Episode 139 — Free Speech, Independent Journalism, & the State of Trump’s America w/J. Arthur Bloom

[0:00:00] Hello and welcome to The Backlash. I'm your host tonight, David J. Reilly. Thank you so much for joining us. [0:00:08] Before we get started, please make sure that you smash the like button, that you're following this channel, that you're following all of our channels. [0:00:14] We're over on x at Real Backlash. You can, of course, find all of our podcast episodes at thebacklash.net. [0:00:22] Although I am running a little bit of a backlog, my apologies. My internet speeds have been slow. Thank you, Elon. [0:00:27] so we'll be getting all of those up for you [0:00:30] of course if you want to help support the show [0:00:32] and the work that we're doing here you can hit us up [0:00:34] on subscribestar.com slash [0:00:36] the backlash patreon.com slash [0:00:38] the backlash during the show today [0:00:40] you can always send a super chat [0:00:42] or a rumble rant or whatever [0:00:44] on YouTube we've got you know [0:00:46] power chat and entropy that we're also using [0:00:48] on our website at the backlash.net slash [0:00:50] super chat all of our platforms [0:00:52] of course are listed on our [0:00:54] website rumble [0:00:55] YouTube, Apple Podcasts, all of the above. Thank you again so much for joining us. There's a lot [0:01:01] to go over. You know, we've been kind of meandering through all of this. I mean, [0:01:05] like the Iran war broke out and it's just been constant Iran war for like the past 60 days. And [0:01:10] so I've kind of been diversifying by talking to different people, getting some different opinions [0:01:15] on what's going on. And we've got a great guest for you tonight, Arthur Bloom, who's going to be [0:01:18] giving us the rundown on free speech, what's been going on at the federal government. Of course, [0:01:22] He lives much closer to D.C., so he's got, I think, a better key in on what's going on in the federal government. [0:01:30] But before we do that, we have to thank our sponsors that help make this podcast possible. [0:01:37] odggsupply.com. [0:01:39] They are your premier dealer here in the Pacific Northwest for military surplus equipment. [0:01:45] If you want a T-shirt that says Only Traders Help Invaders, those are now live. [0:01:49] You can get them for $35 on their website. [0:01:51] You can also get rucksacks and all kinds of emergency preparedness materials at odggsupply.com. [0:01:58] Our friends at Above Time Coffee Roasters at abovetimecoffee.com. [0:02:02] Small batch, premium, hand-roasted, pro-white coffee. [0:02:05] Use promo code BACKLASH10, you'll get 10% off. [0:02:08] Same goes for our friends at Antelope Hill Publishing. [0:02:10] They're fighting to keep history alive amidst a regime of anti-white censorship. [0:02:14] You can visit antelopehillpublishing.com and get loaded up on all kinds of crazy historical books. [0:02:19] North Idaho Tallow Company that makes soap and skincare products without endocrine disruptors [0:02:24] at IdahoTallow.com. And of course, if you are worried about your money being worth less and [0:02:31] less as our corrupt government continues to print more and more, our friends at [0:02:34] atlasbullion.com slash backlash can help you stack precious metals the easy way. [0:02:40] And without any further ado, I'd like to introduce our guest for today, Mr. Arthur Bloom. [0:02:47] I've got I had Grok do a workup on you for a little bio. So let's see what we have here. [0:02:54] You served as the managing editor of Front Porch Republic. He was opinion editor and deputy editor at The Daily Caller. [0:03:00] Associate and online editor at the American Conservative Managing Editor of Modern Age at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and a columnist for the Catholic Herald. [0:03:09] You also founded a group blog called the Mitreleus. [0:03:14] I'm not good at that. [0:03:16] You're going to have to correct me there. [0:03:17] That's pretty good. [0:03:18] You were a founding editor of the Jacobite magazine. [0:03:21] Your writing has also appeared in places like the Washington Post, The Guardian, Quillette, [0:03:24] The Spectator, Unheard Newsweek, and many others. [0:03:28] Mr. Arthur Bloom, it is my pleasure to have you on The Backlash today. [0:03:32] Glad to be here. [0:03:33] Awesome. [0:03:34] Well, yeah, so there's been a lot going on in Washington, D.C. [0:03:39] You're a lot closer to that. [0:03:40] There's been a lot of lawfare recently, some of which has involved you, you know. [0:03:45] And so I remember seeing this clip of you arguing with Tim Pool back and forth about a year ago, [0:03:53] maybe a year and a half ago, going back and forth about a guy named Yakov Applebaum. [0:03:57] And I think something has happened. [0:04:00] You two got into it in court. [0:04:02] You want to give us a little update on this? [0:04:03] I think, by the way, if you're not already following Arthur Bloom, you're missing out. [0:04:07] He's over on X at J underscore Arthur underscore Bloom. [0:04:12] And of course he has the Arthuriana sub stack at Arthuriana dot sub stack dot com. [0:04:18] The links to both of those are in the show notes below. [0:04:21] But yeah, give us give us a brief update, a little bit of background and what's been going on. [0:04:26] Yeah, sure. I'll kind of just let's start with a wide lens and then we'll go to a go to a thinner lens. [0:04:35] I kind of came to the conclusion a couple of years ago that we were heading for some sort of crisis in the U.S.-Israel relationship [0:04:44] and that some sort of adjustment or a reset or kind of reformist view was going to be necessary. [0:04:53] And I can show the evidence of this on my blog. [0:04:58] I said, you know, nine months before 10-7, I said, I think something's going to pop off. [0:05:04] and it's going to be necessary actually to restrain the Israeli government [0:05:09] or we're going to get dragged into a war. [0:05:12] And I've been writing about that for a while. [0:05:14] And it was clear to me, you know, in order to be vindicated, [0:05:18] in order to kind of make a risky prediction, cover it all the way through, [0:05:25] one, I would need to do it on my own, [0:05:29] and two, I would probably incur some sort of cost for it. [0:05:34] as in people would probably come after me. [0:05:37] And that's pretty much been borne out. [0:05:42] I said nine months before 10-7 [0:05:46] that it's going to be necessary for the United States government [0:05:48] to rein in Israel. [0:05:52] And I think in and of itself, [0:05:54] that's a very moderate point of view. [0:05:57] And it's the absolute minimum, [0:06:01] which I think is being demanded by the public right now. [0:06:06] And it's still a little bit unclear. [0:06:09] I mean, there are some indications that Trump is at least thinking about that maybe becoming necessary. [0:06:16] But the actual mechanics when it comes to taking an unqualified and unlimited indulgence of the Israeli government [0:06:27] to something that I would argue is just more normal. [0:06:30] You know, the point of view I've been trying to kind of articulate, though, you know, I guess I could be criticized for doing a bad job of it, but is that we need to just make it a normal relationship between two different countries. [0:06:44] and and so going from a you know relationship of unlimited indulgence to a normal one is going to [0:06:52] be a complex process people will go to prison it will involve the um the kind of reconfiguration [0:07:00] of tech companies and security architecture and that's what i've been writing about for the last [0:07:07] couple of years. And so the lawsuit in federal court, which I lost at trial last Monday, [0:07:15] is the second lawsuit that I've been involved in in the last couple of years. [0:07:20] The first one is not about Israel, except to the extent that the plaintiff was a victim of what he [0:07:31] claimed was a hate crime and i covered it and he sued me the the first fellow who sued me [0:07:37] in arlington circuit court um he was a uh an interesting character um he uh this is kind of [0:07:46] good color for your listeners he he was a a dealer of artifacts related to the history of organized [0:07:53] crime and serial killers and uh and so the most famously the the artifact he owned [0:08:00] was the Ted Bundy Volkswagen. [0:08:03] So in the course of the suit, [0:08:05] or just before he sold it. [0:08:08] And so he owned the Bundy Bug. [0:08:10] More famously, [0:08:11] he was written about in the New York Times [0:08:14] for owning the Albert Anastasia [0:08:17] Murder, Inc. barber's chair. [0:08:21] And so in his New York Times profile, [0:08:23] you can see him standing [0:08:25] next to the Anastasia barber's chair. [0:08:28] This is a famous New York mobster who was whacked while he was getting a shave or a haircut, one or the other. [0:08:35] Who is the name of this defendant, by the way? [0:08:37] I'll pull him up on the screen. [0:08:39] The plaintiff in that case, oh, the defendant in the criminal case, that was a guy named Thomas Sessions. [0:08:48] And basically what happened was this guy went over and slugged Rosenblatt in the face. [0:08:55] And I think that's a very bad thing to do. [0:08:57] I think a man should not just be safe in his own home, but also safe on his porch. [0:09:02] And you shouldn't go around punching people on their front porches. [0:09:06] Is this the guy? [0:09:07] But this was made out to be a 25 to life hate crime attempted murder. [0:09:16] And it was pretty clear looking at the facts of the case that it was really much more of like a personal thing. [0:09:21] that this guy Rosenblatt had a history of drawing guns on people at his property. [0:09:30] And one of the people that he drew on or got into some sort of altercation with [0:09:35] was the brother of the assailant. [0:09:40] So, you know, this guy gets into an altercation with the brother. [0:09:44] The other brother goes over and slugs him. [0:09:47] That's a bad thing. [0:09:48] I would not encourage anybody to ever do something like that [0:09:52] at the same time it's not a hate crime [0:09:54] and so I wanted to go and cover this trial [0:09:57] because these kind of ambiguities [0:09:59] he was made out to be a Nazi [0:10:00] and he was definitely a local shithead [0:10:03] and there's a little bit of Graham Plattner [0:10:07] angle to it too [0:10:08] in that he had a swastika tattoo [0:10:13] that he had covered up [0:10:14] and so uh you know again like i don't think it's good to get swastika tattoos i think it's a really [0:10:20] bad thing to do but um but if somebody covers it up that that to me is pretty good evidence that [0:10:27] they no longer wish to be identified as a nazi uh and also this guy had some other i mean he had [0:10:33] like an anarchy tattoo uh the the general reputation as far as i could ascertain from the locals was [0:10:40] that he was just kind of a local shithead he he wasn't involved with any extremist group um [0:10:46] and and he liked to fight he liked to drink but uh the idea that he was kind of politically radical [0:10:53] uh is is dubious anyway um so that that's sort of the grand platner thing i mean we're now having [0:11:00] this argument in a senate race because of the the death's head that that the senate candidate had [0:11:08] on his chest. And the Democratic Party is getting behind a person who did just that, [0:11:16] that who covered up the extremist tattoo. Anyway, so he sued me over basically calling the DA. [0:11:24] I called the DA and I also called the defense attorney. I was, you know, getting a view of the [0:11:31] case. And what I suspect happened, and it's consistent with what the plaintiff against me [0:11:37] accused me of doing is, uh, he accused me of basically scotching the case. Um, cause I called [0:11:45] the DA and, and before, before I even arrived in Binghamton, the DA had offered a plea deal for [0:11:52] five years for assault instead of 25 to life for attempted murder with a hate crime enhancement. [0:11:58] and i would argue that's about right um i i think it's a really bad thing to to show up at somebody's [0:12:08] porch and slug them in the face um and five years is probably appropriate but uh that's an out you [0:12:16] know i i would argue my intervention in the case to the extent that i intervene to the extent that [0:12:21] calling around and asking questions is actually intervening uh led to a good outcome uh not a bad [0:12:28] one. But of course, the victim didn't agree. And so he sued me. He sued me for scotching the case. [0:12:34] And it lasted a whole year and a half here in Arlington Circuit Court. It was eventually [0:12:39] dismissed. And he now owes me about 14 grand. And in the course of trying to collect this judgment, [0:12:47] I spent about five months doing that. And he's not paid me yet. He won't even get in touch. [0:12:54] but uh i had been doing that for about five months when i find out that he's he's shot somebody [0:13:00] himself in daytona beach florida and so he is now on trial for um aggravated assault with a [0:13:08] deadly weapon unless it's been dropped down to a lesser charge this is nash rosenberg and he is [0:13:15] it's expected to go to trial uh it's been delayed a couple of times but but later this month [0:13:20] and so um i i think you know this is a guy with a record of violent incidents um the the victim [0:13:28] of the assault uh anyway so it was this bizarre saga the the uh these are the sorts of stories [0:13:35] that i like writing about um but the the apple bomb case um has more to do with the hunter biden [0:13:43] files. And, uh, and this is, I think the real meat of our discussion today, which is, um, [0:13:50] so in the 2020 election, uh, I got the Hunter Biden files or a copy thereof, um, two days before [0:14:00] the election. And, um, and I did a couple of stories, you know, when you get something like [0:14:06] that, uh, you get this large trove of material and you have to do kind of triage with it, [0:14:12] in 48 hours. [0:14:14] The questions you have to ask are [0:14:17] what are the things that [0:14:19] a voter ought to know [0:14:21] that are relevant, [0:14:26] that are [0:14:27] important to making a decision? [0:14:30] Probably [0:14:31] putting his dick [0:14:33] on the cover of the New York Post [0:14:35] is not really all that germane [0:14:37] to the decision [0:14:39] that a voter might be making. [0:14:42] However, you know, his involvement in Universal Studios Beijing is, or his involvement with the Chinese real estate company certainly is. [0:14:55] Those are the two stories that I did prior to the election. [0:15:00] And you can read those. They're on the American Conservative website. [0:15:03] And then I spent the next couple of months going through it and seeing what else we could do. [0:15:07] and in the course of that [0:15:09] I came across Mr. Applebaum [0:15:12] and [0:15:13] one of the things I was [0:15:16] reporting on was [0:15:18] who he [0:15:19] was procuring his hookers from [0:15:22] yeah that's one of the stories I did [0:15:26] it was who he was [0:15:28] getting his hookers from [0:15:30] and [0:15:30] I asked Applebaum [0:15:34] about it because he had access [0:15:36] or he appeared to have files which I didn't have. [0:15:42] And so we did talk, and that was all just fine. [0:15:48] I mean, we had our conversation. [0:15:50] He gave me a couple of phone numbers, and that was the end of it. [0:15:57] The reason why I felt like I needed to write about this whole piece [0:16:01] several years later in this piece which I've been sued over [0:16:06] is I have come to believe that it's plausible, [0:16:13] and not just plausible, I think it's likely, [0:16:16] that there were actually different versions [0:16:19] of the hard drive going around, [0:16:21] and that the origin story we've been told [0:16:25] is not the most plausible. [0:16:30] Interesting. [0:16:30] And I'll explain that a little bit more. [0:16:32] Um, so there are, there are a couple of origin points where the laptop came from. There's the [0:16:39] theft up in new England. And then there's more famously the computer repair store situation in [0:16:46] Delaware. And, um, and his Hunter Biden's own attorneys, uh, Kevin Morris has said in court [0:16:54] that they, that Giuliani and, uh, I think he said Bannon were, were making mixtapes of the [0:17:02] material that, that in other words, it's been alleged by Hunter Biden's own side in the [0:17:08] litigation that there were different versions going, going around. And, and so I wrote about [0:17:14] this because I can personally corroborate a discrepancy between two different versions of [0:17:21] this stuff. Does that make sense? Yeah. And, um, and so the, uh, I wrote about that discrepancy and, [0:17:29] And that I am relating that discrepancy accurately is not actually what's contested in the lawsuit. [0:17:39] But he sued me basically because I called him an Israeli spy. [0:17:44] And that's still there in the piece. [0:17:47] You can see it. [0:17:49] And he has admitted in the course of discovery that he was an intelligence officer in the IDF for seven years. [0:17:59] And so in a sentence, well, in two sentences, the claim is, I called an IDF intelligence officer an Israeli spy because I hate Jews. [0:18:12] That's the theory of malice. [0:18:14] And the theory is that it's false and it's liably false to make that distinction. [0:18:22] now um when they sent me that cease and desist i said okay i understand you don't like this [0:18:33] uh and and uh that's unfortunate here are someone here's here's where i can meet you halfway [0:18:39] um what i can say is um he's an intelligence officer who a man in the spyware business who [0:18:49] does business with intelligence agencies or something. It was based on the language which was [0:18:53] uncontested in the Arizona Republic. [0:18:58] And so I offered him that, and then I offered [0:19:01] I'll let you say as much as you want about your side [0:19:05] of the story. I'll let you put a statement. [0:19:09] It can be longer than my article. You can say whatever you want about this [0:19:13] whole darn thing. And naturally [0:19:17] he didn't do that. He followed up on my response to a cease and desist by filing suit. [0:19:25] And so when we have a hearing to adjust damages in a couple of weeks, that's one of the things [0:19:35] I'm going to put to the judge, which is that to the extent that these statements have caused him [0:19:40] harm, he could have mitigated that harm at any time by just accepting the offer that I gave to [0:19:51] him before he filed suit. So this is the gist of it. So there are two plaintiffs and there are two [0:19:59] defamatory statements. The plaintiff is Applebaum. It's his facial recognition video content analytics [0:20:06] company. And then there's two statements. The thing of the jury was $200,000 of damages for [0:20:15] each for each part of the block. Yeah, you're you've got the block up there. And so, you know, [0:20:22] I did a post after the trial kind of picking this apart. And if you look at the bottom right corner, [0:20:29] I've been found liable by the jury [0:20:31] for a statement [0:20:34] which doesn't mention that plaintiff. [0:20:37] The statement which has been found [0:20:39] by the jury to be defamatory [0:20:41] is this is an Israeli spy [0:20:44] who's deeply involved in shaping [0:20:45] the Hunter Biden story. [0:20:47] Now, the plaintiff [0:20:49] that I have been found liable to [0:20:53] for that statement [0:20:53] is XR Vision. [0:20:55] Show me where in that statement [0:20:56] it says XR Vision. [0:20:57] It doesn't. [0:20:59] And so my argument is this can only indicate bias on the part of the jury. [0:21:07] And you can kind of take or leave that, but that's what I think. [0:21:13] The other piece of this, so I mean, they've lied in the course of discovery about some of the details of this case. [0:21:22] and I've also raised that with the judge [0:21:27] in the motions that are before him now [0:21:29] but those are issues which will be raised on appeal [0:21:32] should it get to that point [0:21:34] the lies that are material [0:21:39] are what he claimed to mean [0:21:43] so the reason why this company [0:21:47] kind of bears watching [0:21:48] if you follow kind of conservative news [0:21:52] right-wing news very closely, you can see this company XR Vision popping up in a whole lot of [0:21:59] places. You can see it in Gateway Pundit. It had a brief appearance in the Washington Times [0:22:09] that was disputed. And the thing that you look for is it'll show somebody's face [0:22:18] with a green box around it, [0:22:20] and there will be a little eyeball in the corner, [0:22:24] sometimes with a tag that says XR. [0:22:27] So this is, you know, [0:22:30] what this is meant to indicate [0:22:33] is that a facial recognition algorithm [0:22:36] has been run on this. [0:22:37] You know, we spotted this person. [0:22:40] This is who that is. [0:22:42] Yeah, you can see it right there. [0:22:43] The Gateway Pundit. [0:22:45] Well, I don't see the XR Vision logo [0:22:47] on that one in particular. It's just some green boxes. [0:22:49] But [0:22:50] that [0:22:52] this company works with... [0:22:55] It says it right here. [0:22:56] Oh yeah, there you go. There it is. [0:22:59] And Applebaum himself, the principal [0:23:01] who sued me, [0:23:02] has had op-eds [0:23:05] in Gateway Pundit, one of which [0:23:07] President Trump actually shared. [0:23:10] And [0:23:11] the one that President Trump shared [0:23:13] was Applebaum actually threatening federal judges. [0:23:15] Which does [0:23:17] kind of give me pause a little bit [0:23:21] because he's saying, you know, judges can be [0:23:26] guilty of sedition and treason for various reasons. [0:23:30] And, you know, okay, is there sort of a, [0:23:33] is there an implicit threat here? [0:23:37] If, you know, if things don't go his way in court, [0:23:40] you know, what's the, is there, [0:23:43] is a message being sent? [0:23:45] Let me put it that way. [0:23:47] But XR Vision is the green box company [0:23:51] That's how it will be known [0:23:53] To most conservative readers [0:23:56] And when you look at it closely [0:24:01] And you look at some of the deeper reporting [0:24:04] About this company [0:24:05] You will find that it is often identified [0:24:07] As a Singaporean company [0:24:09] That it was founded in Singapore [0:24:12] That that's where it does some of its business [0:24:16] that however [0:24:19] to my great surprise [0:24:21] was a matter of contestation [0:24:24] in the course of our trial [0:24:26] what they actually claimed [0:24:28] throughout in their initial filing [0:24:31] and throughout the course of discovery [0:24:34] right up until about a week before the trial [0:24:37] that this Singaporean company called XR Vision [0:24:41] and the one whose New York incorporation documents [0:24:45] he wanted to show the court are totally different. [0:24:49] Even though they have the same name, [0:24:51] they have nothing to do with each other. [0:24:53] That's what they tried to tell me [0:24:55] as I was trying to exercise my right to discovery [0:24:58] about this plaintiff. [0:25:01] And the problem is they lied. [0:25:04] All through the course of discovery, they lied. [0:25:08] It turns out a week before the trial [0:25:11] that they admitted that there's a licensing agreement, at least, between the Singaporean [0:25:19] company and the one whose incorporation is in New York. In other words, it's not a coincidence [0:25:25] that these companies with the same name have something to do with it. It's not just a [0:25:30] coincidence that these companies have the same name. They actually do have something to do with [0:25:34] each other. Now, that's exactly the sort of lie that prevents me from doing the discovery I'm [0:25:42] entitled to. And so a day or two before the trial, I said, like, look, because initially you saw the [0:25:51] box with the two defamatory statements. There was a third that was added. Because when you read [0:25:58] about the Singaporean company. One name that is often associated with it is Rajat Kare. [0:26:06] Rajat Kare is a notorious Indian hacker who is one of the most prodigious practitioners of law [0:26:16] fair against journalists in the entire world. He's a very, very bad guy who runs a tech firm now [0:26:25] in Luxembourg. [0:26:28] That's where his website says it is anyway. [0:26:33] And if you look at Mr. Kare's website, [0:26:37] it shows, he claims, for heaven's sake, [0:26:41] that he's an investor in XR Vision. [0:26:44] And so it raises some questions [0:26:47] that here's this guy who's got the Hunter Biden files [0:26:52] who at least has a licensing agreement with this company [0:26:59] that a notorious Indian hacker is involved in. [0:27:02] That certainly raises some questions, doesn't it? [0:27:06] And so after this lie throughout the course of all the discovery, [0:27:15] I said the day before the trial, like, look, buddy, [0:27:19] now that you've admitted that there's a licensing agreement, [0:27:22] If you're going to try to find me liable for defaming you, for associating you with this Indian hacker, why don't you tell me when you terminated the licensing agreement? [0:27:32] Why don't you show me? [0:27:34] And guess what they did? [0:27:36] The morning of the trial, half an hour before it started, half an hour before jury selection, they dropped that third statement. [0:27:45] They ceased to contest it. [0:27:46] In other words, the association that I wrote between that I printed, which they initially wanted to find defamatory, that I claimed there was an association between his Long Island company and this one in Singapore that has the involvement of a notorious Indian criminal hacker. [0:28:09] They wanted to claim in court that I should be liable for defamation for associating those two, and they dropped it. [0:28:16] the morning of the trial. [0:28:18] Wow. [0:28:19] That raises some questions. [0:28:22] And that's the main thing that I've raised with the judge in my motions to vacate. [0:28:30] I think, you know, there's a very clear, you know, it isn't my obligation. [0:28:35] They have to, the way that this is supposed to work, they have to prove falsity. [0:28:40] I don't have to prove truth. [0:28:41] The way 19th century British libel law worked, there's a famous libel trial. You'll appreciate this as a Catholic guy. The libel trial of St. John Henry Newman. [0:28:55] there was a um this is uh um one you can read about there was a it was a dominican i guess [0:29:03] who had left the church in a cloud of scandal and he sued john henry newman for for saying [0:29:09] that this was a for basically writing about the scandal and john henry newman basically had to [0:29:15] prosecute this former dominican and and prove the charges as if he were the actual criminal [0:29:19] prosecutor because that was that was the standard of libel law in in the uk at the time fortunately [0:29:25] thanks to the first amendment we don't have to do that in the united states but uh the they have to [0:29:31] prove false um anyway so so um all i have to you know i think the more effective argument from the [0:29:40] standpoint of like uh putting it to the judge or appeal it's that my discovery rights were violated [0:29:45] If the thing that I was found liable for was saying this guy's a spy, but he is actually associated via a licensing agreement with a notorious Indian criminal hacker, that certainly supports the characterization that he's a spy. [0:30:05] He's a hop, skip and a jump from a guy who's doing criminal spy stuff. [0:30:10] and uh and so um i have made the case now to the judge that because that that this discovery [0:30:20] violation on their part violates my rights uh so we'll see that's kind of where things are at right [0:30:26] now uh that's uh i i think we've done most of the case that was a that was a good half hour long [0:30:32] spiel how'd i do no good good i mean it's you know and i've got to make all these you know [0:30:37] statements that like if Arthur said anything that is not true, I'm like not co-signing that. I'm not [0:30:44] liable. You know, I don't know anything about these cases. I'm just like, you know, interested. [0:30:50] I think it's interesting. So Yakov, please don't sue me. You know, if you want to come on the [0:30:55] podcast and give your side of the story, I don't have any money to defend myself in court. Come on. [0:31:01] But there is this interesting article, too, from AZ Central, who is Yakov Applebaum, the spyware exec who exposed voting machine breach plots. [0:31:11] And it's paywalled, unfortunately. [0:31:13] But I think that there's like a line in there, you know, talking about this. [0:31:16] So you got sued for calling a spyware executive a spy. [0:31:21] And they're trying to get you for $800,000. [0:31:25] I mean, that just seems crazy to me, like an infringement on free speech. [0:31:29] I mean, like, what if it's in your opinion that he's, you know, I don't know. [0:31:34] But man. [0:31:35] Well, and the other thing that I've argued is that the way he's conducted himself throughout this suit is is Baratrice. [0:31:43] And Baratrice is actually not not an active tort in Virginia. [0:31:46] It is in some states, but it's not in Virginia. [0:31:49] But the kind of refusing to take my offer to negotiate before suing and then demanding $100,000 in a retraction or we go to trial is not the proper way to solve a case which is very much within the bounds of reasonableness to an average person. [0:32:12] um and uh and so i i it is my sense that the judge has some some kind of appreciation for that [0:32:22] um and and so um uh i'm still optimistic i i mean i think when most people hear the details of this [0:32:34] they're a little shocked they're a little taken aback um but all all this is to say i mean the [0:32:42] the main claim about caray has stood it stands in court. [0:32:46] And in some sense, [0:32:47] that's, [0:32:47] that that's more, [0:32:49] uh, [0:32:49] that's more important from the standpoint of, [0:32:53] uh, [0:32:54] you know, [0:32:54] how these companies are connected. [0:32:56] Um, [0:32:57] the, [0:32:58] it's my contention that the spy characterization is fair and accurate for [0:33:05] about five reasons, [0:33:06] which are in my filings. [0:33:07] And, [0:33:08] uh, [0:33:09] If it was inaccurate at the beginning, it certainly doesn't become less accurate after he's admitted he was an IDF intelligence officer. [0:33:21] Right? [0:33:22] Yeah. [0:33:22] If I didn't know, I made some sort of mistake, something clear came out in Discovery that showed I was wrong, [0:33:34] um i might have been tempted to to settle to say i'm sorry you know you you have a point i i shouldn't [0:33:43] have done that i shouldn't have said that about you um but the opposite happened in discovery [0:33:49] what happened in discovery is he admitted he was an idf intelligence officer [0:33:54] and then he said on the stand something different he said i was a combat reconnaissance officer [0:34:00] and so i asked him to explain on the stand you know what's the difference there you first told me [0:34:05] during discovery you said you were an intelligence officer now you're a combat reconnaissance officer [0:34:09] what's the difference and uh and that uh so that's kind of that's that's very much there in the record [0:34:16] um so i mean those are the the main points of contention in the case the the um the i the i [0:34:25] guess the one thing that maybe we could expound on a little bit is the state of defamation law [0:34:34] and what a lot of conservatives would like to do with it and some of the other kind of [0:34:43] contentions that are out there. The judge has treated this so far as a purely private matter, [0:34:52] though the plaintiffs concede or i shouldn't say concede because it this isn't really the [0:34:59] sort of thing which ought to be controversial uh they they have said that i was a journalist [0:35:06] from the beginning does that require um to apply the malice standard or to to not apply the malice [0:35:16] standard off the bat, even though the plaintiff has conceded you're a journalist doing journalism, [0:35:25] that's an interesting question to raise with an appeals court. [0:35:31] Basically, because the judge has treated it as a private matter, the burden of proof is [0:35:37] lower. [0:35:38] And so the burden of proof for private defamation is probable cause or preponderance of evidence. [0:35:46] The burden of proof for a journalist, for defamation against a journalist is clear and convincing. [0:35:55] And so the argument to make to an appeals court is an unconstitutionally low burden of proof was applied to me in this case. [0:36:04] So that's one of the things which I've already raised with the judge in these post-trial motions and will also raise with an appeals court if it gets there. [0:36:13] I do kind of get the sense that the judge has kind of taken a hands-off approach so far, and he may wish to make himself heard before it goes to an appeals court, you know, to give his view of the case to make an assessment of whether these damages are truly appropriate. [0:36:32] um but the so there's the there's the burden of proof question um i was uh i didn't get [0:36:40] an anti-slap hearing so there's a circuit split right now about anti-slap laws so an appeals court [0:36:48] has uh looked rather dubiously upon california's anti-slap law [0:36:55] and the reason why is that it potentially violates the discovery rights of plaintiffs [0:37:02] that if you can have a quick dismissal there's a procedural mechanism you have a quick anti-slap [0:37:08] hearing before discovery case gets thrown out if it's if it's an anti-slap matter the appeals court [0:37:15] has said that can violate the discovery rights of of the plaintiffs in this instance it's very [0:37:22] very hard to argue the plaintiff's discovery rights were not respected. In fact, he tried to [0:37:30] go way, way beyond what is appropriate for a case like this. He sent out 10 subpoenas, [0:37:39] one of which I successfully quashed, and he withdrew the other nine. I mean, this guy was [0:37:45] really trying to give me a proctology exam. And, um, and so it's very hard to argue his discovery [0:37:54] rights were not respected. And so that's another question, uh, for, you know, if the judge wishes [0:38:02] to weigh in after the trial now, and then also to raise with the appeals court. And then, uh, [0:38:09] And then the other kind of threshold issue is I put it to the judge and he said it's not the right time. [0:38:22] As soon as he admitted under oath, I was an IDF intelligence officer for seven years. [0:38:28] I immediately filed a motion with the trial court judge and said, is it even possible for a statement like this, like mine, to be defamatory in light of an admission like that? [0:38:42] Because to an average reader, spy and intelligence officer are pretty similar. [0:38:48] And the argument that they have is, I'm not an intelligence officer anymore, therefore it's false to call me one now. [0:38:56] Well, when someone retires from a career at the CIA, it's still normal to call them a spy when you're writing about them. Right. Yeah. And and so I would argue that's that's still kind of within bounds. If you're you know, if you're not just a conscript. [0:39:13] I was going to say, you know, even with like Whitney Webb's reporting, you know, her book One Nation Under Blackmail, talking about the Jeffrey Epstein stuff. [0:39:22] There is just case after case after case of people that were involved in things like Israel's Unit 8200 that went into the private sector, that go into private security, private intelligence. [0:39:34] And they've explicitly said, at least, you know, her examples that they viewed their work as a continuation of spying for Israel, which I just I find that interesting. [0:39:46] There was, I think, a couple of people involved with like the Maxwell family that said things like this. [0:39:50] yeah and and uh one of the uh one of the business associates of apple bomb [0:39:58] um guy ron who who was involved in the singaporean xr vision entity uh is also a former software [0:40:07] lead in the idf according to his linkedin interesting and uh and so uh and then also [0:40:14] another thing that apple bomb said in the course of discovery is that he used to work for [0:40:20] Matty Kachavi, who's a very well-known tech and sensors guy who helped with the surveillance [0:40:30] system in Dubai. He was a major vendor for that. And so Kachavi and Applebaum share patent. [0:40:38] uh so so uh and i i did ask applebaum about this on the stand and uh and the argument that he he [0:40:48] made was um you know this was a big company he just has his name on the patent [0:40:56] uh because he's the ceo and but like i don't really even know him that well [0:41:01] that was sort of the that was the argument is really strange and um the uh so i i mean the the [0:41:12] that's not relevant to this case in specific except in so far as um it it seems like an [0:41:20] implausible uh characterization of a co-inventor uh and also um it supports the note you know this [0:41:30] is like sensor technology. And Kachavi is long thought. And Applebaum admitted he was aware of [0:41:40] the allegations that Kachavi was involved with Israeli intelligence. So this pattern of kind of [0:41:47] Israeli spyware and tech people is not really in contestation in the case. [0:41:54] Yeah, that's interesting. Now, I guess to kind of zoom out a little bit here. So it's basically, [0:42:00] it's your contention that Israel had something to do with the Hunter Biden laptop case. [0:42:06] And I think that there's been a lot of talk recently, like I saw a tweet from like Alex Jones [0:42:12] a couple of days ago, maybe within the last 24 hours, talking about how Donald Trump [0:42:18] took a sharp turn towards Israel in the last, you know, year, and that that's where all of this, [0:42:27] you know, the hubbub, the split between the MIGA crowd, the Make Israel Great Again crowd, [0:42:34] and the Make America Great Again crowd, that this is like, oh, well, Trump took a hard turn towards [0:42:38] Israel like a year ago. I guess the question is, like, is that really true? Was Donald Trump [0:42:45] an Israeli op from the beginning? Because it seems like a lot of this stuff, be it the Hunter Biden [0:42:52] laptop scandal. And also, you know, I don't really think that most people have ever had a really good [0:42:59] explanation of Russiagate because Russiagate wasn't really Russiagate. It was Israelgate, [0:43:05] wasn't it? Yeah. I mean, this is a big lens for a lot of specific things. I wouldn't go so far [0:43:16] as to say the hunter biden thing was exclusively israel um what i would say is it was the the the [0:43:25] the real um companies that pushed it were the murdoch properties which you know chiefly the [0:43:33] new york post right and um and that's always been a friendly op-ed page to the neocons um [0:43:42] And the, I guess, where I think people are getting this frustration that you're talking about is that Trump has run, you know, he called the Iraq war a big, fat, stupid mistake or whatever it was. [0:43:59] and now he's hiring [0:44:03] people that come from an even more hawkish [0:44:07] side of foreign policy [0:44:11] thinking than Bush ever did [0:44:14] one of the books I have up on my blog [0:44:19] that I reviewed was a new biography of the [0:44:23] Bush era head of the Mossad [0:44:26] um, [0:44:27] my ear Dagan is a very impressive man. [0:44:31] Um, [0:44:32] and, [0:44:32] uh, [0:44:33] you know, [0:44:33] the working relationship between the U S intelligence community and the [0:44:37] Israeli intelligence community, [0:44:39] uh, [0:44:40] flourished during the Bush years. [0:44:43] That's, [0:44:43] that's not a myth. [0:44:45] Um, [0:44:46] at the same time, [0:44:48] um, [0:44:49] both, [0:44:50] uh, [0:44:52] you know, [0:44:53] Reagan and Bush, [0:44:54] uh, [0:44:55] had some very clear points where they said, all right, guys, you know, [0:45:00] we can't follow you where you want to go here. [0:45:04] Whether it was, you know, bombing a nuclear facility of Syria's or, [0:45:10] um, in the Reagan years, I, they, I think they did the Iraq one. [0:45:15] And, uh, and, you know, Bush himself was kind of hip to this. [0:45:20] Um, Bush reportedly, according to this book, liked Mayer Dagan a lot. [0:45:24] I'm not surprised. [0:45:25] He smoked a pipe. He liked Vermeer. But Bush also said, there's this quote that's going around, neoconservative means Israel. And that was the sort of thing that in the Obama years, if you mentioned, I mean, a common kind of, you know, one of these, you know, will you step on the picture of the Virgin Mary kind of things was, you know, [0:45:55] it sounds like you're saying Jews, but you're talking about neocons. Well, uh, uh, that's [0:46:01] certainly what, uh, George W. That was the impression that George W. Bush had. Um, and, [0:46:09] and the thing is with Trump, you know, Iraq was a, was a big fat, stupid mistake. Um, the, [0:46:16] and yet he's now given, uh, the Israel lobby more than Bush was willing to do. [0:46:25] And the thing is, the real tragedy of this, and the thing that to my mind sort of makes it unforgivable, is he was set up. [0:46:39] He could have. [0:46:41] He could have said, I got a better deal than Obama. [0:46:45] Obama's deal was a rotten deal, but I'm the dealmaker and I got the good one. [0:46:50] He could have said that during these negotiations. [0:46:53] that was on the table. [0:46:55] It's very clear that that was on the table. [0:46:58] And he didn't take it. [0:47:00] And now he's in a quagmire. [0:47:02] And this could ruin his legacy. [0:47:04] Unless he pulls a rabbit out of a hat. [0:47:06] You know, I hope he does. [0:47:08] I don't hope like something bad happens. [0:47:11] You know, always better not to have disasters. [0:47:14] But it's very hard to look at this now [0:47:18] and see, you know, this is a great victory for Trump. [0:47:23] His most loyal supporters are upset. [0:47:28] The goal, you know, you should never go to war [0:47:32] saying you have one goal and actually having another goal. [0:47:37] The stated goal was getting rid of the nuclear program. [0:47:41] The actual goal, the group he's hiring out of now, [0:47:47] was regime change. [0:47:50] And so you shouldn't go to, you know, [0:47:52] be honest with the American people [0:47:54] about what, you know, [0:47:57] what you're asking our troops to do. [0:48:00] And Trump hasn't been honest about that. [0:48:04] No. [0:48:04] And the, you know, [0:48:08] now Pete Hegseth is doing this ridiculous two-step [0:48:12] that the War Powers Act reporting requirement of 60 days [0:48:19] resets when the bombing stops. [0:48:23] That's crazy. [0:48:25] Nobody has ever made that argument before. [0:48:28] It's novel to him. [0:48:30] And as he's doing this, as he kind of cuts off the... [0:48:37] I don't want to make the argument that the officer corps [0:48:41] doesn't need reform. [0:48:42] It does. But Pete Hegseth whacking people because they looked at him the wrong way is is not is probably not the kind of reform that's best for the Pentagon. [0:48:55] on um and so it's it's a catastrophe and the idea um the the it was a relief to see [0:49:05] uh some reporting that considered the possibility that trump might just basically declare victory [0:49:13] and leave we got what we wanted to get now we're out of there and um and basically let somebody [0:49:21] else clean up the mess. It's not pretty. It's not really honorable, but it's better than a [0:49:28] protracted war. And the fact is you could close the Strait of Hormuz with like a few hundred guys [0:49:37] and short range rockets. It's not big. And the actual shipping channel is much closer. It's only [0:49:44] 20 miles wide and the actual shipping channel is much closer to the Iranian side. It doesn't take [0:49:51] much to close in. And so this was clearly not well thought out. It's a betrayal of his core [0:50:00] supporters. I mean, the thing that's getting mixed up here, I mean, I tend to be of the view [0:50:07] that the American people are generally quite skeptical of war. [0:50:13] They understand that it's necessary sometimes, [0:50:17] but it needs to have defined goals, defined timelines, and defined costs. [0:50:22] And Trump has really abused that goodwill in the last year or so. [0:50:30] And the question you asked about, you know, [0:50:34] was this something that Trump was bound to do once he got in because of, you know, things in his past, because of his point of view? [0:50:43] That's a really interesting question. There are biographical things. [0:50:48] There are, you know, the question has always been staffing. [0:50:54] And that, you know, even it's funny to watch a guy like John Bolton kind of flail around. [0:51:00] because the fact is John Bolton throughout most of his career has wanted something like this. [0:51:08] But now that he can, you know, now that he's getting what he ordered, [0:51:13] he decided he didn't like it. He doesn't like it. [0:51:17] Now, that's either a confrontation with reality and he's realizing that this was, you know, not a good idea [0:51:24] or it's just him realizing that the only people that are going to be buttering his bread in the future [0:51:30] are more on the liberal internationalist side because he turned on Trump. [0:51:35] And, you know, your average right winger has no time for John Bolton. [0:51:40] Right. [0:51:42] And so that's an interesting one. [0:51:45] And it's so clear, you know, both in the U.S. and Israel, [0:51:51] The best people in Israel are ferociously critical of the Netanyahu government. [0:52:05] That biography of Meir Dagan, I mean, he got up and gave public speeches. [0:52:12] You know, Netanyahu is driving my country off a cliff. [0:52:14] and this is a guy who fought in every armed conflict of israel's history you know from 1967 on [0:52:22] um this you know nobody has the standing more standing to make a criticism like that than him [0:52:30] and it's it's the um you know i i noticed a lot of the people that support this show [0:52:39] are are kind of libertarian oriented so libertarians like to talk about the free rider problem right [0:52:43] and the right wing of israeli politics is this is a metaphor or kind of a concept i've been [0:52:53] throwing out on my blog is they're free riding on american indulgence and and uh kind of trying [0:53:00] to restore a normal relationship between the u.s and israel is necessary and demanded by the voters [0:53:08] of the United States for sure. But it's also good for Israel because their political scene [0:53:19] is shaped by the assumption that the United States will never draw a line. [0:53:24] And that makes it possible for Netanyahu's hard right to push things. And the only thing that [0:53:33] causes a recalibration of those expectations is an American politician that says, like, [0:53:39] all right, guys, you've gone too far. We care about you. We don't want anything bad to happen [0:53:43] to you. But, you know, there are some lines that we have to draw here. And right now, you know, [0:53:52] so our unlimited indulgence is causing the harm within Israel. And there's no getting around, [0:54:02] having this conversation. [0:54:04] When you talk to the Israeli [0:54:06] partisans of Israel, [0:54:08] it's just [0:54:09] a question of either [0:54:12] you're for or against, [0:54:13] you're with us or against us, [0:54:16] and like, okay, but maybe [0:54:18] there's a more sophisticated [0:54:20] way to be with you. [0:54:22] Or maybe [0:54:23] being with you doesn't involve indulging your [0:54:26] worst impulses. [0:54:29] These sorts of things [0:54:30] that certainly [0:54:32] Republicans are derelict in their duty to their own country, not to be considering. [0:54:42] And so, you know, this is probably further than I would go and would probably be unpopular [0:54:49] politically anyway. [0:54:51] But we need to start asking, you know, if the 20-year challenge down the road is China, [0:54:59] we're not going to be able to do that. [0:55:01] if we have to deploy a third to half of the Navy [0:55:05] every two or three years, [0:55:08] whenever Israel needs us to. [0:55:11] It's just a non-starter. [0:55:13] And so how do you stabilize the Israel situation [0:55:16] so we can go do this other thing? [0:55:19] And whether, you know, [0:55:22] the answer that Trump and Netanyahu [0:55:25] are trying to instantiate is [0:55:29] we just mess everybody up [0:55:31] in the two or three year window [0:55:34] that we have right now [0:55:35] and then we don't need to worry about it [0:55:37] you can go do China [0:55:37] that may not work [0:55:41] and if that doesn't work [0:55:43] Israel's in real trouble [0:55:46] the more sane way of handling it [0:55:49] is to treat Israel [0:55:52] a little bit more like a protectorate [0:55:54] that you get as much [0:55:57] democracy, as much self-determination as we can plausibly give you, but we need to probably take [0:56:05] away your right to conduct an independent foreign policy. You know, we're America, you're causing us [0:56:13] to pay for this, and so we have the right to, you know, place burdens on you. And so, you know, [0:56:24] is is there actually political will to formally treat israel like puerto rico probably not [0:56:30] um but de facto i i think that's maybe called for and it's certainly the right kind of mental [0:56:39] model i i think it's it's a better mental model for a right winger too um then you know um [0:56:47] then then you know zionist control or any of this other stuff like no we're the big brother [0:56:53] We want what's best for you, but we need to put some limits on this relationship. [0:56:57] That's kind of a better mental model. [0:56:59] Yeah. [0:56:59] I mean, it's like a drug addict. [0:57:00] You know what I mean? [0:57:01] It's like, imagine if you have a drug addict in your family, right? [0:57:03] And every time you give them money or you give them help, they wind up buying drugs or getting into issues with the law. [0:57:10] You know, at a certain point, there's a transition of, you know, loving the other person is telling them no. [0:57:18] Right. [0:57:18] I mean, that seems like very obvious. [0:57:21] is. And it does seem like this is what's been going on. We've had a wag the dog type situation [0:57:27] with this country for decades, at least. Yeah, something's got to give. That's for sure. Whether [0:57:35] or not we're going to be seeing that maybe with the Donald Trump impeachment, if there's a blue [0:57:39] wave here in 2026, there's, I think, a very high probability that Trump gets impeached. But tell me, [0:57:45] You know, I haven't had a chance to look at it in like the last week or so, but I do believe that there is set to be new elections in Israel. [0:57:55] Is that, am I wrong on that? [0:57:57] I'm pretty sure that Naftali Bennett is going to be at some point challenging Bibi Netanyahu for, you know, the role as prime minister. [0:58:05] What would an election? [0:58:06] There's a new coalition that was just announced, but I think the election happened naturally in October. [0:58:13] Yeah. [0:58:13] The hope was up until this point that the coalition, BB's coalition would collapse early. [0:58:24] That hasn't happened yet. [0:58:28] And BB's managed to hold together this ramshackle and highly extremist coalition. [0:58:36] and the problem is uh for somebody who would like israel to be its best self [0:58:45] um the the the smartest people and the taxpayers and the people who have the means to leave [0:58:53] are are already leaving in the hundreds of thousands and uh and so israel's going to have [0:59:00] have real trouble uh down the line you know the the under normal circumstances what would happen [0:59:09] after a disastrous government like netanyahu's uh is that it would it would swing back in the [0:59:16] other direction that's a rhythm that as americans we're very used to um but whether that's going to [0:59:24] happen here because the unlimited indulgence continues from the united states and there's a [0:59:29] brain drain from the more liberal Jews who are leaving. So there's, I don't think at this point [0:59:36] any reason to think a new government in Israel would be any less extreme, though it would [0:59:46] certainly have a nicer face. And one of the, a lot of people talk about this, [0:59:55] who read about the issue closely, [0:59:58] and it's in the biography of that Mossad head. [1:00:03] So that guy, the longtime Bush era [1:00:08] and shortly after head of Mossad, [1:00:12] he has a story, a life story, [1:00:15] that's very intelligible to an American. [1:00:20] You know, he was a Holocaust refugee. [1:00:25] uh, European Jew. And, um, you know, this is a guy, we look at him and he, he seems, [1:00:33] you know, and he's like a war hero. Um, this is the guy whose life story is very intelligible to us. [1:00:41] Um, after him, he's, I think the last Mossad head that has any connection to the Holocaust. [1:00:48] it's much less common in Israel today [1:00:53] just because it's getting further away [1:00:54] and the new crop of leaders in Israel [1:00:59] some of them are these Middle Eastern or Russian Jews [1:01:04] who just, they code [1:01:07] to an American as much more foreign [1:01:10] when we watch Bibi Netanyahu speak [1:01:13] he sounds like a guy from Philadelphia [1:01:17] because he is [1:01:18] cheldenham high school he went to cheldenham high school just right in case people don't know [1:01:24] he he seems like an american um the the new generation of israeli politicians that we will [1:01:33] become more and more familiar with uh seem much more foreign and uh i mean they they don't [1:01:40] seem as familiar as Bibi Netanyahu, that's for darn sure. And the coalition that's been proposed, [1:01:52] Lapid and Bennett, I mean, so Lapid is like a television star. He's very photogenic. [1:01:58] He's a great communicator. And Bennett also has a lot of Western connections. [1:02:04] but [1:02:07] but the government [1:02:10] in general is a lot less [1:02:12] intelligible [1:02:14] or it seems a lot less [1:02:16] similar to us today [1:02:18] than it did even [1:02:20] 10 years ago it's just a much [1:02:22] it's just a much [1:02:23] I hate to use this word but it seems like a weirder [1:02:26] country today [1:02:27] and that's going to continue [1:02:30] and that has an effect [1:02:31] whether it's just or not [1:02:34] uh, it has an effect on, on support in the United States. You know, if there, [1:02:40] if we think of Israel as a country of guys from Philadelphia, we're more inclined to support that. [1:02:46] Um, if, if, uh, if it's somebody who's got a weird accent who, um, you know, wants to ethnically [1:02:55] cleanse Gaza, it's just like, this comes off as some sort of weird Middle Eastern thing. Yeah. [1:03:00] Yeah. And so that's that's kind of what that's going to be one of the long term challenges. [1:03:06] I'm curious what, in your opinion, is the relationship looking like between because, I mean, we've been talking about this special relationship that we've had between us and Israel since basically the founding of the state. [1:03:17] But what about the relationship between, let's say, Russia and Israel? Because there's a lot of Russian speakers in Israel. What does this hold for the future? [1:03:26] Right. [1:03:56] has been a challenge for Israel for decades. [1:03:59] One of the details in that biography that's so fascinating [1:04:02] is they had a plan when the Soviet Union fell, [1:04:06] if the pogroms started again, to get the Russian Jews out. [1:04:10] Unfortunately, that wasn't necessary. [1:04:14] But nevertheless, I mean, the relationship between [1:04:18] the Israeli government and the Russian one is fairly close. [1:04:24] there was a movie deal that was signed a couple years ago. [1:04:27] And when you look at it with more of a fine-tooth comb, [1:04:31] you'll notice real estate deals involving Gal Gadot [1:04:34] and Roman Abramovich, the Russian oligarch, things like that. [1:04:40] And the question that we're kind of discouraged from asking here [1:04:46] in the United States is to what extent is Israeli influence [1:04:51] also a vector of Russian influence? [1:04:54] And that's a little bit the story of Russiagate. [1:04:57] I mean, Russiagate was like a prepackaged story. [1:05:04] And we're now finding out that Christopher Steele was working with some of the same researchers that had worked for Oleg Deripaska, the Russian minerals aluminum oligarch. [1:05:21] And so, you know, Americans by and large know now that Russiagate was really a hoax, but it was more damaging than that. It was damaging to our system of government. [1:05:40] it caused the exfiltration of one of the top CIA assets in Moscow. [1:05:50] It did real damage to the deep state. [1:05:54] And the question that that might cause one to ask is, was that the intent? [1:06:02] And that's a little bit above my pay grade, but I do wonder about it. [1:06:08] And it's also very interesting to me that, you know, Trump, this guy who prizes loyalty, who prizes, you know, getting even, these sorts of things, he's given the guy who paid for the steel research the war he wanted. [1:06:29] the steel research was initially paid for by the Washington Free Beacon [1:06:35] and the main funder of that is Paul Singer [1:06:39] and then the research was transferred over to Hillary Clinton [1:06:43] they claimed that the dossier itself is a different product than what they paid for [1:06:50] but that's not really how this works [1:06:53] I mean if you're doing the research [1:06:55] um you know they they didn't just find a bunch of new research to put in the dossier [1:07:01] um this is kind of you know it's it's reasonable to assume that at least quite a lot of it was the [1:07:10] same and uh and and these are people that that you know the people who paid for the steel research [1:07:17] are the people who wanted war with iran and uh and so and venezuela just throwing that out there [1:07:24] too. You know, Paul Singer has been deeply, deeply involved in the Sitco thing. I guess he [1:07:30] acquired Sitco recently. Sitco had a bunch of oil processing plants in Venezuela, a lot of shipping [1:07:36] lanes. And that was all the hubbub when we did our little like, you know, four hour incursion and [1:07:42] kidnapping Maduro and whatnot. But that was all basically for the benefit of Sitco and Paul Singer. [1:07:47] Well, and what I find so curious is, you know, even if you think this sort of, you know, sordid ego stuff is above or is below the high-minded pretensions of Washington journalism, boy, is it a great question to ask Trump about. [1:08:10] Why hasn't a reporter done that? You know, the guy who just put it to Trump, you know, the guy who first paid Christopher Steele wanted you just gave him the war he wanted. [1:08:23] Why'd you do that? What do you think he would say? I mean, I don't even know, which is why it'd be such a great question. [1:08:31] Oh, my God, especially with Donald Trump's mental state recently. [1:08:34] anyway. It has been seeming like he's losing it. I mean, it's like he lives in his own bubble. [1:08:40] And he does. I'm sure he does. You know, all of these people, Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita and [1:08:45] all the people surrounding him are feeding him what he wants to hear, blowing up his ego. And [1:08:49] they're not really, you know, discussing a lot of this other stuff. I just saw also just speaking [1:08:54] of the war, I saw some headlines earlier today about how the new Imam Khomeini has reclosed [1:09:02] to the Straits of Hormuz. [1:09:03] Not that they were open, I don't think, [1:09:06] but it does appear, [1:09:07] Drudge Report is reporting [1:09:09] that I guess there have been [1:09:10] missiles fired today, [1:09:12] I guess, at Dubai [1:09:12] and the vessel was attacked [1:09:14] in the Strait of Hormuz [1:09:15] and there's a bunch of confusion. [1:09:16] The big story, of course, [1:09:17] also has been that fertilizer is spiking. [1:09:20] I think it's up 65% [1:09:22] for the Mountain West states, [1:09:24] you know, which is going to make planting [1:09:26] and, you know, growing our own food. [1:09:28] That's going to be a big problem coming up. [1:09:31] Uh, so yeah, I mean, Trump is just sitting on this absolute shit storm that was totally [1:09:39] avoidable. [1:09:39] He did not need to do any of this. [1:09:41] And like you said earlier, he could have taken the win and just, you know, tuck tail, turned [1:09:45] home, said that we won. [1:09:46] And, you know, this wouldn't be an issue, but instead we're doubling down and God knows [1:09:51] what the ramifications of this will be. [1:09:54] Um, I mean, I don't know if you have anything to add on that. [1:09:56] I've got, you know, one or two more questions, uh, before we let you go. [1:10:00] So, but if you had anything else on that Iran war stuff. [1:10:03] No, I mean, I think that's pretty much it. [1:10:05] It seems like you're right that we're heading for, you know, once more under the breach, right? [1:10:09] Yeah. [1:10:10] Now, one thing that I did want to ask you about, because you've done a lot of this type of reporting on things like the spy scandals, the Hunter Biden laptop, you know, looking into these different spyware companies. [1:10:22] You know, what does Basil always say? [1:10:25] basically that there's this kind of like ruling conglomerate of like tech, defense, pharma, [1:10:30] and finance. These are kind of the four sectors of power in America. And it doesn't really matter [1:10:35] if it's red team or blue team that wins. It's always tech, defense, pharma, finance that always [1:10:42] seems to win. And to that end, my question is, how badly is, because, you know, why are you [1:10:52] talking about Israel. You're always, you're obsessed with Israel, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Well, [1:10:56] I mean, there was a book that came out a couple of years ago called Spy Fail. I remember reading that [1:11:00] and thinking to myself, you know, just how important our deep state is. And it is important, [1:11:09] you know? I mean, granted, there's obvious issues, which we've covered at length on this show, [1:11:14] you know, everything from the church committee hearings, the abuses of power, maybe something [1:11:18] that depending on how long you have, we'll get into this SPLC, you know, how the SPLC and the FBI [1:11:23] funded like the Klan and all this. So there's certainly defects with our deep state and our [1:11:29] intelligence community. But I'm just curious, to what extent has Israel compromised [1:11:36] our tech and defense capabilities? Because it seems like everywhere I go, it seems like every [1:11:43] company that I look into when it comes to technology or defense, be this, you know, [1:11:49] Google or X.com or, you know, Facebook or these military contracting companies, [1:12:01] Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, whoever, and especially like Booz Allen Hamilton. [1:12:08] You know, it's just like, I feel like we're just constantly running up against this brick wall [1:12:12] of Israeli agents, operatives, people that were in the Israeli defense forces [1:12:18] penetrating American institutions, penetrating the American tech and defense sector. [1:12:23] So how bad is this problem? And is it a problem or are we just imagining it? [1:12:30] Well, I think of the tech companies, they're all a little bit different. [1:12:37] the big platforms. [1:12:42] The tell for me was a little bit that [1:12:44] the GOP was willing to go hard at Google [1:12:48] and was willing to go hard at Twitter [1:12:54] before Musk bought it. [1:12:57] But they left Facebook alone. [1:13:02] And Facebook is the one that by far [1:13:05] is the most Israeli. [1:13:07] Hmm. Um, the, if you look at the companies that they acquire, um, the, the influence operations, [1:13:17] which seem to thrive there, um, Facebook is, is the most important. Um, and it's, it's the one [1:13:26] that, um, you know, jumped in on the information war after 10 seven, um, you know, probably more [1:13:33] than any other. Google, by contrast, is full of the classic we're against defense contracting [1:13:42] type lefties, but at the same time, they're more tolerant of a kind of principled [1:13:49] human rights perspective about what the Israeli government is doing. [1:13:57] um the uh i think the issue is more a lot of these smaller security contractors [1:14:08] and the way that they've been integrated into the the law enforcement stack both at the state [1:14:15] level and and the local level and also the federal level um and you know i i think there [1:14:24] ought to be some sort of commission to look into this stuff, that it needs to be looked into in a [1:14:30] public way. In the UK, the Labour government declined to take up a petition about this. [1:14:39] We'll see in the United States whether, you know, the public demands it and whether any politician [1:14:45] would be willing to follow through. The theory is, on the Israeli side, you know, Netanyahu is [1:14:54] said we'll commit a hundred billion dollars to building up a domestic defense sector and um [1:15:04] you know i just don't think that's workable israel is a fairly resource poor country [1:15:11] um and uh there it's it's really more of a question of tech integration [1:15:19] um and the the choice you know where where the rubber meets the road uh as sort of a deep state [1:15:28] question is uh is nato more important or is israel more important and a little bit of a tell [1:15:39] about what side trump is on is that he is you know his administration is unmistakably [1:15:46] on the side of Israel's more important than NATO. [1:15:52] Yeah. [1:15:53] And the problem with that is [1:15:56] Israel isn't more important than NATO. [1:15:59] It isn't as important strategically, [1:16:02] and it's not as important in terms of the actual [1:16:06] formal stature of the alliance. [1:16:09] NATO countries are treaty allies. [1:16:11] The Senate has ratified the NATO treaty. [1:16:13] there is no senate ratified treaty of mutual defense with israel it doesn't exist right and [1:16:21] so we're doing all this all this defense integration and intelligence integration [1:16:27] with an israeli government which is not a treaty ally we do that with other [1:16:33] other countries too you know japan would be one [1:16:37] but it's not to the extent that it is with israel i mean there isn't like a [1:16:44] the u.s doesn't really share a counter-terrorism mission with japan [1:16:49] uh it's more just it's it's basic strategic stuff involving china uh you know watching the seas [1:16:57] uh this kind of thing but the counter-terrorism mission is is that involves this very close [1:17:04] integration with the Israelis. And so, you know, the, the conceptual, the, the change of, uh, um, [1:17:13] your mental frame when you go from, from the, the last 25 years of the war on terror [1:17:19] to, um, strategic competition and, uh, potentially conflict between states, [1:17:27] is just very different. [1:17:33] I think in general, [1:17:35] Americans are pretty tired [1:17:36] of playing whack-a-mole in the desert. [1:17:40] And I don't really know [1:17:43] how much longer we can really do that. [1:17:46] And the question is, [1:17:47] what is the value add [1:17:49] that Israel really brings? [1:17:52] Their tech companies are, [1:17:54] some of them are very technologically impressive, [1:17:58] but they're also deeply hazardous to civil liberty [1:18:03] and have been misused in all of these ways [1:18:07] that are harmful to democratic governments the world over. [1:18:10] In many places, they've already led to criminal charges [1:18:14] in allied nations. [1:18:16] The sale of spyware to Poland [1:18:19] has led to indictments of top officials [1:18:22] in their intelligence community. [1:18:24] And I think it's likely the same will happen in Hungary. [1:18:28] It happened in Brazil. [1:18:30] Brazil isn't a treaty ally. [1:18:33] So, you know, Israel going around, [1:18:34] and this is another thing that basically we let them do. [1:18:38] Israel wouldn't be able to do this if we told them not to. [1:18:40] You can't go around promiscuously selling all this phone hacking software. [1:18:45] You got to cut this out. [1:18:47] And, you know, if we had done that, [1:18:49] a lot of people wouldn't be in prison. [1:18:50] They wouldn't be in prison today. [1:18:51] You know, this reminds me, [1:18:53] I was going to say this reminds me of a story. [1:18:55] We've talked about it on the show, although I haven't brought it up in a while. [1:18:59] It's paywalling me over here at the New York Times. [1:19:02] But Mexico, Mexican cartels wound up getting a copy of this program called Pegasus, which is one of these phone hacking programs. [1:19:14] And it seems like either the Israeli government or a contractor that works with the Israeli government sold it to the cartels. [1:19:22] and there's also reporting uh reporting from other other angles that talk about how [1:19:27] they like trained some of their like assassination teams like the cartel it's crazy [1:19:33] right and and the use of this this kind of phone hacking uh to target somebody to whack them the [1:19:41] the question of what happened with this stuff in mexico because it is the place where it's been [1:19:45] use most prolifically is uh it it's not that did the mexicans uh sell it to a cartel it's that did [1:19:54] the cartel had it have insider access in some way to it wow and and thereby you know because the [1:20:02] mexican government you know has all these corruption issues so is there like is there uh a dirty uh [1:20:10] you know, federal police, national security unit guy who's, uh, able to use it. [1:20:16] Uh, that, that's, that's the question there. Um, and, and so, so it's not just that there's [1:20:24] also the team George stuff of their kind of election manipulation. It's the, the, the kind [1:20:29] of the playbook of Cambridge Analytica, um, with the kind of, with the micro targeting and black [1:20:35] propaganda stuff, the Israelis have exported that model too. And so to the extent that Israel is [1:20:42] involved in like lucrative security technology contracting, most of it's pretty toxic stuff. [1:20:48] It's sludge. Like, do we want to be buying this? Is this like the sort of thing that [1:20:53] a useful ally is involved in? Heck no. By and large, it's actually harmful to our reputation [1:21:01] to be associated with it. [1:21:03] And that's a point that I don't see [1:21:06] too many people making right now. [1:21:09] The place where it could become an issue [1:21:11] is here in Virginia, [1:21:14] Senator Mark Warner is up for re-election in the fall. [1:21:18] And he actually shared an office, [1:21:22] or one of his guys shared an office with NSO Group. [1:21:26] And so this guy is arse to elbow [1:21:29] with one of the most toxic Israeli spyware companies in the world. [1:21:33] I think Virginians ought to have something to say about that. [1:21:37] No, that's fascinating. [1:21:39] And then I guess, you know, we are coming up, man, we've been going, [1:21:42] it feels like it's been 15 minutes. [1:21:44] We've been going for almost an hour and a half, [1:21:46] and I don't want to eat up your entire day, [1:21:48] but I guess I do have one last topic that I wanted to broach with you, [1:21:51] which is the recent indictment from the Southern Poverty Law Center. [1:21:56] and you know we did a big special on it here a couple of weeks ago I did a show on Friday last [1:22:04] week on this guy Justin Stam's podcast why we fight talking a little bit about this stuff but [1:22:09] I did want to bring up because I'd be remiss if I didn't correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you [1:22:15] like kind of apprentice with a guy by the name of Laird Wilcox I did yeah Laird and I knew each [1:22:21] other very well yeah the guy who built the collection at this oh yeah there you go you got [1:22:26] I spent good money on this book, let me tell you. [1:22:29] Very good. [1:22:30] Yeah, it's still the best treatment of the watchdog groups. [1:22:35] And the main two are the ADL and the SPLC, but there are two others. [1:22:39] There's Political Research Associates and the Center for Democratic Renewal, I think is what it is, [1:22:45] which he identifies some ties to the harder left with both of those. [1:22:52] But the SPLC indictment is huge. [1:22:56] this is what my graduate [1:23:00] research was about, which was done in Laird's collection that he built at the [1:23:04] University of Kansas. And my subject [1:23:08] of study was about informants and why people [1:23:12] inform how they do it, what are the mechanics of it, their motivations, [1:23:17] how it plays out in cases, these sorts of things. [1:23:21] And to kind of put this in historical context, [1:23:25] a very key federal prosecution was the Fort Smith trial in the early 1980s. [1:23:35] 1986, wasn't that the Fort Smith's edition trial? [1:23:38] That's right. [1:23:40] And so whenever the feds try to wrap up a whole bunch of these right-wing groups [1:23:47] in one big case, it usually goes pretty badly. [1:23:52] the first time that this happened [1:23:55] was the FDR Great Sedition Trial [1:23:57] in the 1940s [1:23:59] and that one fell apart [1:24:00] and then the second one was this one [1:24:03] and yeah there's [1:24:05] an Idaho connection with the [1:24:07] Aryan Nations guys [1:24:08] and [1:24:09] basically the idea here was you take these [1:24:13] leaders of this [1:24:14] maybe odious but basically [1:24:17] unrelated groups [1:24:18] and you try to get them all in a big seditious [1:24:21] conspiracy case [1:24:22] and the problem is seditious conspiracy [1:24:24] is almost never successfully prosecuted [1:24:27] there were only like one or two [1:24:29] in the war on terror [1:24:30] successful seditious conspiracy prosecutions [1:24:34] and that one was not [1:24:39] the Fort Smith trial fell apart [1:24:40] and got egg on the face of the FBI [1:24:43] the Department of Justice [1:24:44] and to a lesser extent the watchdog organizations [1:24:47] but what happened thereafter [1:24:49] is throughout the 90s [1:24:51] the strategy became to use, particularly the SPLC, but the ADL has been doing similar stuff for many [1:24:58] years, civil lawsuits to bankrupt enemies, people that are identified as extremists. [1:25:06] And so that's always been done hand in glove with the FBI. And the problem with that is [1:25:17] an informant for the SPLC. [1:25:20] What we found out from this indictment [1:25:21] is that [1:25:23] the SPLC [1:25:26] was paying a lot of these guys [1:25:27] and they were doing things that [1:25:29] an FBI confidential human source [1:25:32] is not allowed to do. [1:25:34] Things like engaging in violence. [1:25:36] An FBI confidential human source will be told [1:25:37] that they can't do certain things. [1:25:40] You can't [1:25:42] take leadership roles. [1:25:44] You can't... [1:25:45] Some of the entrapment stuff, they'll put limits around that, though. That's maybe one of those things that's more honored in the breach. But nevertheless, what it causes is a little bit looser of an environment for this sort of policing. [1:26:02] And the reason why this matters a lot, and this is maybe a good thing that'll get your listeners knocking-jogging before we sign off, is when you have a CHS, a CHS is admonished and there are certain responsibilities, but there are also certain protections that they get. [1:26:28] and uh the the need for those protections for an spLC informant you know it's the same sort of [1:26:36] clandestine work right they're still going into situations that are potentially dangerous [1:26:41] um and and they run the risk of exposure uh you can't it's against the law to run a clandestine [1:26:52] intelligence network in the united states that is by definition hostile activity so are um are they [1:27:00] operating with the kind of implicit you know wink and a nod from the department of justice [1:27:05] it seems like they kind of are or were and uh and so and and if that's the case even though these [1:27:16] people are maybe not legally sworn and admonished uh the need to protect them still exists so how do [1:27:21] you do that? And the question that I wonder about when it comes to this is, is, is that why, [1:27:28] or is that one of the, um, one of the other reasons why the SPLC and the ADL may have wanted [1:27:36] to work with the tech companies? That if somebody spots, you know, this guy in this group, he's a [1:27:42] snitch, I know. Um, you know, I, I saw him texting, you know, his SPLC handler. It sounds ridiculous [1:27:48] to say but um you know i i saw him i caught him he was snitching um who sweeps in and protects [1:27:56] that informant uh there may not be legal authority to do that and uh and so what can you do well you [1:28:04] can uh you can shut down all communication about it you can down rank it on twitter you can uh [1:28:13] remove it from Google search results. And when you look at platform pressure, [1:28:19] both the SPLC and the ADL were involved in all of that. The Jigsaw algorithm, which is [1:28:30] part of Google's parent company, they were using SPLC training data. And the reason why that matters [1:28:39] is, you know, if you've got, you know, say you've got an SPLC informant in the Aryan Nations, [1:28:44] when that guy's name pops on Google search results for all like the crazies at Hayden Lake at the [1:28:51] Aryan Nations Church, you don't want those Google search results to say that guy's a snitch until [1:28:56] you need him to, you know, until he's ready to be a witness in the in the civil case. Right. [1:29:02] And so the timing and the controlled exposure needs to, in some respect, probably in this day and age, be coordinated with the tech companies. [1:29:16] And so was that going on? [1:29:19] And maybe the only, you know, if somebody from the SPLC comes to Google and says, like, we need you to do us a solid here, I have no reason to think like a Google executive would be all that resistant to that. [1:29:30] But in theory, did the Google executive have reason to think that the SPLC was operating with some sort of government imprimatur? [1:29:44] I'm not asking here. [1:29:47] That sort of thing. [1:29:48] So you've got this cloud of dots here, which is the FBI informants. [1:29:55] You've got this cloud of dots here, which is the SPLC informants. [1:29:59] Are they identical? Are they separate? Are there conflicts? How do you resolve that? That's the kind of that's the conceptual question that you need to think about. And I think that's, you know, as we watch this case unfold, that's the thing to watch really closely. [1:30:16] Yeah, no, I think it's going to be it's going to be really interesting. And like I said on this show that I did on Friday, I mean, I am hopeful. I'm more hopeful now than I have been in a long time, because there are a lot of things that are going downhill in this country because of very real things that are happening, like our special relationship with Israel, like our hollowing out of the American industrial base, the war on white people that has been waged via affirmative action, DEI, CRT and all of this. [1:30:46] Like these are all very real things. And actually, uh, kind of just brief segue or brief, um, you know, uh, shameless promo or whatever this Wednesday on the show, we're going to be talking with actually a psychiatrist, uh, Kevin Kevrick, uh, who we're going to be kind of delving into some of the psychology of like right wing males of what's been going on in the therapy industry with, uh, transgenderism and the coaching that a lot of these therapists have been giving young people. [1:31:12] And, you know, what should a right wing white male in America like? Are we being gaslit? Are we engaging in all or nothing? Think, you know, I think it'll be a really interesting talk. [1:31:24] But, you know, we've got real issues that are going on in this country. [1:31:27] And, you know, a lot of good, well-meaning people are trying to kind of plug the hole however they can, be it, you know, creating local networks, creating business alliances, things like this. [1:31:39] and to a large degree the SPLC and the ADL have been you know framing any of this activity as [1:31:46] some sort of hateful extremism and hopefully with this indictment now that has come out that will [1:31:52] kind of free things up for good people on the right side of history to be able to to build [1:31:57] something good that will hopefully have positive impacts on the country in the years to come as [1:32:03] things get harder and harder but Arthur thank you so much for joining me today this was a [1:32:08] fascinating conversation. Please tell everybody where they can find your work and I will do my [1:32:13] best to put it up on the screen. Yeah, sure. I'm on Twitter at J underscore Arthur underscore Bloom [1:32:20] and my sub stack Arthuriana dot sub stack dot com. And you you can my work is supported by a [1:32:28] nonprofit. So you can give tax deductibly for that. Oh, wow. There's a there's a link on the [1:32:35] about page uh to stripe and then there is um but if if there if that's not how you would like to do [1:32:44] it just get in touch uh and and we can talk i i've i'm moving to a know your customer standard uh for [1:32:50] for for some of this but there is a stripe link interesting where's the link i'm not finding it [1:32:54] uh go to the uh um center for the digital republic uh overhead link ah there it is there it is i [1:33:02] found it. Yeah, there are some projects I'd like to build out. So if there if there's somebody who's [1:33:06] interested in underwriting some of this stuff, I'd be happy to talk. Yeah, very good. Yeah. And [1:33:11] look at this. This is one of these like deep lore things I was talking about with a friend of mine, [1:33:15] Casey Whalen, who's also an independent journalist. This guy, Ernie Lazar, like if you look for he's [1:33:22] a legend. Yeah. If you look for like any document about things like the Aryan Nations or the [1:33:28] Southern Poverty Law Center, the ADL, what was going on with right-wing extremism in the 1960s, [1:33:32] 70s, and 80s. Basically, every single document that we have available to view, whether it be [1:33:38] in the FBI vault or the CIA reading room, almost all of it was FOIA'd by this guy named Ernie Lazar. [1:33:45] That's right, yeah. [1:33:46] And I don't know what his background is or where he came from. [1:33:49] He died a couple years ago. Rest in peace. [1:33:51] Wow. That's fascinating. But yeah, it's on here. He did everything from the Epstein [1:33:57] files transparency act to like jfk assassination documents and stuff about ufos it's just very [1:34:05] interesting uh to see that name pop up but uh yeah we'll definitely go support this center [1:34:11] for the digital republic you can get that link uh in the description below arthuriana.substack.com [1:34:18] and of course his x account so thanks again for joining us today arthur this was great we'll have [1:34:23] to have you back on we didn't even get a chance to talk about what's been going on with the [1:34:27] Catholic Church, the Pope. I know he just appointed a new bishop in West Virginia that everybody is [1:34:32] getting all freaked out about because he was an illegal immigrant from El Salvador or something, [1:34:37] but there's a lot of angles of overlap with the war in Israel and Rome, so maybe one of these days [1:34:43] we'll have you back and we'll kind of go church-heavy and discuss some of that stuff, but [1:34:48] thank you so much. Yep, sounds good. Thanks for having me. Awesome. Great. Well, that was wonderful. [1:34:53] We've got a couple of things that we've got to cover with our sponsors [1:34:57] After we let Arthur go [1:35:00] Because I'm not going to subject him [1:35:02] To what I'm about to subject all of you people to [1:35:06] Thank you again for joining us [1:35:07] It is such a pleasure to have this program and to have you here [1:35:11] Once again, just need to throw it out there [1:35:13] By the way, so for this show or for any show [1:35:16] When I have a guest on and they're giving me their opinion [1:35:19] That's like their opinion, bro [1:35:22] that's their opinion. You know, if I'm going to give my opinion or if the show is going to give [1:35:27] an opinion, we will note that, we will say that, that we believe X, Y, or Z thing. So please, [1:35:34] let's avoid the frivolous lawsuits and accusations of defamation and all of this type of stuff. That [1:35:41] would be very nice, you know. And of course, you can always send an email at info at the backlash [1:35:46] If you take issue with anything that any one of the guests of The Backlash says, you can email us and, you know, we will either print your response or your contention, or maybe we'll even invite you to have you on the show to challenge if there was a false narrative or something like that. [1:36:06] you know, I just, this is a show to get people's opinions. And we live in this like court happy [1:36:13] litig, like we're going to go sue everybody and their mother because of X, Y, or Z thing. It's [1:36:18] just so effeminate and lame and dumb. And it's just like, you know, we need more free speech in [1:36:26] this country, not less. I think a lot of the problems that we have is because people aren't [1:36:32] talking with their neighbors. They're not sharing their honest opinions. Everybody's kind of [1:36:36] biting their tongues and walking on eggshells. And that's a problem. I think that's a problem [1:36:42] anyway. Maybe you think that's a problem too. If not, then fine, whatever. But yeah, we've got to [1:36:49] give some big shout outs. We're going to start with Antelope Hill today. Actually, you know, [1:36:53] they're fighting to keep history alive amidst this regime of anti-white censorship. And they've got a [1:36:58] bunch of new books that they've published. And I'm in talks right now with the guys from Antelope [1:37:04] Hill Publishing to bring you guys, all the viewers of this fine program, an interview about a new book [1:37:10] that they published, Germany in Stalin's Crosshairs by Bernd Schwipper. We're going to be talking about [1:37:18] this. I think there was another book too that we're going to be talking about in the future with a [1:37:22] guest from Antelope Hill Publishing, but they've got a lot of great books. You can use promo code [1:37:27] Backlash 10 and you will receive 10% off your order at Antelope Hill Publishing. They've got [1:37:33] a bunch of great books, whether they're historical books that have never been translated in English [1:37:38] before or if they are, you know, a work of new fiction like the book Stimulosis. I'll pull that [1:37:45] up in a second. But yeah, here's their latest offering, Germany in Stalin's Crosshairs. Let's [1:37:51] see what the description is. For generations, Operation Barbarossa has been understood as a [1:37:55] unilateral act of German aggression, a surprise invasion driven by ideology unleashed against an [1:38:02] unprepared Soviet Union. But this narrative leaves critical questions unanswered and ignores a growing [1:38:08] body of evidence pointing in another direction. Building upon the controversial thesis first [1:38:12] advanced by Viktor Suvrov in the Icebreaker 1989, Germany in Stalin's crosshairs takes the argument [1:38:20] further, drawing on thousands of Soviet military documents, operational plans, and archival sources, [1:38:27] the book presents a stark and unsettling conclusion. Since 1940 at the latest, Stalin was not preparing [1:38:34] for defense, but for a massive offensive aimed at Germany and Western Europe. Through a systematic [1:38:42] examination of Red Army mobilization, forward deployment, war production, and strategic planning, [1:38:49] The author, General Bernd Schwipper, a former East German career officer fluent in Russian, reveals a pattern that challenges decades of historical consensus. [1:38:59] What emerges is not a passive Soviet Union caught off guard, but a state poised for war and on the verge of striking first. [1:39:08] Antelope Hill is proud to present Bernd Schwipper's groundbreaking book. [1:39:15] For the first time in English, bold, meticulously documented, and impossible to ignore, this book gives a direct challenge to the foundations of mainstream World War II historiography. [1:39:27] So that's this book, Germany and Stalin's Crosshairs, and we are working on getting a wonderful interview about that book for you. [1:39:35] We'll dive deep into it. [1:39:36] But yeah, Antelope Hill has also got books like Stimulosis down here in the bottom left-hand corner by Mark Thyme. [1:39:42] This is a fictional account of a America in the not too distant future that is run by pedophiles with a ring in the Pentagon and there's spying and domestic crisis. [1:39:54] Jeez, where have I heard this before? [1:39:56] But, you know, if you want some fiction to take your mind off of how ridiculous our country currently is, you know, stimulus is basically it. [1:40:06] Anyway, of course, intolerant interpretations by Josh Neill. [1:40:10] There's a whole bunch of really fantastic books. [1:40:13] I highly recommend that you load up your cart and use promo code BACKLASH10. [1:40:19] You'll get 10% off your order, and you'll learn something. [1:40:22] You'll learn something new that was previously hidden from you, [1:40:26] especially if you went to a public school, [1:40:29] because the public school, they teach you how to be an obedient slave to the state, [1:40:35] and they don't teach you how to think for yourself. [1:40:38] They teach you the government narrative and how to fit in like a cog in the machine with corporate America. [1:40:45] So anyway, you got to get educated, get some real history. [1:40:47] And you can do that at antelopehillpublishing.com. [1:40:50] And while you're getting educated, you might find the need to get caffeinated as well to make sure that you are focusing on what you are reading. [1:40:58] And of course, you can do that with our friends at abovetimecoffee.com. [1:41:02] Of course, Above Time Coffee is a small batch, hand-roasted, premium, pro-white, non-kosher coffee. [1:41:11] Well, I don't know if it's manufactured, but it's roasted by hand in Pennsylvania, the great state of Pennsylvania. [1:41:17] Above Time Coffee has got all kinds of different roasts from light roasts, medium, dark roasts. [1:41:22] They've also got things like mocha pots and French presses to help you prepare the finest cup of coffee you have ever tasted. [1:41:30] Believe me, I wish I could do some sort of like, you know, if you don't like the coffee, then I'll buy it for you. [1:41:37] But then I'll just wind up buying free coffee for people. [1:41:40] But believe me, it is the best coffee that I have had in years and years. [1:41:45] I mean, you really don't need to add anything to it. [1:41:48] But if you do want to make it into a latte, it will taste great. [1:41:51] Just make sure that your wife makes it for you. [1:41:53] Because if you make a latte for yourself, that's kind of gay. [1:41:56] Just FYI. [1:41:57] But yeah, please visit abovetimecoffee.com. [1:42:00] Use promo code BACKLASH10. [1:42:02] You'll save 10% off your order. [1:42:05] And of course, our friends at ODGG Supply, [1:42:07] whether you're going blankie mode [1:42:09] or you're going bug out tactical mode [1:42:10] with night vision and all, [1:42:12] these guys at ODGG Supply have got you covered. [1:42:15] I actually just bought this T-shirt from them. [1:42:19] I'm looking forward to getting it in the mail. [1:42:21] It's sold out immediately on the very first day, [1:42:24] from what I understand. [1:42:26] But only traders help invaders. [1:42:28] It's a great T-shirt. [1:42:28] it'll help you find your tribe [1:42:31] if you wear it someone will see you [1:42:33] at the store and they'll comment [1:42:35] and you can become friends [1:42:37] so you can help me find my friends [1:42:39] with the Only Traders [1:42:41] Help Invaders t-shirt [1:42:42] and by the way if you use promo code [1:42:45] Backlash14 you'll essentially [1:42:47] get this with free shipping [1:42:49] because Backlash14 [1:42:51] gives you a 14% off your order [1:42:53] and when you do all the [1:42:55] calculations by the time you hit the [1:42:57] checkout button [1:42:58] And it basically saves you on shipping. [1:43:00] So check that out. [1:43:02] Check out all of the catalog over at ODGG Supply. [1:43:06] They've got a big sale going on right now, too. [1:43:09] Some of those scrumptious MREs are for sale for $7.99. [1:43:15] This stuff lasts forever. [1:43:16] It tastes like it's already survived a nuclear bomb. [1:43:21] No, I'm kidding, of course. [1:43:23] Only the cheese tortellini, right? [1:43:24] one of these days I'm going to have to get [1:43:27] a pack of this and I'll eat it on air [1:43:29] just to see if it's edible [1:43:30] but you know they've got everything that you need [1:43:32] from outdoor tactical gear [1:43:34] beanies [1:43:36] capes [1:43:37] tarp, it's like a cape tarp thing [1:43:41] I want one of these, looks like Lord of the Rings [1:43:43] or something [1:43:43] but visit odggsupply.com [1:43:46] fill up your cart, use promo code backlash [1:43:48] 14, you'll get 14% off your order [1:43:50] and there's that [1:43:52] Like I said, this Wednesday, we're going to have Kevin Kevrick on the show. [1:43:56] He's a, I can't remember if he's like a psychotherapist or if he is a, there's two different ones, right? [1:44:02] There's a psychiatrist and a psychologist. [1:44:04] One of them prescribes you things. [1:44:06] The other one doesn't. [1:44:07] They just kind of give you therapy. [1:44:08] But anyway, Kevin has been in the space for a very long time. [1:44:11] And I think he's going to have some interesting insights for us. [1:44:14] So please make sure that you mark your calendars, you know, put it in your phone. [1:44:20] It's an important appointment. [1:44:21] You don't want to miss. [1:44:22] this Wednesday, of course, at 6 p.m. Eastern time. Might wind up also doing some bonus content [1:44:27] because there's been a lot of stuff coming out about the upcoming election. I kind of went over [1:44:32] this one, this little voter guide that came out on the last show with Michael Thomas from the [1:44:39] Catholic Land Movement. But we got something new in the mail yesterday. The Republican reader. [1:44:45] Look at this. Look at this bad boy. The the Rhino FBI backed candidates are really putting in overtime. [1:44:55] And so I was thinking it would be kind of funny to break this down just because it is this is a piece of work, you know, but it does make it easy. [1:45:05] It does make it easy because they show you exactly who you are or who they are. [1:45:10] Right. Like even here on the cover, they included. You can't see it. It's too far away. [1:45:15] But they included this picture from downtown Coeur d'Alene of a statue holding up a sign that says women deserve the right to vote. [1:45:24] And so, you know, maybe if you're not paying very close attention, you'll be tricked by a publication like this. [1:45:30] But for those with a discerning eye, you'll see things like that kind of tipping you off. [1:45:36] One of the other big tip-offs is, of course, all of the advertisers in this rag. [1:45:44] And I thought this was funny, too, because right here on the front, the very front inside, [1:45:50] we see who made this ad or this newspaper possible. [1:45:54] And, of course, it's our good friend Krista Hazel for CDA, right? [1:45:59] And then you got John Padula taking out a big ad in the Rhino Reader here. [1:46:04] maybe that's what we should call it instead of the Republican reader it's the rhino reader [1:46:08] but it's like you know show us show us what you're all about and here it is you've got [1:46:14] FBI agent daughter adopted daughter Krista Hazel teaming up with John Padula and a big old attack [1:46:23] on the uh the local Republican party the leadership they want to do a uh they want to do a regime [1:46:30] change here in Idaho. You know, they're not going so well overseas. The regime change isn't doing [1:46:37] well in Iran. So they figured, well, maybe if we do regime change in North Idaho, we can get the [1:46:43] voters back on our side. Well, probably not. So I should really do a video on that. And again, [1:46:50] you know, the election is coming up. Early voting is underway. If you live in North Idaho, [1:46:54] make sure that you go vote. Check your local areas. You know, there's a lot of good people [1:46:58] on the ballot, James Fishback, Casey Putsch, Mark Fitzpatrick, all running for governor in, [1:47:04] what is it, Florida, Ohio, and Idaho. So definitely go check them out. You know, [1:47:11] something else that was interesting as I was driving around, as I noticed, we're all, [1:47:15] you've got to make note of the sign placement. When you see these election signs in certain [1:47:20] places, it tells you something. And so one of the biggest corporate landholders here in North Idaho [1:47:26] is, of course, Parkwood Properties. And when you start seeing signs popping up on the vacant lots [1:47:34] of Parkwood Properties telling you to vote for John Padula or Krista Hazel or for Allison Knapp, [1:47:42] the assessor, the person running for assessor, all of a sudden it kind of becomes clear [1:47:47] where each group of interests are. And there's been a big smear against the local leadership [1:47:53] of the KCRCC for being an extremist. [1:47:57] And then, of course, you look at the people opposing him. [1:47:59] And who is it? [1:48:00] It's the wealthy landowners. [1:48:01] It's the people that own the hospital, [1:48:04] that own the theme park up here, Silverwood, [1:48:06] you know, all of that. [1:48:08] So we're going to do a deep dive, I think, [1:48:11] into the sign thing, [1:48:12] because once you learn how to read the sign placement [1:48:15] and where you see these signs for elections popping up, [1:48:19] it kind of tells you a lot about what their real values are. [1:48:22] So even if it says that they're like a Christian conservative on their sign, you know, that's not always the case. [1:48:31] Politicians lie in case you haven't noticed. [1:48:35] Anyway, end rant. [1:48:37] Also, we've got to give a big shout out to North Idaho Talo Company at IdahoTalo.com. [1:48:41] They make soap and skincare products that won't make you gay. [1:48:43] They don't turn the frogs gay. [1:48:45] They also don't do any testing on animals. [1:48:47] If that's a big thing for you, I don't know why it would be. [1:48:50] But hey, listen, these guys have got fantastic products. [1:48:55] My wife and I actually used the sun balm yesterday. [1:48:58] Speaking of Silverwood, we went to Silverwood, the local theme park. [1:49:01] And nobody's burnt today. [1:49:02] Look, I got a nice tan, but no sunburn. [1:49:07] Thank you to North Idaho Tallow Company. [1:49:11] Visit IdahoTallow.com. [1:49:12] And of course, all orders over $100 ship for free. [1:49:16] They've got all kinds of stuff. [1:49:18] Beard balm. [1:49:19] They've got the hair palm. [1:49:19] Do you like the Jerry Curl, by the way? [1:49:22] Do you like the Jerry? [1:49:23] That's because I'm using North Idaho Tallow's Hair Pomade. [1:49:27] It's fantastic. [1:49:28] I highly recommend using it. [1:49:31] There's an issue with a lot of these hair gels anymore that you go to buy in the store, [1:49:37] and they're made from petroleum byproducts, and it clogs your pores. [1:49:40] It makes you break out in acne, and it also negatively affects your testosterone production. [1:49:46] So anyway, visit IdahoTalo.com. [1:49:50] You'll be mogging anytime. [1:49:54] Jeez, is that the chickens? [1:49:56] The sound of the chickens in the background that I hear. [1:49:58] It sounds like screaming children. [1:50:00] Anyway, also AtlasBullion.com slash Backlash. [1:50:04] Things are getting crazy with the economy because of the war. [1:50:08] You might want to protect yourself by getting into some gold and silver at AtlasBullion.com slash Backlash. [1:50:12] They help you stack precious metals the easy way, whether it is through their diverse subscription, their silver or gold subscriptions. [1:50:19] You can sign up to start stacking precious metals on a monthly or bimonthly, maybe even a weekly basis, depending on maybe not a weekly basis. [1:50:28] I feel like that would be a little too often, but once a month, that's good. [1:50:31] Start saving some of your hard earned cash that you worked for in something that can't be printed, gold and silver. [1:50:38] So visit atlasbullion.com slash backlash. [1:50:41] The next time you're thinking about making a big order, [1:50:43] these guys do have the lowest rates on the internet. [1:50:48] If you try to go to some of these other outlets, [1:50:51] JM Bullion or Atmax, [1:50:54] they wind up charging, they scalp you, man. [1:50:57] They charge a lot of money. [1:50:59] They call that the premium, the premium on the gold and silver. [1:51:04] And so anyway, I've bought gold and silver with Atlas Bullion. [1:51:08] I lost it all in a boating accident, but I hope you do better. [1:51:11] No boating accidents for you. [1:51:13] Just get a safe or something, you know. [1:51:15] But, yeah, please visit atlasbullion.com slash backlash. [1:51:18] What else? [1:51:19] We've got a bunch of big stuff. [1:51:20] Like I said, Kevin Kevra coming up this Wednesday. [1:51:23] We're going to have an interview with an Antelope Hill person, [1:51:25] talking also with Ben from Space Weather News about coming on the podcast the following week. [1:51:32] There's a big theory, anyway. [1:51:35] There's a big theory about an impending disaster that the magnetic poles are weakening and that there's something called a geomagnetic excursion that could possibly lead to, I don't know, a solar flare wiping us all out. [1:51:52] So Ben is going to scare us all shitless talking about the impending solar doom that is going to affect our globe. [1:52:02] So we'll see about that. [1:52:04] But anyway, very good stuff. [1:52:06] Thank you again for joining me today. [1:52:07] It was great to see you here. [1:52:09] Leave a comment below. [1:52:11] I do read the comments sometimes. [1:52:14] I do read the comments. [1:52:15] And yeah, Irish American, thank you for being here today. [1:52:19] Let's see who else is here. [1:52:20] EC2, still hollow. [1:52:22] Very good. [1:52:23] Silent Vector, what's up? [1:52:25] Anyway, thank you all for joining us today. [1:52:27] It's been a great show. [1:52:28] We'll be back on Wednesday, 6 p.m. [1:52:30] God bless and have a good night. [1:52:32] See ya. [1:52:34] Thank you. [1:53:04] Thank you. [1:53:34] Thank you. [1:54:04] Thank you. [1:54:34] We'll be right back.