midst?
Speaker 1: I I do think they want a confrontation with Lebanon. I don’t think that, in. I don’t think that it’ll be as brutal as as initially Das, but to I think they do want this competition. Yeah. III just think there…
Again, just states can be emotional creatures too. Obviously speak metaphorically, but I mean something subsequent to. States can be emotional features too, and I think the the way Israel’s is behaving. These Hezbollah, and and and the fact that they have these citizens displaced in Northern Israel, is expression of motion emotion rather than good strategic. Thinking.
Similarly the hamas that how they fought this war. Like, killing this money civilians. They trying to liquidate Ham hamas as a group, which is possible in principle, but they’re clearly have failed to do. They haven’t destroyed enough of the tunnels, they haven’t killed enough of the fighters the, , to to achieve AAA practical liquidation in the group. And I think they realized that now by the way, But I I just don’t think they’ve been strategic or or sensible.
I think they’ve been very emotional and confused.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Morale has plunged. Meng Israelis over the past 3 months. They see no solution in sight. They see the problems confronting Israel as intra, they don’t believe that any of their political options have a workable solution to these intra problems, and Consequently, Jews around the world who care about the Jewish state their Morale has also plunged over the past few months.
Any thoughts.
Speaker 1: We, yeah. I I think the problem is that they set war… Big problem is they set war amps that are going to… We result in a propaganda defeat for them in a probably victory for Hamas. Like, if had their war spend, we’re gonna conquer a buffer zone we’re gonna take the border, the raf across in.
To weapons are being smuggled in, and we’re gonna hold these regions. And get our people back in the south and then make a deal our hostage back. Though it’s all treat and then kill a lot of how and kill some of their leaders. Those are all the achievable goals Instead, they set the goal of liquid Hamas as a group, which is achievable in principle, but you have to you have to destroy their infrastructure. You have to…
You can’t… Because if… If you kill them, but they still have food and infrastructure in this tunnel system, they can recruit more people which they have. Our intelligence believes they recruit thousands more people. So the we…
They have not succeeded. They aren’t gonna succeed because they haven’t been starting enough of the infrastructure or killed enough of the soldiers. That they’re gonna be replaced. And a lot of their… Yeah.
They’ve taken her off, but along of their creative reports I’ve seen, a lot of their weapons are homemade. , a lot of the built from unit Israeli munitions. , they haven’t… Didn’t… That that that have been discarded, for example, as well.
So they’re not succeeding. And I think they know that, like, why did gan resign, And he wouldn’t resign from the losing or from winning work. And he knows it’s a losing warrant. And Reason for losing more of effort it is they set unrealistic goals. Because as I say, if head goals as I described, but we’re gonna take the raf crossing.
We’re gonna conquer a buffer zone, get our people back and then make a deal, those are all goals the idea what they’re been able to achieve. Yet. They’ve done what they’ve done.
Speaker 0: So many israelis say, look, the Arabs only respect and understand boss. And so we have to be very tough. Where do you think about this israeli perception of errors?
Speaker 1: I don’t think it’s it’s… We’re not by empirical reality. So for example, the 19 nineties doing an oslo process. When the, Palestinians you’ll leave they were gonna get a state, polling consistently showed that the large majority of palestinians they peaked, I think at only 6 percent supporting tariffs and and… But consistently large majority of 20, 20…
Only 20, 25 percent, 15 percent of that of supported tariffs and peaked whereas now, the… I don’t know. About vast, overwhelming majority. You probably seen the polling.
Speaker 0: Yeah. 70 70 percent or so.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. 70 percent about 2 thirds are a little higher, support, the 7 October attack. So I don’t think that the data, shows that they’re immune to carrots that they just need sticks. I think that’s kind of I think as Earl trapped itself in this mentality.
And and they’ve always engaged in collective punishment. I believe it’s gone at this war. It’s a it’s gone to murder, but they’ve always engaged in collective punishment. Like, in operation cast led, for example, , they they may not have killed civilians intentionally, but they… Did raise civilian infrastructure as punishment as collective of punishment.
The blockade it’s… The including that they went to a chicken farm and and, like, ran over the chickens. Tank pan over the houses of chickens. It, , the the blockade itself, the first few years, we probably know this. The Until 20 10, there was a partial blockade on food.
Like on chocolate, for example, They wouldn’t let in pasta they wouldn’t let in for a while. Clearly, they have a practice… And they also try to make Gaza poor. Until 20 15, they banned all exports from Gaza. So the blockade has obviously had punitive elements israeli wars of punitive developments.
And this hasn’t worked. I mean, it really, the the intellectual history of this goes to… Jam is the iron wall.
Speaker 0: Was Jab, a serious sinus thinker?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I think so I think he’s very smart. I like to talk to him. No.
Yeah. But it’s easier for… I think that this speaks to declining intellectual quality though. Yeah. Because these guys are…
I’m not just saying that… To throw them out there. These guys were smart, and they were… Like, they could look at the other side. Like, for example, Bang and Had marks to the to the make remarks once that why would any air make peace with us when we took their land.
You yeah. While house arabic pieces we their land. And similarly, the Jab said they’re never going to be swayed into liking us because we want… We wanna Jewish state in their land. We have to use force.
To make them submit. Now… I’m not trying to car her him. He also believed that of the, Palestinians who remained in a majority to have state, they could have equal rights but they all don’t believe it’s really. Like, they they had they had some liberal that coexist with their, like, colonial, imperial conquest expansion of.
They had both. And a lot people, , these are men of the early twentieth century. So the of Europe that kinda make sense that they leave but they also were realistic about how the native population would react.
Speaker 0: Right. So the more intelligent someone is the more capable they are of abstract thought, empathy requires abstract thought, Iq measures your potential for empathy. So you can have a hierarchy iq and choose not to be em emphatic. But the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. Mh, your capability for that depends upon your ability for abstract thought.
So when you’re talking about these earlier, highly intelligent, more formidable zion thinkers in large part, they had this above average capacity for empathy because they had this above average capacity for abstract thought, and while there’s not a perfect correlation between Iq and morality, essentially, Empathy is a pretty good measure of morality. And empathy largely depends upon one’s ability for abstract thought, which largely depends upon one’s Iq level.
Speaker 1: Well, I I have to… I’m not I’m not sure about that, But there there is something I think that intel… Intelligence can be con… It’s conducive to empathy and so far as it can… Help you see the other person’s perspective, and that does require a level of abstraction.
So I do follow you there. And, yeah, These guys were all in a weirdly empathetic, although they were They also come in terrible crimes, . But anyway, I gotta go in, like,
Speaker 0: Okay
Speaker 1: about phone slip, But but go ahead and ask a final.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Anything… What what what? What are your aims for your subs stack? What are you doing on your subs these is?
Speaker 1: The the last 2 articles I’ve written. I’ve been burrow into the Gaza administrative of Health? Fully identify data for deaths. And I think these are pertinent because while the is Pro israel people tend to dispute the unidentified deaths, very few people, even, like Just identify because they have all this information name, name, gender age and also their Id number you by Israel. And I’m I’m basically making inferences about the likely percentage of civilians killed based on q the percentage of these people who fall into demographics, a hundred percent of whom were civilians in the past war, like, , the the the 3 demographics that were a hundred percent civilian, which I talked about in these articles are, men over 65, boys, 14 and under, and then all females, all female because these milton groups are per women.
So, a clear majority just long sure if it is a clear majority are of the all killed from these groups, and then if you look at the rest, which are potential combat combating males 15 to 64. Was gonna be a lot of civilians a lot of convey. And the projection I make is that the civilian the combating and kill ratio is at least 3.4 to 1. So much higher than israel saying. And we’ll we’ll see if I’m right, but I think Am.
Speaker 0: Okay. Great. Anything else that you want to mention before we wrap up?
Speaker 1: Think… I think we’re good. Look. You… You’re a very good interview interviewer.
I mean, it’s, , it’s… And and you’re also… You also have, like, kind of, a bag of tricks because you you you kinda keep your guests relax and ask them of a tough question. So I I do compliment you on your interviewer ability.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I can’t stand the normal… Approach to interviews, which is to put your guest on the defensive from day 1 and to hammer them. Because all you do is you people shut down. Alright?
It it destroys dialogue. It destroys an interview. If you start hammering people, and start, , sticking moral judgments into your your questions. And and so IIII can’t stand the the approach to interviewing where you just hammer your guess.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, but I I wish you well, I’m sure we’ll do another new view.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Sounds good, man.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Take care, Bro. Good to good to talk to you, and let’s welcome Do it back. To to the show. So
Speaker 1: I’ll just say hi to doing gonna go Hi Do. How are you?
Speaker 2: Hey, God. It’s good job, matt
Speaker 1: Thank you Talk later.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, David, anything that you heard that you would like to comment on or anything you’ve been thinking about since we spoke last that you would like to share.
Speaker 2: Well, I I saw you were streaming this morning so III didn’t quite catch up although almost just like the last 5 minutes, in 2 speeds. So I watched almost your whole, Marathon interview. So you’re good for you back to 3 hour interview. Remember, I was thinking 3 you about that concept, 1 person could make a difference. 1 sympathetic person could change your narrative?
Yes. And, , some sort of, , incentive to try to be a better person more careful our interactions or or, , just the opportunity to occasionally, be nice to people who no 1 else is being nice to. I also saw you put, like, you you interpreted my word for Jv Had. And, I mean, you could say that, but, you, I mentioned, like, a lot of them are are… , not only attractive, younger Jewish 1, but they’re also educated employed, ambitious.
So, you, I wouldn’t, , like as the liberal Jewish women tend to, you’ll be the products of superior University Education, and even have know, employment or your upper middle class background. So, like, Hades is definitely not the word I would used.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I I heard there because that is definitely not word that you would use, and I I realized that. You’re looking pretty sharp these days. What’s what’s going on?
Speaker 2: I’ve been working out. You, like, a different exercises, physical labor. What’s I’m not sure about the vegetarian diet, , saying you had negative consequences where you could be other factors or, I mean, because I know a lot of vegetarians that are, you’re pretty physical, , especially , Indians Hindu. But, I mean, if that’s how you understand it. I mean, thinking about Matt’s narrative identity.
I didn’t know he was a lawyer. And About… We spoke a while back. And I and My I I told him that the… Historian point of the holocaust was a dead end.
There’s really nowhere to go from that career wise and and even the scholars, like, the handful of people who’ve written big books, like, you, I’d say, like, 70… You, like, the the audience is very small for scholarship about the holocaust, and there’s a bigger audience among Jews. So, like, intellectual people who care about the holocaust, versus Jews, who care about the Holocaust and most of the successful holocaust scholars. Basically talk to Jews So, although I found it interesting in terms of, you, his arc of talking to counter semi hearing them out, although, I’d criticized and we came into problems the past because, you, I I thought is, you’ll call Go, snarky demeanor wasn’t serious enough for the subject, which, know I mean, that’s just… Mean, that’s just my personal criticism.
But Saying, like, your character flaws shine on stream. You’ve talked about that, even in the password, you’re streaming your character flaws become magnified everyone sees it. And then talking good about, , series subject, , even like israel Palestine where where people are getting killed horrible things, oh, the holocaust to you, also be… Engaging in juvenile humor. I found enjoyable.
And, , say the least, and I’d had mentioned that a few times the man, and I think it took he took it kinda personal, although, maybe his demeanor changed in that or or you may… You, maybe streaming also. You say, like, you end up mirroring the people you’re talking to. So, , if he’s talking to, you, mike enoch or alt writers, where his behavior types tends to mirror the audience which should be, you’ll, recommend against? Or you’re gotta be careful with and then, , also, I think he had a period of time where you maybe I avoided the delusions, but even somewhat where where you sell, like, the Chu ching, the dollar signs where, , streaming and he’s on politically provoked and, like, people are giving…
Hundreds of dollars of money to, like, , somewhat like, morons, and you’re thinking, like, well these people are given all this money to these morons, maybe he could make a living at it too. Which I don’t think is accurate. I think, , how you nurture an audience and get money out of it. It’s not, , necessarily, like, , I was on a bunch of shows where the person who had me on. Made hundreds of dollars, and we’re, you, , asking dumb questions or making fun of me.
But none of that money followed me, Yeah.
Speaker 0: I noticed that too. I’ve been on a lot of shows where the hosts were making hundreds of dollars and the money never shared. And that that always rubbed me the wrong way.
Speaker 2: Well, I don’t interrupt me… I mean because I I wouldn’t didn’t expect it, like, unless it was agreed upon beforehand. So and I didn’t have the negotiated stance to, because, you, I’d worked a little bit in concert promotion. Say, like, of, you’re not gonna paid. , yeah.
Like, and you’d have to have a pretty strong negotiated stance to be able to, beforehand, ask for profit share.
Speaker 0: Bay I I shared more than half of the the money that I made from my channel with with people. So there several people whom I I bought microphones. Not not just you. But I… That’s always been my ethic.
More than 50 percent of the money that I’ve earned from these streams I’ve shared with the guests.
Speaker 2: But that that was a charity you’re done in a certain way. We were never on a show where you got super share. And then, like, you sent me, like, a… You, like a remit. Here’s your share of the super chats.
Speaker 0: Right. I I just sent sent you a mic, but for… For
Speaker 2: she sent your camera later also. Yeah. But I’m just being like, yeah. I I think have you ever sent somebody like, a remit of.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I’ve I’ve shared more than 50 percent. That… That’s been my standards. So
Speaker 2: or or donated gifts.
Speaker 0: You usually via Paypal,
Speaker 2: Oh, and that were these were these people that you recruited for the show or were they major streamers?
Speaker 0: Just anyone who comes on and there are just a bunch of of the super chats. So I I did it with Mike Enoch, and with Eric Str and just everyone who I’ve had on the show and there’s been a a flood super chats. Like, I’m not gonna do it for 10 dollars. But if they’re they’re more than 50 dollars or a hundred dollars, throwing down, then I would paypal them that half of at least half of that money.
Speaker 2: Okay. But in those cases, the power dynamic may have been irregular that to say that, you, the reason you had the Super chat was because the guest, not yourself. So , so it’s like, that that was money that you wouldn’t have seen had the guess not come on as opposed to the possibility of, your shows where, you those people. But, you you’ll, regardless of saying, okay. You’re, good for you, , respect.
However, I I think you would agree that that’s not norm in the business.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Right. And and and in those cases, you probably… You told them beforehand or was afterwards out.
Speaker 0: Just afterwards. Sometimes I told them be beforehand, but it’s just what what I think is right. And so sometimes I would tell them beforehand, but it was just There’s just what what I think is right, And that’s the way I’ve conducted myself.
Speaker 2: But has anyone ever done that to you?
Speaker 0: Never.
Speaker 2: And I mean, what… Did you feel like, wrong or cheated Or just like, of course…
Speaker 0: There was 1 time that I I raised it with somebody and I felt they they said no, and I just felt like such an idiot that I I never raised it again. But it it does rub me the wrong way.
Speaker 2: Okay. Well, I mean, I could see that also, by I just say, like, of course, that’s not the way things work worked. You’d have to negotiate it beforehand, and they have to agree to it beforehand. And if you ask beforehand, then they might , then they might… Okay, this isn’t gonna work out.
, so, I mean, I might agree with you, like, you’ll props you for doing that. And I’ve never got enough and so… , I’ve only made. , like, maybe 300 dollars in the 4 years. I’ve been streaming total.
Most years, I don’t even get enough to have, like, the… , to put it on my taxes to get the hundred dollar check. But , now I’d mentioned it possibly to church of entropy. But, , but we always did we can review on her her channel. And she chose not to get monetized.
And, you, , the other streams were mostly me where where it wasn’t really , like, duct or something, , got a handful of super chats, lived in Matthews and and maybe I shut offer, but It I mean the money was so small that if I made 20 dollars after
Speaker 0: that doesn’t matter. Yeah.
Speaker 2: After the fee, like, , and I gave them half, they would have got, like a check for, like, 6 dollars, and those people all, you, were relatively major streamers who make hundreds of dollars regularly on their streams. But, like, I agree with you, but I was saying, like, I had no illusions. And, , I told… I I’ve mentioned it before that’s part of why I… I mean, actually, I’ve maintained working in the concert promotion business.
The whole time I was in New York because I enjoyed doing it. But that that was 1 of the negative aspects of the business is most of the time we actually lost money, and everybody thought you were stealing from them. Everyone thought, like, , where’s my cut? And you say, well, actually, like, the show, everything together lost money, and, , no 1 believes you, and, , even the opening act that didn’t sell any tickets once they’re cut. And, , saying, like, at best, the major band usually got paid, and most of the other…
, so it’s just… And I’m sure in Hollywood, you’ll, probably… I don’t know if, like, extra gets, like, 50 dollars or something, but, , like, it’s hard to break onto, the paying level side of it.
Speaker 0: Okay. And okay. I got the point. I think we’re we’re repeating. But I wanna get back to something you said earlier, and that is the approach.
Profound effect that 1 person can have on another. And I think in general, people with low self esteem, in particular, underestimate, their impact on other people. They underestimate how much good they can do in the world. And we can transform lives. We can completely bring people to, you, a much, , much happier life by showing an interest in others by by listening to other people by greeting them with a friendly count that everyone, I think consistently underestimate their ability to affect other people.
But in particular, people with low self esteem don’t look for opportunities to help other people because they think, look, , I’m crap, there’s there’s nothing I’m gonna do that’s gonna make any difference. But there there’s tremendous potential to affect other people. But people don’t see this because they’ve had the experience of whenever they directly try to change people. So when they say, oh, you should wear a different type of shirt, you should… Buy different sheets, you should drive a different car, like, whenever you directly try to change people, it doesn’t work.
But when you simply give people space and and talk about things that are important to you, you can then have a a profound ability to influence others. So directly trying to change people never works, but simply sharing something that you’re interested in or something that you’re thinking about, or something that you’ve just read or heard or showing an interest in people granted greeting them with a with a smile, that can have a profound influence on others is there anything more that you’d like to say on that?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Definitely me. So I learned that from. Not just ortho orthodox you specifically. And , was like, that’s, like the H attitude.
I mean, there’s things in the tel, like, I think there’s a certain ambiguous statement, like, , if you give a poor person, a certain amount of money, you get this reward. But if you say a kind word to them, , you get a much… You, , like, a higher reward, a or, , statements about how rabbi but, you, make make sure to greet or be nice to every people and in certain like, hey geographies of your various rabbi that have been elevated to saint level, you make the point. They were nice to everybody, , including, like, the servants or the people on the street, and, like, , even, like, the African American neighbor or, you, the servant or or, your, various stories about, , the person at the gas station. They remembered the Rabbi too, and you, so I learned that from C, and especially, you, like, cult type c where, you make someone feel welcome and saying like, okay.
Like Ge modern orthodox are definitely not like that, they’re more likely to make you feel not welcome. And, , like, the very little effort it takes to initiate some sort of, like, contact, like, who are you you’re welcome to be here. So, , like, I’ve taken that, like, at the Chess club, Fridays, and I see a lot of , I basically initiate contact with anybody who comes in, you like, a chest player help him find a game. And it’s 1 of the things I do. , so, like, Initiate contact and it’s majority African Americans, but I’ll initiate contact with tens of people every Friday and because it’s a chess club.
I feel comfortable doing it. As maybe in the past were, your, different pacific or synagogue gag, that was 1 of the things that I did for people, and , I felt, like, you, the Synagogue my… Appreciated my service, and that was sent 1 of the messages they wanted to send. But, , I hear a lot of people , so they go into the, , the chest. No 1 even said, hi.
They don’t even know if it’s open. come, well, was this open to everybody. Could I just sit down and play? And, , a lot of people could just know, whatever they they just come and play, They don’t need somebody to affirm them. But, like, also in like a Synagogue, you , I used to do that the downtown Synagogue not in an official capacity, and and, , various other synagogue gag and maybe even, like young Israel, I felt, like, I didn’t have the capacity to do that because, like, you’re not really welcome there.
, like, you gotta pay for membership, and they don’t want, , just any slip who comes through the door. To start feeling, , comfortable as opposed to hamish places. There was, like, events or food. , it come in, make yourself comfortable, get a coffee, , here’s the events that you’re invited to, and, I taught myself how to do that. And I think I became pretty good at doing that.
And then I’ve seen the psychological effect of that, especially on low self esteem people with a few friends. But, occasionally, there’s, , millionaires, a wealthy people, like, many times, you get lucky, so to say, where there’s, , just the random guy who pops into sc, and no 1 spoke to them, and you’re the guy who walked up to him and was nice to him, and, , they might just popped in and looked a few minutes, saw that nobody spoke to them, not sure if they belonged there and left. Although, although, most of the time it’s, , more charitable and more people with psychological problems, but, , also extreme introverts, And then it also depends, like, you’ve probably seen this in La where, know, there’s kind of the bait and switch, or your… , the love bombs of kinda like Cult Jewish communities where they’re very nice in the beginning, and they’d wanna recruit a mini or a crowd But once they actually recruit a basis, they start closing in. And most Jewish organizations, I participate participated have went through that.
Know, process where it’s like, everybody is welcome. We’re nice to everybody, but, , once they get a, , click, they basically kick out all the sc stop being nice to them, give them the cold shoulder until they get the hint that they’re not wanting there anymore.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And… Another thing is that, usually, the the richer, the synagogue, the the emotionally colder it is. Have you noticed that?
Speaker 2: Well, the a leader of the Synagogue because, like, if you wanna Synagogue for elites. You can’t be nice to not. I mean, you might be able to give charity, but you you’ll have to somehow send the message that you’re not welcome here. And you, know, So if it’s a orthodox synagogue, you you you have to allow them to pray, you might even have to allow them to s. Or somewhat or or, like, have, like, a designated rabbi so, go get to the Ortho.
Synagogue guy, , like, someone’s gonna give you money, but don’t go around person to person but usually, they do that through the… You, just the cold shoulder, and anything a saying that… Because if you’re nice and welcoming to everybody, you’re gonna be a bottom feeding organization. So man kebab basically, he was like, oh, kebab is different. They help everybody and and it’s saying, well, no I mean a lot of these guys, like, they want the elites.
But the reason, like, a lot of the elites support them is because they give off the impression that they help everybody. But if you help everybody, you’re gonna be spending the majority of your time helping the people that need the most help and they’re not elites, and if you have an organization that welcomes everybody, it’s going to be a low level organization. But may sometimes if you have a wealthy area, , where where it’s just not light. There’s not really any… It’s upper middle class neighborhood, and , a lot of people you have emotional issues are introverted, and you have a charismatic rabbi that appears to have this welcoming h, open to everybody attitude, but you’re in a upper middle class neighborhood where basically, , just perfect of living there being in the vicinity you’re you’re in a elite or a kid of it elite connected to the elites.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. I wanna read a little bit from this great. Essay sa I read on the history of your humanitarian law, and you can just jump in as you see fit when you…
Speaker 2: May if I make 1 final comment Ahead and also make that streaming. You. So if you’re nice to everybody talk to everybody in the chat, you’re gonna spend the majority… You’re gonna you’re not gonna be an elite. So you, , you have to be selective in that process or or else.
You’re gonna be brought down to the lowest common element.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. Let me let me read a little bit from this essay on international humanitarian board, the history of it, and you can jump in as you have thoughts. This is by Amanda Alexander. She read published an essay in 20 16 brief history of international humanitarian laws.
So really until the 19 seventies the idea of human rights was primarily constrained just to the rights that a nation state will afford its citizens. And then in the the 19 sixties into the 19 seventies, we got this nation notion of of human rights is something that’s universal and not dependent upon the nation state. Now this was not a perspective that had much grounds in reality. But it was a utopian scheme that allowed those who became disillusioned with various left wing utopia such as communism, to engage in a new utopia to gain the emotional benefits from being engaged in a utopian scheme and that it didn’t make any practical difference in the real world, that didn’t matter because you still got the high of of feeling righteous anything that I just said there, david that that you’d like to comment on?
Speaker 2: Yeah. It’s the illusion of… Citizenship and that anybody could make a difference. And I remember you at, like, a a Jewish event where , see, there were certain powers trying to, like, take over an abandoned Synagogue, and III was trying to, like, no. It’s for the people.
And this casino guy like, know, was like who the hell are you? You’re just a pathetic alt. And, like, , was like, I mean, he’s kinda right. And I was like, I’m the citizen of New York. , that point.
And, , so you’re thinking like, you can’t get away with this. And just think with who the hell are you? You’re nobody. , like, you’re not gonna stop me, And say, like, no A citizen of this country, Like, and I I remember African Americans, , in university that were part of D. , using this, like, , like, I’m a citizen, like, you can’t get away with this because that’s not what we stand for.
But, , from some network, you. Yeah. I mean, it’s just an illusion, these, your rules based order, and it needs an enforcement mechanism, although, just Did you ever end up listening much to this guy, Andrew Wilson? I I told you about a bunch of times even way back when you probably could have ahead
Speaker 0: no I haven’t Not yet.
Speaker 2: Mean, now he’s blown up. He’s probably, like, 1… I mean, Christian Nationalist. And now he’s, like, teamed up with this, whatever podcast where he basically, like, dunk on only fan models, and and and but he became very popular, and he argues again feminism is basically saying, like, men best bestowed rights on women, and if men took the rights away from women. There’s absolutely nothing they could do about it.
And , it’s argument, like, , force, , like, that women don’t really have option of force, and , so if you’re giving a similar type argument to human rights. Human rights are bestowed on the people who have the power of force, and they depend upon force and the illusion that you could protect your own human rights is is just that an illusion. And, you, if you’re looking, like, , the lesson from, , a lot of times historically, you say, what lesson did Jews learn from the holocaust cost is like, no one’s coming to help you. And , so the Palestinians that’s kinda surprising. But even that, you’re saying there’s just protest.
There’s just things know it’s come to help them. , it’s 8 months into the board, no one’s come to help you, , maybe the Who fired a few missiles, and in, , as everyone, you, mentions, all these Un security councils, even if they find Israel guilty of Genocide, and Ic, war crimes, whatever, maybe eventually, they will economically isolate Israel, but, like, if Israel god forbid did decide to go in, Fu go h genocide, All of the other men… Demeanor besides for another army coming in and forced to stop Israel, wouldn’t it mean anything? Those would all be, , post factor facto that that they would make a difference. And, , so that’s just, like, a a realist factor in the illusion of your power that I didn’t have.
You. So maybe you were talked, like my narrative of when did I switch from being, a, you’ll, self perceived successful, prominent jew to a failed jew and say it was an illusion the whole time, or maybe it was partially true at the time and just the circumstance changed, you, , but I I make the argument that power in general is an illusion.
Speaker 0: How’s your self esteem?
Speaker 2: I mean, it varies, , saying like… Because there’s different terms like self esteem versus self efficacy, and and I mean I think it’s based on success. So,
Speaker 0: based on results essentially. So therefore, it’s gonna vary a lot.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Saying, , we… You, Matt was mentioning, like, well, how much do the haters bother you? And it’s like, I think the power of 1 positive feedback could have more affect than the power of 1 negative defect. So, like, if you’re in a synagogue and you appear to have friends and people like you, But, like, 1 guy is just against you in and the I think that you’re less likely all I don’t belong here.
If you still have positive feedback in interactions, , think, like, like Hal or something or, , ultra test testosterone a few people that , least often and on or for long protracted period times and basically been purely against me. We’ll even occasionally , not h, but, like, , some other people will even appear in my own chat just to bash me. And , if there’s any knowledge if anyone says anything good about me on social media, either immediately like a post, like, like, no. This guy is bad. Whatever you thought positively about this person was, a false assumption.
But I think that that has less effect, , saying because it either works or it doesn’t? And if the people… , so like, okay, I got a few haters, but are they successfully sway, the crowd against me or or, you, my my friends, my supporters against me. And if I see that they’re not that’s less actual than, the 1 sympathetic voice. .
So I think the 1 sympathetic voice is more powerful than the 1 negative voice.
Speaker 0: So when I was talking to Matt about an hour ago, I was trying to recall an article I’d read early on in the Israel War in Gaza, I I just found it. The article was published 11/07/2023 from the Bbc. Here’s the headline. I’m calling from Israeli Intelligence. We have the order to bomb, you have 2 hours.
So the quarter, Mah Shah came at dawn. It was Thursday nineteenth of October at about 06:30AM. Israel been bombing Gaza for 12 days straight. He’d been in his third floor 3 bedroom flat in a Az zara 30 middle class area in the north of Gaza strip until now it had been largely untouched by strikes. He’d heard a rising clam outside people are screaming you need to escape Somebody in the street shouted because they will bomb at the towers as he left his building across the road, looking for a safe place his phone lit up.
It was a call from a private number. I’m speaking with you from Israeli intelligence man said down the line according to Mark. The corps would last more than an hour, and it would be the most terrifying call of his life. The voice addressed Mark by his full name and spoke in flawless Arabic. He told me he wanted to bomb 3 towers and he ordered me to evacuate the surrounding area.
Mu woods tower was not directly under threat, but he was suddenly responsible for evacuating hundreds of people. Add the lives of people in my hands he city. Gathered his thoughts and told the man who identified himself as Abu Hal, not to hang out the phone. As a 40 year old dentist, Mu says, He has no idea why he was chosen of this task, But that day, he did everything he could to keep his community safe. Directed by the voice of strangers always seemed to know how to reach him.
Even when his battery ran out, he plead for the bombing to stop and he screamed until his throat hurt, for people to run away, he led a mass evacuation of his neighbors, and then watched his neighborhood explode in front of his eyes. During this conflict, the Israeli military has phoned gaza and sometimes to warn them ahead of s strikes Mu woods account gives an insight into 1 such phone call in an unprecedented level of detail. Anything about this extraordinary story that you wanna react to do it.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, god for forbid. I mean, it’s not… I’ve I’ve heard, you things like that and and it’s… You like the term hero systems.
I might I could use that language, but IIII was actually gonna stream today, and I was gonna talk about American p. And 1 of the, you, the founder, you, like, what’s America’s philosophy. It’s p, and you have the founding fathers of American charles Sanders Pierce. William James and John Dewey, and William James, like, , the father psychology who created a lot of the words and systems So I I like to speak in the more psychological terms about identity theory, of which, you your, the hero system, in many ways, could be the same thing. So but, like, , if your hero systems, your identity, theory, what makes up your identity, and there’s many aspects to…
To that, your self perception, your hero system, your interaction with others. And you, for Israel, the… There’s different classes of Jews and Israelis also. So if your ser hero system needs… A certain moral just character to it, you these narratives become more more important and, , that we’re we’re moral , there’s something special about the Jewish state.
There’s a connection between Judaism, and morals and ethics, and the Is uniquely moral among nations, which you… If if you can’t… Your your identity is gonna collapse if you, the narrative collapses, and, , you’re gonna have extreme dissonance if your your self perception narrative is inaccurate, And so, , if you’re a zion and your self perception nec that Israel’s a moral just country not only that the most moral army you’ll, you’re gonna have to worry about these narratives and spend countless time defending it in in these arguments, as opposed to if your self perception doesn’t nec that. So, like, for you, your self perception as a jew doesn’t nec this , exceptional moral ethical status of the Jewish people, and , thinking about that , we’ve discussed that a lot in the past, like in the modern orthodox, we tend to v, not the wealthiest among us, but, you you’re, the people who are v also in the eyes of the Na jews, doctors, professionals of people that are respected not in the Jewish community, but in the larger community as opposed to the orthodox community, will tend to v the wealthiest among us, even though outside the orthodox community, there not respected figures in in fact, many times they’re despise the newspaper, public attention, even the modern orthodox community, might despise these people, the name slipping me of the, very wealthy man in Los Angeles like, the nursing homes, the billionaires for the name hits you off hand, but the very wealthy orthodox you who, like, funds, tons of charities across the world by things he’s based in La.
And owns a bunch of nursing homes. And and, , we’ve argued about that in the past. Is is that person’s named hitting you or you you don’t remember that?
Speaker 0: Maybe it will. I I need to take a break for 2 minutes or can you carry the show over a couple of minutes talk about? To any books or ideas or anything you want or a couple.
Speaker 2: Continue on with this loss. So, , so this very wealthy orthodox man who maybe he’s you, maybe he’s Slum lord. Maybe he, , profit off of a questionable businesses, like nursing homes. And your, government programs. And generally, in wider respected society, and he’s not highly educated.
You maybe didn’t go to university at all. Just went to Shiva. Found some hole in the system and became extremely wealthy. And so within the Orthodox community, those tend to be what, Our rabbi our heroes. So, , in the modern North Community, the rabbi aren’t really the heroes.
The heroes are, , the business people that are respectable both in the Jewish community. And the secular community like Jack Lu or something like that. I mean, Jared Kushner besides the fact is and not so like, it never really became a hero but, , someone who thrived in both the Orthodox world maintained being fro as a minor to our skyler, and also, , business and respected among the non Jews. So , that hero system is very important. But if you’re in a more orthodox culture, especially qa, culture, you have a hero system where it’s expected that the right world doesn’t like you.
And so your internal heroes. Are people that, , support and protect the community, and they’re often the the very wealthy mega donor, and very often those people are, , people that have cut corners in the law and have went into generally un respected professions, like your nursing homes, the Slum loading, a real estate, your, brokerage type things, And you, so if your identity as a already is not based on that respect like Luke, his modern orthodox community, they crave their identity demands the respect of elite non Jews also as opposed to Ortho orthodox, Jews, their identity does not demand or even nec at all the respect of the larger non jewish world, especially the academic world. Just like, like, harvard, Harvard Mar. That means nothing to me, you, , thing, , type sentiment. And so you, when you’re looking at Israel as a moral army, there’s a certain type of jew that their identity and nec, Israel being a moral army, and then they have to look…
, they have to justify it. And if it doesn’t go against the facts, and… But their, , their identity would change. Like David’s identity where I became kind of a vocal anti Israel because my identity as a jew. I need to be moral and a good person and a universal.
And so if Israel is counter to that identity, I have to turn against Israel as opposed to a lot of jews, they could dump the moral ethical character, and you maybe even move into the 3. Like, of course, the whole worlds against us. And, , maybe we’re not the most moral and ethical applicable, but we need to survive. You have to do what it takes to survive. No 1 is gonna come to your back.
No 1 is gonna help you, , trying to be moral and ethical. That’s nonsense for, , the high castles and Ivy the universities, you need to do what you need to do to survive. And, , so if you fall into that identity and y is having that issue. So you might have a few people, like, Alan Der, you, no, Elliott, I didn’t meet any of these people when they came to Detroit. Came.
I don’t… I I identify somewhat with motto Orthodox jews because I also respect education, and non Jewish wisdom and respect among non Jews in respect among academic non jewish elites, , as opposed to, , a creative 80 position. So, like, I don’t… In many… I’m non zion.
So Zion ism is also 1 of the key tenets of modern North Orthodox in other aspects, , be… I… I… So I would never classify myself as Modern North x. But kinda like Bernie Sanders.
I caucus as, modern orthodox, because I respect academic and general of success and respect, among the non jews, which many elements and… , So, , luke would express that as the hero system , maybe I I would rather just use the psychological language of identity theory, and, , where does your self esteem come from? And your self perception versus your group perception. So, , if you’re, you can have your self perception
Speaker 0: Okay get it. I get it. I I mean…
Speaker 2: Okay. You’re back.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I I get it. Do you… Now a… Typical perspective in orthodox using?
Yeah. I I heard what you’re saying. A typical perspective in orthodox judaism is decline of the generations that each generation is further from Mount Sinai, and so there’s a consistent moral decline in the generations, which is the opposite of the modern liberal progressive approach of a belief in progress and that we’re steadily becoming more rational, more enlightened and more moral. So would you say more with the decline of the generations hypothesis or with the progressive hypothesis?
Speaker 1: III
Speaker 2: take a multifaceted approach that some things are declining, mostly spiritual connection to God, as where other things like technology and even systems of government, , some philosophical ideas are increasing. So it’s not, , all all 1 or the other. But in terms of closeness to God, the you maybe community, other… Those things are definitely declining.
Speaker 0: Okay. I want to… Get back to this great essay by Amanda Alexander. She published this in 20 16 talking about short history of humanitarian law. And so where’s the dogg thing.
So hang on 1 second. Alright. Year 20 16. Okay. Talk on it.
Where are you? Okay. She talked about, shift from human rights and now I’m conflict to international humanitarian law was shown by resolution 2677 took place when the international committee of the Red Cross became involved in Un general assembly discussions. So this is in the 19 fifties in 19 sixties, so the international committee of the Red Cross took took the lead, so that prior to World war 2 It was called the laws of war. And then this has changed to be called international humanitarian law.
And so you had the development of law and custom with regard to treatment of civilians. So we had a broad interpretation of the word humanitarian, former International committee of the Red Cross increased the Am of Red Cross law, the the prestige and the status red cross law to include issues concerning the means and methods of warfare. So Those things had previously been attributed to the laws of war, but had not yet begun to call its new domain international humanitarian law, Right? That change only took place in 19 71. So essentially, until 19 71, we didn’t really have this linguistic.
Term international humanitarian law. But once it came about, people in this area would refer to international humanitarian law, No matter that suggested it was a well established field of long standing principle, So it’s a very common practice in the ancient world. To write a book and then try to pass it off as having been written thousands of years before or even attributed its authors ship to God So it’s a common tactic to claim long historical lineage for whatever it is that you are trying to. And legal comment began to adopt the the term they would start referring to international humanitarian law. His though this eternal category that been around for hundreds of years.
And we had the 19 74 diplomatic conference on the reaffirm reformation development of international humanitarian law applicable in our conflicts. And they’re about 7000 delegates, and they separated into vastly conflicting factions because they had completely different views about what international humanitarian law was and should be. Alright? This is 19 74. So you had the Y war in 19 73.
You had the Vietnam war, winding up, and you had all these d colonization struggles that would shape views and lend them urgency. So the third world, in the eastern block, the communist bloc thought that international humanitarian law should protect guerrilla fighters and obstruct the forces of imperial and you’re still Here, a tremendous amount of anti imperial anti colonial Marxist communist rhetoric, in particularly the the pro Palestine crowd. Today talking about the war Gaza. So the international committee the ray cross the most Western states wanted to recognize Gorillas and provide them with a modi of protection to encourage gorillas to themselves follow the laws of war. Obviously, Hamas on October 7 did not observe the Bo war, but they still wanted to maintain a clear distinction between combat and civilian.
So some states argue that the principle of discrimination should prohibit the use of certain modern weapons, Others insisted it could not do so. Many delegation from the third world and the eastern communist block, the considered that international humanitarian law should not contain a principle of proportional. So the the predominant understanding of the principle of proportional with regard to international humanitarian boy is that there should not be a disproportionate amount of civilian losses compared to your military objective. And so this principle is often used to condemn Israel with regard to its operation in Gaza, then other people say, well, the law of proportional is not about the number of civilian deaths. It’s about the severity of the attack that you’re responding to.
So Ham hamas launched a mass attack, and then it is proportionate to adapt your response to the mass attack to the objective of defending yourself to that Hamas attack. So delegates from the eastern bloc in the third world said there should be no principle of proportional because it give military and commanders an unlimited right to decide to launch an attack if they think there will be in a military advantage in response Australia, United Kingdom Us. Give said the principle proportional should be retained. States were not going to abandon bombardment, or the law could be hope to do was to govern, So anything… Oh, do it stepped away, but when it comes back, we’ll ask him if anything stimulated his thinking here.
So eventually, the delegates managed to resolve or overlook their differences by using incredibly vague, ambiguous. Language in the final draft of this 19 74 unruly diplomatic conference on the re reaffirm reformation and development of international humanitarian or applicable in conflicts. I do that anything you’ve heard in the last 5 minutes or anything you’ve thought in last 5 minutes you wanna share?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I’m I’ve thought and discussed a lot about this from probably 2 different angles that you usually don’t. Refer to them that would be philosophy of mind, , how, like, a rules based order, group strategy, how individual minds combined together for a group strategy, and then the theo of having a universal human a rules based order that applies to all people, and, , think… And then, also, did you see my debate on modern day debate against that Muslim skeptic?
Speaker 0: Not that I recall. No. Okay,
Speaker 2: if I laid out in the introduction trying to give, like, a broad view of how Judaism means different things to different. People, and I say that, you, you have an orthodox believers perspective, but most jews don’t actually believe in the religion. But what is kind of the heart that Jews believe in. And, yeah, I called it , F Demi, F of Alexander who debated, c, but, , referred to as the Jews is, like the dam urge, which is a disputed term and the way he uses it, but, , for his sake is, the force driving progress forward. And I think that most jews even non believer a secular, you look at judaism as a force, driving the world forward in a positive direction.
And, , if you take that messi that would eventually be a utopian messi era with a 1 rule order. And so if you compare you’ll, this international law rules based order where there’d be 1 rules based to judge all of humanity, and you compare that to, you, maybe, , now would be looked upon more poorly, president Bush Senior new world order. Which was essentially also a 1 rolled order that all of humanity would live on live under, and all these come post world war 2. When there might have been f philosophers, but those would have been Utopian, and, , there was no even conceivable thought pattern before world war 2 that there would be 1 way that would win over the whole world. So it was naturally assumed that you would have different groups, different empires that would have different systems.
And then eventually, they would come into conflict and there would be, battles, But, like, that 1 would eventually conquer the whole world and live under it. And I also have allotted of debates with, Nor types, although not Nor himself, but, like Adam Green, some secular, some pagans who will call himself anti Abraham. And they blame Jews for Islam and and. They don’t want any of this Abraham stuff. And, , what, they would say this in nefarious concept of Abraham is, is that the 1 guy chose 1 person gave them the rules that we all have to live under.
But, , put, like, this essential concept of a 1 rolled order. , so theological, could argue that all 1 world orders are essentially Abrahamic in character. So even, , most of what you’re talking about is push by secular academics, atheist leaning people, but it’s still like, , how could you have a 1 rolled order that all people And if you look at human nature, it’s gonna be natural, that different people are kinda come up with different ways, and they’re gonna wanna them to live under their way. Now not the other way, and eventually, it’s gonna come out to group conflict that ends up on the battlefield. And so, yeah.
I’m not sure if you would… Think about, , international along those terms, you mentioned a little bit when you were talking with Matt in terms of, like, you, a type of colonialism. Of, like, a liberal order, human rights for about. But there’s rules to the world, and and and, , it’s our duty as humanity to enforce these rules you’re globally, which you you could argue is a form of Abraham is a messi,
Speaker 0: Okay. I wanna read moore here from Amanda, Alexander and her 20 15 essay short history of humanitarian law. She’s talking about this 19 74 diplomatic conference on the reaffirm reformation development of international humanitarian law applicable vietnam I’m complex as not we conflict. Un conference because you had 700 delegates from the third world from the Communist world and from the west and from the east. And so the delegates managed to resolve or to overlook their differences by using vague ambiguous language in their final draft.
So the definition of gorillas was resolved by prescribing that combat must identify themselves from the time of deployment. Which was word chosen because there was no agreement about what it meant. Our concerns about proportional were by removing the word proportionate from the relevant articles, The provisions on ind attacks remained imp emphasized. Concerns regarding the effects of the additional protocol 2 from the geneva conventions after world war 2 on state sovereignty were resolved by removing half of its provisions in the last minute, so the delegates the Diplomatic conference we’re were able to complete the additional protocol 1, dealing with external arm conflicts and parts of the additional protocol 2 dealing with internal armed conflicts. And civilians were defined for the first time in article 50 and given a raft of unprecedented protection.
So had the new cod qualification of the principles of proportional and discrimination. And protocol 1 demanded that precautions be taken to protect civilians, banned rep proposals against civilians and civilian objects and prohibited, the starvation of civilians, which had previously been allowed under the laws of war and so Article, protocol 2 introduce innovative if limited protection to civilians during internal complex. And so these developments shifted the existing balance of military necessity and humanity in the law of our conflict towards a humanitarian direction. So previous to this, it was understood that military necessity would triumph over civilian needs. Now the protocols place primary emphasis on humanitarian demands and demand that militaries subordinate their actions to meet these humanitarian demands.
So it’s a complete departure from customary law, which in general has put military necessity on the same footing if not exceeding humanitarian demands, Now the Australian government saw this shift is the import invitation of a human rights approach to the laws of war. And that started off a whole brand new field of international law court international, humanitarian law. Now, many states refused to sign or having signed did not rat additional protocols, so this list includes India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq Israel, Malaysia, Morocco, Pakistan, and the Philippine Singapore, Sri lanka, Su sudan and Thailand, United States and the Soviet Union, president Ronald Reagan announced 19 87 Us would not rat additional protocol 1, describing it as fundamentally in irr flawed. Other states only ratified the the treaties much later. So what happens when you have a conflict a war between states that have not signed on to a treaty.
Do with anything I’ve been saying the last 5 minutes that you wanna comment on?
Speaker 2: Yeah. My perspective so much different. Although I could understand it because , theological in nature and you think we’ll… Mean, you’re mentioning no 1 looked at it this way until recently, but this is intrinsically an atheist way of, Looking at it because historically, people looked at it as there was some sort of guide spiritual forces that stepped in to balance things out. And, , when I spoke to Muslim Skeptic or, you, like, some crazy attitude, like, God will choose the sides of the Palestinians if the Palestinians are more just, and I’d even mentioned after October seventh, that I thought that October seventh attack was almost miraculously like God did a miracle for hamas.
That there wasn’t, , the same way that a lot of people think Israel winning the 6 day war or the, , battle of 48 that that was clear sign of God’s miraculous behavior, then from that attitude, like, a October seventh was clear sign that God favored Hamas and even did miracles for them. But, , if you’re looking, well, and and we were talking the other day, like, , Samantha Dew woman I met, , like, June tenth today, and I think, , my… African American roommate who used to kind of like, why are you so worried? You nothing’s gonna happen. And, like, that guy was doing relatively illegal stuff, And a lot of people might say messed up stuff, like, , because sexually perm, , even aggressively sexually perm, regularly violent, a drug dealer, and, , so he might, , not just, like, why are you so nervous, , but but, like, in terms of, like, you’re doing a legal behavior, even in that sense, and it could lead from atheist thinking, and and the same way, like Orthodox j, the first time you’re saying, like, know, how you some nervous.
Like, dude, you could use social media on sabbath. You could eat a non kosher your food, nothing’s gonna happen. To the level where it becomes, , criminal. Like, why are you so nervous? You could commit Genocide.
No. It’s gonna stop you. Who’s gonna stop you like, you could kill you could kill people, like, did God dot come, and so it’s just a power move, like, who’s gonna stop you. So, , from international human law, in a new secular sense that doesn’t have some form of god oriented karma. Like, I may not stop you, but God will stop you because , I believe with for perfect faith that the righteous get reward and the wicked could be get punished to, not necessarily, like, a force, that, like…
Well, if you keep on breaking the rules, we’re going to seek out somebody more powerful that might also break the rules to stop you, to some… Kind of like utilitarian and, like, the good minded people will somehow have a method to stop the bad guys. And so I… I think me and you both see that view as fundamentally flawed in in the sense. I don’t if you had any comment on that maybe be in the porn industry.
Or your personal past where people like, why are you so nervous? What’s gonna happen? You, , like, for for, , certain type attitude And then if you took it to, like, even 1 time things like killing people or torturing or doing horrible things to other humans that that , what would you say with their situation? Because, I’m gonna stop you. Like, you’re not gonna stop me.
You, like, god for forbid. Like, they’d kill you just like they killed that other person, and like, well, the good minded people of the world will stand up to stop you of versus, like some sort of simple religious faith that, like, well, god will punish you, maybe not now, but eventually.
Speaker 0: Right. So for atheist, the concept of a a judging and punishing god is is foreign, but almost all my life, I believed in a judging and punishing God, but I gotta be honest, my behavior has not accord with this belief. So I was able to believe in a judging and punishing god and behave. So, I mean,
Speaker 2: has anyone who’s had expressed that my old black friend would use, like, why you so nervous? What’s gonna happen? Nothing’s gonna happen?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I I’ve I’ve heard that.
Speaker 2: Or did you use that language to women? Like, were you a seduce and you would use that language to women? Like, so, you’ll lose your virgin virginia. So, you’ll have another , notch in your… You another your body a man in your body count.
What’s gonna happen?
Speaker 0: No. I I… I’ve never taken a woman’s virgin virginia except for possibly once. So I… You something never I’ve never used that argument with.
Speaker 2: Was it… I’m in terminology that people in pornography use?
Speaker 1: No. No.
Speaker 0: I’m gonna let you go, but put any comments in the chat and might bring you back a little later. I wanna plow through this particular essay. So any…
Speaker 2: Find that’s for now anyone streaming on my channel, I’m gonna read for, like, 6, 7 hours on American practices system, but, yeah. I appreciate you talking having Mad on and keeping the conversation. So God bless. Happy June tenth.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thanks, David. Good to catch up with you. Okay. I wanna get back to this great essay by Amanda Alexander, and we’ve been talking about the Geneva conventions, and Additional protocol 1 and 2.
Right came from 19 77, leading to the protection of victims of international arm conflicts that’s additional protocol 1, then protocol 2 was relating to the protection of victims of non international. It’s conflicts. And so prior to world war 2, essentially, they’re highly limited international law protections for civilians. But starting with the 19 seventies, and the the various resolutions that Was just talking about, we had a growing development of international law protections. For civilians include 19 74 diplomatic conference on the reaffirm reformation and development of international humanitarian law in, conflicts, which largely ratified the additional protocols 1 and 2 that I just talked about.
And so You had a shift of amortization of the laws of war. So prior to the 19 seventies, you had distinct laws of war, and yet had dominant male international lawyers who were quite hard headed, and they would draw these laws of war in a… Limited way, with the understanding that militaries would place their objectives number 1, and at best would place protection of civilians number 2. So you had an influential 19 90 article Air war and law by a male military lawyer, William Hay Parks. Now, starting with the late 19 nineties, this area of law becomes increasingly dominated by women.
And so you have a fe, AAA anti colonial Marxist lenin approach that begins to dominate international humanitarian law, human rights and scholarship on genocide. So Air war and law 19 90 article, and it argued that the additional protocol 1 from 19 77 with regard to regulating, conflict between states. It’s description of the principles of discrimination and proportional, completely diver differs from traditional customary law, and the principle of proportional was expressed in such vague tenuous terms as to lack any meaning. So you hear war crime. International war crime, violation of human rights thrown around because a lot of the legal basis for these terms is so big tenuous that you can throw them out in any way possible.
And then this same article court notes that the sections of additional protocol 1 that could not be considered a of customary law we’re often, , not signed onto by many of the most important countries in the world. So Initial protocol 1 did not represent standing law. It developed law in a completely new way. And traditional scholars of the laws of war would describe this protocol as confusing, impractical. Inconsistent with the evolution of the Laws of war and detrimental to the protection of civilians.
So there’s a pretty strong divide between the hard headed, longtime experts in the laws of war and the new more formalized international humanitarian law, crowd. Right? Hard headed close of war, understanding that these laws needed to be drawn in in a limited fashion. And then a more formalized, more humane approach that embraced international humanitarian law. And the critique of the hot headed crowd of the more crowd is that their new laws are confusing impractical inconsistent with the evolution of the laws of war and detrimental to the protection of civilians.
The formalized international humanitarian law approach was Potentially, this doesn’t matter It makes us feel good, where your tie were engaged in a utopian venture, and it fills our lives with purpose meaning, prestige. Income and status, and whether or not this makes any difference in the real world is less important than the fields that it gives us. So the protocols dual humanitarian aims are protecting civilians and traditional combat. Were manifested in such impractical ways that they were essentially un unusable and therefore reg progressive. So this is the hard head of critique.
That the weaponized Development of international, humanitarian law blurred the distinction between civilian and combat and thus endangered civilians and it was dangerous. Because it moved the traditional onus for the protection of civilians from the defender who should have control over his own civilians to the attacker who would not, Right this is an important point. Right? Hard head critique of families international humanitarian law that these new developments in international humanitarian law Right? Move the traditional onus for the protection of civilians from the defender, which in the Gaza case would be hamas.
You should have control over their own civilians to the attacker. In this case, Israel who would not. And the hard headed critics lament the gemini international humanitarian law crowd, the reg regrettable effects of these protocols being so humanitarian, that they essentially made military activity impossible, which is not realistic. And it kinda reminds me of significant male, female difference, men love competition, women by and large hate competition because men love competition and spent much of their lives, In competition, they understand there are laws of a competition when women are forced to compete. They will often act as though there aren’t no laws for competition so man will experience it as as women dishing out the low blows.
So, yeah, this new humanitarian marxist, and communist, lan, approach, feminist, approach of international humanitarian law that was utopian as opposed to the hard headed masculine limited approach to the laws of war. So the hard head and critique of the feminist Marxist international humanitarian law is that these proposed alternatives to customary law and practice, pushed by the the Marxist the feminist, the lennon, post fundamental operational and practical problems. They represent an attempt to shift the ballots established between military and assessing humanitarian principles in such ways to hamper the ability of estates to use military forced to obtain political objectives. So this may be lau from a philosophical and Utopian and permanent perspective, but the changes are not practical They’re not politically feasible and they simply won’t make things better in the real world. So you had this distance between the new feminist Marxist innovations of the protocol.
And the accepted rules of war. Feminists versus masculine. Right? The requirements of the military and political reality, meant that these new feminist marxist lenders developments in the protocol would not have any forces as legal document. And American rejection meant that the protocol would not be seen as the next stage in the development of international humanitarian law that these additional feminist Marxist lenders.
Protocols were a pseudo code something that looks like law and feels like law, but does not have any control component. And this critical masculine attitude towards the status and usefulness of the development of these feminist Marxist Lenin, communist protocols continued into the early 19 nineties. So when legal comment assessed, conduct in war. The first question they had to answer was the degree to which the additional protocol was applicable. And they agree that this was a difficult question because neither Us nor Iraq.
Right? With regard to the 19 91 at Gulf War were parties, Right? Us didn’t sign off on protocol 1? Iraq sign off on protocol 1. So what parts of a protocol that neither side signed off on could be considered, customer law So you had widespread opposition to this additional protocol 1 meant to regulate law war between states that was developed in 19 77.
So even comm who are not ideological opposed the content of the protocol. Right? They accepted that these objections prevented it from becoming customary law. Right very few legal comment were prepared to say that this additional protocol of 19 77 did cod customary international law because it really invented. New law that was not practical.
Now there was 1 organization that stood against this hard headed masculine perspective, that’s Middle East watch. Right, which is a branch of human rights watch. And they release a report about the Go forward saying, had all these unnecessary deaths. And this is the first time that human rights watch attempted to write about an international conflict. So it was previously focused on dealing with human rights issues, but it really didn’t say much about the implementation of international humanitarian law.
So you’ve got human rights watch, expressing an interest for the first time in a war and in the laws of war arising from a conflict. But admittedly completely ignorant of this area of law. And so senior official from Middle East watch met with lawyers in the Pentagon to Try to gain an understanding of the law of war. And Middle east watch did not rely much on the advice given to it by Us military, it choose chose instead to argue that despite Us failure to rat this protocol. It was still bound by a protocol that it never signed off on.
So it was still bound to a contract to which it didn’t agree. Which is impractical and utopian. Right? So Middle East Swatch argued this protocol was irrelevant, This many of the protocols provisions reaffirm clarify, otherwise, cod preexisting existing customary law. Restraints on methods means of combat and thus are binding on our nations regardless of ratification.
So it’s making the argument that these innovative new feminist Marxist developments of law. Completely unprecedented are binding because they simply reaffirm and clarify existing law, which is false. It’s say, pulse argument, but it sounds good. So Middle East watch departed from the more complex assessment made by contemporary, usually masculine international lawyers. Right?
Who would accept some parts of international protocol 1 as customary while rejecting others, and particularly it would reject the feminist Marxist lenin communist ideology underpinning it. Now, Middle east watches interpretation had virtually no impact on the legal literature. Right? Nobody who was expert in laws war paid attention to its legal conclusions. Right.
They would note Middle East watch legal analysis, and they would note it’s incorrect to So been faced with this unorthodox reading of law by Middle East watch, lawyers would say it’s nonsense. So instead, they would look to customary principles of proportional. Which they would admit as 1 of the weakest principles of international law. It’s vague it’s subjective, difficult to describe harder to apply, and it was kept vague, because otherwise, it could never have been passed. So what was clear to the hard headed comment?
And many delegates at this diplomatic conference, I think 19 92 was that the proportionate principle was a perm principle that allowed virtually any action if it could be justified by military necessity. Right? Amounted to nothing more than a prohibition on the direct or ne targeting of civilians. And they said the United States campaign in the first Gulf War or against Iraq, 19 91, satisfied this low threshold. And so even the most distressing events such as the destruction of the electricity system in iraq that resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths was legal.
Right? So the conduct of facilities in the gulf Conflict, indicates that the whole concept of excessive casualties is restricted to a very narrow context. So the military advantage always outweighs the civilian casualties as long as civilians are not directly targeted and care is taken assessing the nature of the target during the attack itself. So the impact, for the practice of states such as United States and its coalition partners is on the formation. Of custom is considerable cannot be overlooked.
Inevitable that the concept of proportional as a customary norm is limited to very narrow considerations. So at the beginning of the 19 nineties, the status of the additional protocol 1 was quite uncertain. But then, late 19 nineties, things change. Right? The attention of the international legal community becomes as focused instead on the ethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, you get the newly functional United.
Nation’s security council to respond to these events, authorizing peace operations, Aimed at helping league citizens setting up ad hoc, tri for Rwanda in Yugoslavia and beginning work towards, an international criminal court. My god, Luke is still streaming. A caught nap, and I went for a walk, So suddenly, there is an institutional environment established to enforce international humanitarian law. So international humanitarian law is no longer just a pseudo code, pseudo code. Instead, it becomes seen as a real option for study research and work.
An exciting intangible sued disproportionately pursued by many attractive young women. So the whole literature around international humanitarian law becomes increasingly weaponized and lane by Marxist lenin perspectives. So you have a whole new cohort of academics, entering international law on the late 19 nineties is producing a large body of literature that’s overwhelmingly feminist and Marxist. And it’s completely different from the hard headed, masculine, skeptical, and pessimistic work of the early 19 nineties, which was dominated by masculine military lawyers in a military perspective. So the literature that emerges over the 19 nineties is developed by a large or feminine more mock a group of academics and practitioners who drawn to the field by utopian and humanitarian concerns and simply by feelings.
They want to feel this is though they’re engaged in a wonderful project that will increase their social status, even if it doesn’t do any practical good. So they work now becomes concerned with the victims of war and the crimes committed against them, crimes against humanity. Crimes of sexual violence, crimes of genocide. At the victims of land mines become a high profile issue. So remember when victims of land, land mines is like a dominant issue, I think in the, mid to late 19 nineties?
And, , what are the various nations in Africa that have become trendy to support and then they they become trendy, and then they just completely, , drop away from discussion at least in the various modern orthodox synagogue that I attended. So international lawyers is now newly fe this disproportionately feminist and Marxist. Would start employing a Marxist and humanitarian vocabulary, and they became open to human rights values in a way that they’re masculine military lawyer predecessor were not. So they believed international law could reflect those values. So Newly gemini field becomes much more nurturing and sees a much greater realm for the law and for government intervention.
Just like women tend to want government to be more nurturing and men tend to want government to simply enforce the law and to protect. So there’s there’s a reason that sm and mother are very similar. Right from a male perspective. Now women wanna sm you, right from a female perspective, men are hard headed and un feeling. So you had a much more feminist, marxist and humanitarian vocabulary that came to dominate discussion of international law.
And this new feminist sc believe that international law could reflect these more feminine masculine values. And so these feminist lawyers wrote about creating a kinder or victim focused right more nurturing type of law. These And even lawyers of a theoretical bent, they did not resign themselves to the skeptical d construction that prevailed during the Gulf War. Said they would write from feminist post colonial perspectives and use these critical techniques as a precursor, to discussions about the transformative possibilities of human rights law. They hope or more humanitarian law supported by legal developments in international tri and the successes of the campaign against land mines.
So lawyers We’d acknowledge that France turkey the Us were not part parties to protocol 1 from 19 77, but then they would simply state look. The provisions of the protocol are universally accepted as customary international law, and they are binding on all nations, even those who did not sign up for them. So how did lawyers come to this straightforward conclusion, which was so different to the debates that had taken place a decade earlier. Well, you had a field now that became feminism and communism as opposed to a field that was hard headed and masculine and limited. So if you look at the footnotes for this new field of law You’ll fine with almost no exceptions, references to human rights watch and Amnesty International.
At these new Utopian human rights organizations. That have a much more strongly nurturing feminist and Marxist approach, a utopian approach and people devote themselves to these Utopian pursuits without regard to their effect in the real world, But with great regard for their own feelings. Right? They feel great pursuing the humanitarian Utopian aims of human rights watch and amnesty international. So human rights watch declared that the geneva conventions of 19 49 provide the basis for evaluating Nato bombing in Serbia.
Right? Because this protocol has been ratified by most nato members, and the Us uss has declared that accepts all the relevant standards, so the basic principles of protocol 1, which regulates war between states from 19 77, and the laws of war generally is that the civilian population, an individual civilian enjoy general protection against dangers rising from military operations. Right? This is perspective unknown prior to world war 1, World war 2. But So this turns on the requirements that attackers must distinguish between civilians and combat between military objectives and civilian objects.
So pride to world war 2 is taken for granted that civilians would share the fate of their state. So now attackers must He much more feminist and nurturing. He must take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize harm to civilians. Into this end, they may not attack civilians exclusively or combat and civilians ind. And let’s bring Elliot B back to the show.
Elliot B, What’s going down, bro?
Speaker 3: Blessings. Black can hear me?
Speaker 0: I absolutely loud and clear.
Speaker 3: Okay. Great. Great. Yeah. A long time chat, .
I’m staying home today, Luke.
Speaker 0: You’re not going an out bro?
Speaker 3: It’s a very. I don’t think I’m afraid to go out, but, that’s not neat. . I was gonna dress up as a as an Asian grandmother, and , it’s a stroll through Oakland today just to express. My transgender awareness, , I was gonna see if I could do both holidays at once.
Kinda get check off the l 2 box and June for 1 day. But then I would have thought. Beautiful. But then I thought about how George Floyd suffered. And I just…
Speaker 0: You got a bummer You’re…
Speaker 3: It would be really inappropriate for me to sort of
Speaker 0: Appropriate, culturally appropriate Agent team.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, I wouldn’t wanna scar the memory. , I was so of the memory of.
Speaker 0: A great man.
Speaker 3: A great man.
Speaker 0: Saint George.
Speaker 3: , we should be all at home, , dressing in sack claus and just… Lament
Speaker 0: Why do you think there’s so little cooperation between the great gay pride contingent and the the June thirteenth contingent.
Speaker 3: It’s clearly racism, Luke. What do you think?
Speaker 0: How much and bigger. It makes me so sad, bro. What can we do? Just we individuals do to encourage? More cooperation between Gay pride and Black Pride.
Speaker 3: Well, I can tell you that both communities have my support loop.
Speaker 0: Talk, we’re allies?
Speaker 3: We’re allies? And my support? My support is important too luke. Everything thing?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, emotional support. We’re not exactly sending any money, but no. No. Emotionally.
Speaker 3: But emotionally, we’re just projecting our support and it’s felt. It b them. So look, I another something.
Speaker 0: Yes. So
Speaker 3: this year, last year, So I live near the Va hospital, so which is a, , federal government facility units and kinda quasi military related. And last year, they had a giant, , the new flag, the new Lgbt , multi, multi geometric flag that now they waited. Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So last year, like, they had giants… The main sort of the main entrance of the hospital. They have a giant american flag. And last year, they had the Jan American flag, but also this giant.
Lgbt flag. , it was positioned underneath, but it was still about the same size. , Mh. Which, , , I I’m a bit A I’ve been old fashioned. I found that just to be a little bit been too modern for my taste.
, If they I rubbed me the wrong way.
Speaker 0: It’s sad.
Speaker 3: Sad. Yeah. So this year, They do the same thing, but this time the Lg flag is just much, much smaller. So I I… So which to me seen symbolic of…
Fact that they may be turn tuning this stuff down a bit. What do you think? I think it’s on the way you think Woke is on its way out.
Speaker 0: The Yeah. That there’s been ground resistant. It’s normally… I don’t think it’s it’s definitely not on the way out. Alright.
It will be with us. For for a long time, and it’s still a substantial power in in the world around us, but there is some effective opposition. So we should not despair.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah know. I don’t think it’s gonna disappear but I think it’s going to… , I think it’s gonna rapidly decline in intensity.
And it’s just gonna be, , general marching people rather than this dominant force which they were seemed to want to be. Anyway, So anyway, I I drove to… Yesterday, Drove up to Santa Rosa.
Speaker 0: Oh, beautiful.
Speaker 3: Which about an hour north of here. And it’s just far enough to sort of get into a new media market on the radio. Yeah. And so I… , III, , Love the radios.
I was flipping through the dials. And then I came across sort of your average norm, conservative talk radio presenter. And this wasn’t 1 of the big ones like Levin or savage, or Sean Hannity. This was, like a guy really never heard of Jimmy. Sounded like Jimmy Fallon.
I only heard the name once, but it’s not Jimmy Fallon the 1 that on. Late I called it. Mh. But, I and then I I really got the sense that I was just con… Consuming a product.
? Yeah. That there’s just certain formulas, certain buttons to push in certain ways to push them, , drawn from the day’s headlines. So he’s sort of r on, , Biden wandering and man at public functions and things.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And, , he had a set of jokes. And jokes were all sort of predictable if you read any Twitter, But I… It was the first time I really had got the sense that they were just applying an algorithm. , a Yes. And it just it rang a little bit hollow for me.
You So anyway, I thought that was amazing.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So it it’s it’s… When when y’all the product, it it doesn’t feel good, man,
Speaker 3: So anyway, my health is back for the most part. Still have a time.
Speaker 0: Thank god. But.
Speaker 3: 1 thing I noticed is I’ve lost a lot weight. I was sick for about a month. Mh is ridiculous. And , my appetite went down, and it sort of, I got sort of maybe 10:15 pound I lost just by being sick. So, , was a silver lining, So Gonna try and hold on to that.
Do you you lose a lot of weight when he gets it?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Often, I’ll I’ll lose 10 pounds.
Speaker 3: Yeah. That’s what it feels like. So… Alright. So this was a revolution to me.
This, the human rights, regime and it’s Marxist origins.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Now. Have you long long? How long have n this?
Speaker 0: It it was brought with much greater clarity once I discovered Amanda, Alexander. So someone donated 50 dollars to me about 9 days ago, and they put in a note with the donation checkout, Amanda Alexander at Australian Catholic University. And so I saw reading her work, and she’s she’s very, you, tough minded with the regard to these matters. Just just so many insights. I was just blown away by by her work.
And it and it built upon some things that I understood more more vaguely. So we we resonate with things that, , vibrate us at a level that that’s consistent with our a prior world view. So…
Speaker 3: Yeah. So and it just reminds me, it’s sort of the classic that’s Marks this sort of martin and bailey technique. Yes. , what you’re against woman human rights?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: For the he the marxism, and but it’s it’s closed in all of this human rights talk, which is more or less. Una unacceptable, at face value. I mean, who’s not again, who’s against team and rights. Right? But I had never known that human rights are just relatively a recent phenomenon in it his Yes.
And then I don’t know. So very, very keen. Very… I learned something, luke. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Oh, awesome.
Speaker 3: New insights to think about. And then part 2 is sort of the N tie where, , you’d always hear to people talking about N trials and how these were. Just the pure dis… Of justice. Yes.
. And it was just pure good, pure evil in this… And and then you… And as you unpack it yesterday, and you talked about all of these laws that they had to make up Yes. War war what was
Speaker 1: it against east.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Aggressive war. Aggressive war was the the main crimes at Germany. A charged with, and there was no preceding laws against aggressive war.
Speaker 3: Right. But the crimes and themselves were crimes against peace or crimes against.
Speaker 0: Yeah. The crimes against peace and crimes against entity for which there were no such laws at the time that these violations took place. They had to invent new laws to prosecute the Nazis at N, because under existing international law and the laws of war, you could not have successfully prosecuted the Nazis. So once you get to invent the laws that then people after the fact become get guilty of. It’s it’s not exactly impressive.
Speaker 3: Right. Right. Right. And it was just… I’ve anything how easily that washed over me as if , I’ve heard those terms before, ?
And it was… Just to hear that these were just sort of effectively made up crimes to suit the liberal… Ethos Yeah.
Speaker 0: The the Marxist… The lenin ethos that the main thing that Germany was doing was imperial and colonialism. And and this largely came from Lenin and he was accepted by the leading western intellectual of the day as being substantially true.
Speaker 3: Right. And, , it is important to remember that, , they… We were allies with Soviet Union during world war 2. Right? We were part they were part of the allies.
And so… And I just sort of magically… Thought that Well, we just somehow insulated ourselves against all the communists so. But it did sort of see in the back door as it were. Thought
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, if you’ve seen the new film Oppenheimer, right? Among people with astronomical Iq, Right. A disproportionate number of them were marxist leaning or Marxist sympathetic.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And when I was growing up, there was always talk about Mark subversion. Subversion among sort of, like, the old timer conservatives of the top of the day. And these people were basically viewed as paranoid cranks. But they they were right.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Like… And and, paranoid sort of the mark. The Marxist ass version of Hollywood, the the Marxist involvement in High Hollywood the Hayes code? You remember the Haze code?
Speaker 0: Yes. So that was a censorship. The voluntary census ship code taken on… By Hollywood to for stricter government measures.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, they’re trying to clean up Hollywood. Right? Make it more
Speaker 0: Gentile in imposition on Jewish Hollywood. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Make it play in Pe. And make exactly nice. So… So it’s interesting. , it’s very it’s thing I’m just molding.
Just… I’m just trying to talk with you right now and just maul these ideas out sort of
Speaker 0: But is it more interesting than talking about Jay Biden being a Senior old man.
Speaker 3: It has a touch more interesting to say.
Speaker 0: Just a touch.
Speaker 3: No. I have to say, , maybe this biden to being seen now stuff is over played, but He makes an easy man. He justin tubes himself 80 acres worse. Yeah. Whatever.
I don’t know that. I remember when Reagan was president, and, , for… Reagan would sometimes flip fl a sentence here or there, , and all the media would just just be be lit fire with Mock, ? And it’s just amazing how the is flipped.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Whenever a Republican is elected president, suddenly, homelessness becomes a critical issue.
Speaker 3: Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And and, like, exactly. And if you look…
, you try to talk to people about this, like, , Biden king. During pain. Your people are living in a freeway ways up here. You see it everywhere. Home homes is this this ubiquitous its presence And soon as Biden elected, everyone’s telling telling you how great the economy is, but still, homelessness just…
Is the same if not have having having gotten worse. And, yeah, you try to talk about it now and people just not interested talk more but happened. It’s a hero system. That’s the other tie in. Right?
It’s like, it’s not that they’re dishonest. It’s just… They’re just expressing… The norms of working to give their system.
Speaker 0: Yeah. They too have a partisan subjective hero system just as much as an evangelical Christian. Only they think they’ve transcend. Hero our systems.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So how’s our boy running Goldman doing?
Speaker 0: Oh, not sure. I mean, he he’s he has such great ideas, but not the most fantastic public speaker.
Speaker 3: Yeah. It’s a little halting thing. Yeah. For…
Speaker 0: And most writers are. Like most writers are really poor public speakers.
Speaker 3: Well, it’s that academic writing that makes you feel like you have to cover your bases with each and every sentence. And it it sort of gets gets in the way of direct communication because you don’t want to be… You don’t want your syntax to be picked apart because you where just a delivered at As. And like just… I think a lot of academic people get s and speaking.
Speaker 0: So I subscribe to
Speaker 1: a
Speaker 0: new service, pod notes, and I think I spent 34 dollars a month. And for that, I get 1200 minutes a month of transcription and summary services. So now after my better shows, I post a transcript of the show and in a summary of the show. So before I posted a recent transcript of a show, I put the transcript into a word document and simply removed the term, , and it removed 369 example 369. Uses of the time from my transcript from a recent show.
Speaker 3: Yeah. What if you done it with a Dentist dale dinner interview.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Do remember. Yeah. He he really lean on that, . A bit. I try I try I try to I try to eliminate those types of
Speaker 0: repetitive. Yeah. Repeated words. Very hard.
Speaker 3: Very hard. Because it’s you, , I did it again, see say it’s but it’s waning time. It’s by it gives you buys you a little time to get your sentence completely formulated. So… Now anyway not much.
Speaker 0: Wait. I got something for you. So I find after any serious onus that I go through a long period of nihilism. I come out of the illness feeling depressed for a while And out of that, there usually is some kind of internal reorganization that I I go through where I rethink my efforts. And I change direction in some ways.
So any internal reorganization and rethinking of your efforts that and change of priorities in life that has occurred for you or that you are cognizant of after this later illness.
Speaker 3: Yeah A lot. A lot. And there a lot of hard to articulate, but… Yes. Yes.
It’s… I’ve , there’s there’s a lot of things they’ve been online to do list that I’ve now surfaced and made priorities. 1 was as simple as, there was a hole in my kitchen wall that I’ve been wanting to fix for years. I just finally did it because I couldn’t bear looking at it anymore. So I…
I’m just taking more initiative around things that I’ve been putting off. So that’s… 1 general thing, eating better, and just working on… I have certain career goals that At and I’m really trying to make happen. So I’m cutting off a lot of fluff from my life, and being more targeted, more purposeful.
Yeah. Anyway, that’s the only things I can really describe it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And there probably some other things. They just… Don’t come to mind right now they’re they’re difficult to articulate because you’re still in in the middle of things. We we understand our lives when we look backwards even though we live our lives forward, But we we can only understand what’s going on with us when we look look backwards.
But 1 other development in my streaming is that about 6 weeks ago, I I subscribed an Ai program to cut some of my shows into shorts, and I wasn’t very good at it initially, but as times got, gone past. I become better and better at it, but I I just realized that much of the product that I was feeding was not cut very well So the last 2 days, I probably spent 10 hours going through shorts that I’ve un unknowingly uploaded to Youtube that have pauses in them that are way too long. So I’m going through my shorts and cutting out , 1 second pause here, a 1.3 second pause there. Very tedious work, but it’s just kinda cleaning up some of the, the mess from my earlier uploads. The other big mistake I did is that I I programmed these uploads, for weeks in advance on on all 4 of my Youtube channels.
And and then I realized that when you… When I use this Ai program to upload short, that it automatically sends notifications to my subscribers who get ticked off if they’re not subscribing to my my channel for shorts. And so I have to manually upload these shorts now and then on a clicker a box that so I don’t send notifications to my subscribers. Unfortunately, I still got, , weeks of shorts still flooding in. And because I I did this initially when I wasn’t very good.
, many of these shorts have… Unbearable, , 3 second, 5 second, 10 second pauses in there that caused me to to need to go back and do this very tedious editing.
Speaker 3: So the 8, you don’t have… There’s that program, the transcribing program that won’t… Is there a way to sort of auto condense? Squeeze out.
Speaker 0: Well, there is in the the the Ai shorts program. And either, I didn’t do the program right, but somehow Many shorts have been published that have gaps in it. So normally, I can click clean, and it removes pauses and it removes, filler words, but not . It removes r’s and arms. So normally, I can just click clean and remove that stuff, but either I didn’t do it correctly or there was some problem, but it’s kind of embarrassing to see the shot of many of the shorts that I uploaded.
And then the enormous tedious amounts of work that it it takes to to remove these unnecessary pauses.
Speaker 3: Well, This is a times. There’s a the times we live in, ? Yes. Yeah So, I just had something say, oh, you… So have you…
How much effort have you put in into monetizing your stuff?
Speaker 0: Actually none.
Speaker 3: Yeah because
Speaker 0: it’s just not worth it because as soon as I start monetizing it successfully, it just gets shut down.
Speaker 3: But even… I mean, Can understand Youtube might do that. But I think I think there aren’t there a slew of other sort of monetizing… Patreon like things that you could.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. I haven’t put much effort into it because I I… My content doesn’t exactly go viral. And so I I think I have to admit that bit of truth that there’s only a quite small audience for my content if I don’t want to go Tim pool tier.
Speaker 3: So it’s not that your audience is small. It’s just that it’s very selective. Yes. It’s complete. Spinal tap.
Did you see spinal him?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: So you remember that line? Yeah. They’re at the puppet share. And, , he says some people say that your popularity is declined. Your your audience is smaller.
Well it’s noted that our audience is smaller. It’s just more selective. Anyway, I’m working today, actually. I’m not celebrating June teeth, so I have to actually. Did a you.
Speaker 0: Okay, Bro. Good to talk Tomorrow.
Speaker 3: Alright. You too.
Speaker 0: Take care, man. Bye bye.