The Third Gulf War

Welcome back to highly respected.

My voice today is not feeling incredible, but we are still going to have an incredible

episode for you guys today.

It's one of the downsides of having to record a podcast.

Sometimes your voice is not going to be 100%, but we are going to have a 100% intriguing

and vigorating episode today for you guys, so we will power through so today it's not

going to our first topic.

It's not going to be based on questions.

It's obviously going to be about the ongoing conflict with Iran, which is best seen as

the third Gulf War and comparing it with the two previous Cold War, particularly the

first one.

Sometimes I think it's necessary to bring in the history of past conflicts to see what

this conflict may turn out to be.

I think that a lot of the analysis and discussion of the conflict doesn't bring that in.

A lot of it has talked about the Iraq War, but not enough about the first Gulf War and

what we may see.

The first Gulf War was supposed to just be a bombing campaign.

They had sent a whole lot of troops to the Middle East to prevent Saddam from invading Saudi

Arabia, and they had those troops there in case they needed to use them, but they primarily

wanted to use an aerial and an aerial naval campaign to defeat Saddam and to give

them to pull troops for a Kuwait.

That didn't work, so they had to send in the troops and to convince them from that.

There's a lot of similarities between the two conflicts that we're seeing now and then,

so we're going to discuss that, what it might mean for this conflict and others.

I do have to say that right now, well, the first Gulf War was known for being the first

televised war.

Yes, there had been clips from Vietnam and elsewhere, but this was the one where it's

like every, you know, CNN is there.

They've got the, you know, they've got all the bombing footage and all this and Normandy

Schwartz Club and other generals are coming out and say, look at our bombing campaign.

Look at all this cool stuff we're doing.

And it was very much seen as that type of new war is that this is made for TV war.

And so it's been criticized that and it's always been a part of the discussion of the

first Gulf War.

Now when that, now today, this is like the first AI driven war because if you're on X,

pretty much all you see is complete bullshit.

I have to say this has been the real mark against X that I've ever seen is that pretty much

all footage you see, I wouldn't say all footage, but the majority footage is AI.

And people get really fucking mad if you tell them that it's AI.

Like I put it out like yesterday, it's like there's clearly this fake AI images of these

like neatly dressed soldiers, one with a Gemini watermark getting captured by Iranians and

it's like, wow, this is real and it's clearly not fucking real and Jill Stein and other

share it.

A lot of guys that might be like, oh, that's just Jill Stein.

I've seen a lot of posters who fall for every AI video, they also fall for every stupid

shit.

I mean, there's like a video going around where the thousand soldiers deadline comes from

some dude who's got like dreadlocks and he's like, dog, I heard from a friend in Paris

that a thousand soldiers are dead and these guys who are like super serious influencers

are like, this is 100% true.

I can't believe this.

And if you go on X, you think that the American regime, the Trump regime is about to fall,

that Trump is about to be arrested and charged for crimes due to a popular uprising that's

about to happen.

Despite there being hardly any protests over the conflict, I'm not saying that this is a

popular conflict.

I'm just saying that people are not the average American isn't carrying so far.

This could change.

I think it's going to change with rising gas prices and market problems, but they're

not carrying about this as much as you think on the internet where they're about to launch

a popular uprising led by Marjorie Taylor Greene and I don't know, various numbers of

leftists, I guess, and they're all going to arrest Trump for being mean to MTG.

Well, not just being mean to MTG, but also launching this war.

And Iran is apparently going to control the entire region.

They're wedding decisively hands down.

This has been the biggest victory for Iran in its whole history, which I don't think

you can claim.

So everything is rather bullshit that you see online.

There we have these problems with the Ukraine war on X where you had ghost to Kiev, we're

saying Kiev.

Highly respected style guide.

We call it Kiev.

I grew up calling it Kiev.

I don't see a reason to call it Kiev.

That's not even the proper pronunciation in Ukrainian.

So I don't understand why we're calling it Kiev, but any case, we're calling it Kiev.

The ghosts in Kiev, you had, they just Russians, they're just committed a bunch of human rights

abuses and that.

And it was pretty bad, but you go on telegram and find a more accurate picture.

But today it's just complete AI Slop and obviously fake news.

I mean from all sides of this, but I mean X is overwhelmingly against the war, which

I don't think is a problem, but I just think is that people will turn to bullshit for

this.

And this could still be a problem for America because right now the war is a matter of

who can withstand the most pain.

It's a game of chicken with between Iran and America who blinks first who gets out of

the way first.

And with Iran, you know, they're taking a lot of pain.

But with America is that how much pain is Trump and willing to take in order to have

some type of achievement here, is he willing to see the economy have a lot of problems with

the market tank and gas prices skyrocket and easy with able to withstand this long enough

to force Iran to make some type of compromise or is Iran realizing that they can wait, you

know, a few weeks and get Trump out and not have to make any compromises.

So this is really the game that it's playing.

I think a lot of the claims that like America is going to be out of the Middle East, I don't

think that's true.

We'll just return to the bases after the war that we've evacuated.

The Gulf States aren't really thrilled with Iran.

You know, Iran, they're Iran's trying to make overtures, which on the internet, everyone

believes it's like they're now going to ally with Iran.

They're not, you know, Qatar is joining in the poverty campaign.

I don't, and that was like the friendliest Gulf State to Iran.

So I don't think that's, that's not necessarily the case.

And Saudi Arabia was pushing for this as almost as much as Israel was.

So I don't think that that's going to be the case that America's kicked out.

But there's issues that, you know, what do we accomplish here over a month?

You know, and if Trump is like, well, we eliminate Hamayni, but now we've got as more radical

sun and charge and they're still going to be trying to do things now.

They're much weaker.

I mean, he can't just say that they knocked out, they're navy and knocked out most of their

miso capacity, maybe that takes it all as when, but, you know, I don't think the American

public will appreciate that.

And if Iran's still able to just rub the global oil supply even after we withdraw our

bombing campaign, you know, that can present some problems for us.

And Iran might try to do that if they think that this will weaken Trump.

And, you know, you could just see that he tried to block this radar moves right before

the election in order to ensure that Republicans suffer a massive defeat, but we'll see.

So we'll now go, that's my latest, I mean, I'm still on the wait and see.

It's been more than a week.

But if you guys, if you, once again, you learn from the Gulf War, it took a long time.

And there was many similar complaints then.

And then the Iraq, Iraq, the first Gulf War turned out to be like George H.O.B. Bush's

biggest achievement besides winning the Cold War, you know, yet a record approval ratings

and a scene as a huge victory for us, but during the month of bombing campaign, there

was a lot, a lot of domestic opposition, a lot of domestic protest against it and even

going into the war as well.

So I'll begin with the Gulf War.

It's for a little bit of history of that.

Is that Iraq chose to invade Kuwait in early August of 1990 because Kuwait would not forgive

its debts.

Is that Kuwait gave, the Gulf states, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and UAE gave a lot of money

to Saddam to fight the Iran, Iraq war.

They hated Iran.

They saw Iran as the threat.

They realized that Saddam was fighting them, so they gave them a lot of money.

Saudi Arabia was willing to make some concessions like, okay, we'll work something out that you

won't have to pay.

And that Saddam was demanding that these loans they make were treated as gifts as their

economies and shambles, they can't pay that back.

Saudi Arabia largely grew with it, UAE didn't really have to worry about invasion, but

Kuwait did.

And Kuwait insisted on not making a deal.

And this pissed off, so Saddam just decided to invade long and early August, which this

was told that this is not likely to happen.

Even America thought that this would not, he would not invade other Arab allies in the

region, such as Mubarak and Egypt, and elsewhere, they're like, oh, he won't invade.

And then he invaded and they're like, oh, shit, and they're like, what should we do?

And then Bush eventually made a statement early on in the invasion that this will not

stand indicating that we're going to make a rock pay for this, or try, or punish a rock

for this message.

But so he began increasing sending troops to Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia was terrified

that they would be invaded next.

If they had been invaded, Saddam would control 40% of the global oil supply.

By controlling Kuwait, he controlled 20%, both Kuwait and Iraq had about 10%, each with

that he had controlled 20%, which was not in our interest for him to control such a large

percentage of the global oil supply.

That's why we win it.

In terms of like the Gulf War, I think that was a legitimate conflict.

It was, Saddam was a, it was a rogue, I don't think the Iraq war was not warranted, it was

a complete mistake.

But the Gulf War was, was perfectly legitimate and the way we fought with limited means,

we achieved those objectives.

We secured our interests in that conflict and there was driven by significant interests

there that we wanted to ensure that Maniac did not control a fifth of the global oil supply.

And I think that's a perfect legitimate way to go to war, especially with the cost of

the war.

The problem with it is that we got over the Vietnam Syndrome and thus we're like, oh,

we can do more interventions and that's what got us in Somalia.

That's what also convinced us to do a nation building in Afghanistan or Iraq and lots of

all the problems.

But it took a long time for us to build up because we began having a massive build up after

the midterms.

1990 was a midterms year, Bush then announced, realized it would not be good for the midterms

if he announced this, which that's different from Trump is that we're, you know, this

is a midterm year and we're already launching a war.

But Bush remembered to have wait until a massive build up.

There was also large scale demonstrations and protests against the Gulf War, which is

largely forgotten because the popular memory of the Gulf War is that it was an easy conflict.

We kicked ass, we, and we went home.

But in the lead up to it, many serious people, Robert McNamara, Papi Cannon, Robert McNamara

was the Secretary of Defense under JFK who's considered the architect of the Vietnam War,

lots of senators, congressmen were all warning that we would take thousands of casualties

in this conflict and it's not worth the cost.

And that this could potentially set off World War III, even though we had prevented that

because we went to the Soviets, it's, so it's so matter, but they're really in a weak

position where they had just the war saw packed at all left and, you know, they're desperate

for American funds and aid and we're like, are you going to step aside if we deal with

Saddam and they're technically allies.

And so the, and the Soviets are like, sure, we ensure that they weren't going to get

an intervene.

China's not global power at this point.

Iran hates Saddam so they're not going to intervene and pretty much the entire Middle

East is supporting this effort.

Syria is, the Gulf states are, Israel's not involved because that's going to commence

the Arab states to not be involved, they're supportive of this.

So we have the entire Middle East on our side.

And so we're able to get a multilateral decision, which is different from the Iraq War,

where it was unilateral, where we're like, we're going in, whether you had approved,

you didn't really approve.

And we didn't get all of our allies on board, meanwhile for the Gulf War, we got everyone

on board.

So that was, that was what we were going with in the first Gulf War.

And this is a multilateral moment.

So we're having to convince both our public and the world that we've exhausted all diplomatic

options.

So we gave a six week timeframe starting in the late November for Iraq to start, you

know, making a deal to get out of Kuwait or some type of agreement with us to prevent

war.

We gave them six weeks to do this.

And they didn't meet, they didn't meet the deadline whatsoever, they didn't care about

it.

So we gave them an opportunity to prevent the war.

They decided to say, no, we don't care.

We exhausted all our, put all those possibilities.

Now we're up for war.

And then the bombing campaign began in January 17th, 1991.

Now, Bush struggled to sell this to the public.

Because we had a legitimate interest there is that, you know, if this couldn't have Saddam,

someone we can't trust and is, he's not a full enemy at the time, is that we have been

trying, this is different from the current Gulf War where we had already decided that

Iran is an enemy and we're not really that interested in working with them.

We're having negotiations work, but we then just scuttled the negotiations while Saddam

is not even interested in having serious negotiations.

And that's why we go to war while Iran at least had the effort to do serious negotiations

and really felt they weren't satisfactory, different scenario.

But before they invaded Kuwait, you know, Bush had made it efforts like, we want to have

good relations with, with, with Iraq because we see them as a counterweight to Iran.

We think Iran's a bigger problem than they are.

And we realized that a lot of the other Arab states are not going to do in much and don't

have the military capacities to act as that cal, counterweight to Iran.

So we want to have good relations and we know that so union is ending.

And so we thought that, you know, this could be another reliable partner in the Middle

East.

And the same way the Mubarak is in Egypt.

But that, but Saddam had other plans and decided to invade.

And we were pissed off about that because we're like, we made an effort to appease this

guy and he just threw that appeasement or appeals in our face and that pissed us off.

And so there was, but you really can't say this type of stuff to the public.

The public, you need to drill down to very basic things.

Does that not care about like, well, this is a diplomatic partner that we can control

as rogue state and might invade our allies?

Americans don't really care about Saudi Arabia.

We could put this out as oil, which actually does impact Americans, but that gave ammunition

anti-war crowds saying that they're fighting for Texaco and the big oil billionaires.

So that wasn't popular.

And then they're trying to make an argument about this is about the economy because if,

which is also a legitimate thing where, you know, rock controlling the oil supply that

can, you know, they can set their own embargo on oil and that could impact the American economy.

And so they're saying that this is about jobs.

So that struck people as weird as like, we're finding war for jobs in Kuwait.

And so people didn't understand that.

Which then led to the fake war crimes are these over the top war crimes that they were

accused of.

Now they were committing war crimes.

They were executing civilians and stuff, but that's not sexy enough.

What they want is, you know, really grotesque stuff.

And they brought in a girl who was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador.

And the Kuwait was spending a lot of money to lobby us to get in the conflict.

So we're the air of the Gulf States themselves.

And she came in and she's like, oh, I've hurtlessly witnessed this.

And she definitely didn't.

And she's like, they took babies out of the incubators and throw them on the ground to die.

That didn't happen at all.

And that was utilized to say, like, look at how cruel the Iraqis are.

This is how evil they are.

We are fighting a war against evil, which is the same arguments that they were using in

2003 in the lead up to the Iraq war.

So this guy is evil.

He is the new Hitler and George HW Bush would go out there and be like, this guy is gosh darn

it.

This guy is the new Hitler.

We, he is this, we're seeing Hitlerism again, the totalitarianism and extermination.

This is happening.

So he kept just saying this guy is Hitler, the new Hitler, which they were doing in 2003,

which he was not the new Hitler at all.

You know, this is a 10 pot, the world dictator still causes problems.

So this isn't Hitler any saying there.

And they also began bringing up the bomb, like he could get a nuclear bomb.

So we have legitimate interests as an empire, or as a country, really not, excuse, over

look the empires.

We have legitimate interests in there that we have this rogue agent who, this rogue state

that's tried to gobble up lots of the world's oil supply and utilize it for his own interests.

And we can't trust him with this.

And it's on our interest for this and this guy is violating all the rules of international

law that we've established.

And you know, that's causing problems for our allies in the region and destabilize in

the region.

But that's not a way to pitch the American public.

The American public was like, I don't care, we're not fighting any wars for oil.

So we had to make up things saying that like this guy, they're throwing, they're killing

babies.

He's the new Hitler and he's going to build a bomb, which they were at this time still developing

weapons of mass destruction and they were still trying to build up a nuke, which they

had stopped doing after the war because they don't have the infrastructure anymore.

And Saddam really just, you know, didn't have the money, it was a much weaker country

after this.

You know, he nearly got toppled following the war and he's just holding on for survival.

He didn't really have the efforts.

You were still trying to build a bomb, but I was more accurate for that first quote, but

it's also that, but with the heated rhetoric, we were also setting up the center that we

want to get rid of Saddam, which is something we didn't achieve, which then created the support

base for the second war, which was stupid, is that we didn't have a long term pieces

that we should, even though I think into capitation strike against Iraq in comparison to a lot

of other states would have worked.

We just killed Saddam and his two sons.

We would have gotten some of much more moderate in there who would have 100% made a deal

and been like a CC or Mubarak that we have in Egypt, and it would have been something

we could have easily worked with.

It was really just Saddam was the problem, as he was a paranoid maniac, which will go

into more in IQ supplement, which will either be this week or next week.

So we had that leading up to it.

So we established that we want to get rid of Saddam, we can't solve this, this is the next

Hitler, this guy is evil, he is a threat to the world, just like Hitler is, blah blah blah.

So we set up a bit of a high standard for this, but in order to sell this to the public,

you have to make this the worst villain ever.

Today we're not even really doing that, we, you know, Trump, I guess it's a, it is honest,

it's a breath of fresh air that we don't have the ridiculous nonsense that was being

peddled both in the first call for in the second, whereas like we're fighting for freedom.

We're having freedom fries now, you know, Saddam Hussein is going to invade America.

If we don't, if we don't fight them, we'll have to fight them here.

If we don't fight them there, you know, all that type of nonsense that was there here,

we're a bit too, we're a bit too honest saying that like, oh well, Israel is going to attack

if we didn't join in, we were going to suffer the consequences, we're going to get attacked

anyway, which, you know, we should have just told them, no, as we are a bit more honest

about our reasons for this is that we just, we realized their weak, when the reason why

we're doing this against Iran isn't because they're the greatest threat right now, it's

more than they've ever been, it's because they're the weakest they've ever been.

We have an opportunity that they feel to strike to permanently kneecap them in a way that

we didn't before, where in the past, we had to worry about consequences, but we're still

paying a price now is that we felt that this was the one time we had where they're weakest

and we struck rather than their strongest or most threatening.

And they've been, they've been a little bit more honest, but it's, they, they've done

a terrible job of selling it to the public because there's no build up, we struck, we

have this massive bomb and campaign, no preparation for it for the public.

And then they go over and they're like, oh, we're, we're helping spread freedom there.

And then there's no protesters, there's no attempt at real regime change.

So then they're like, well, Israel is going to attack if we didn't attack and that was

going to hurt America troops.

And then we're just kind of like, well, just trust us on this.

And it's not been very convincing for the public, which is why the public doesn't have

much support for this, which there was a degree, much greater degree of support for the

first call for because they had made a lot of these stupid arguments, but unfortunately

are very appealing to the public.

And they were getting these war atrocities stuff out there that while the Iraqis were committing

war crimes against the Kuwaitis, you know, they were not killing babies, they were not

throwing them out of incubators and stuff.

It was less, it was like they were shooting, you know, executing, you know, leaders of

Kuwait or anybody who resisted them, you know, but it's not, that's not as engaging

as throwing babies out of their incubators.

So the original plan was just to have a bombing campaign that would decapitate the regime

and potentially kill Saddam and they would force them to retreat from Kuwait without

having to send any troops into attack the Iraqis.

We thought we could win the war through a bombing campaign and it started in January

17, 1991.

And then by the time of February, we realized this was working and there was also a lot

of popular unrest with it.

As I mentioned, there was a lot of protests both before the war and during the bombing

campaign against this and public wasn't happy because it's like, you know, what are

the results?

We thought this would be a week, this would last a week and we're not seeing anything and

they had been, they had knocked down a bunch of our fighter pilots, both British and American

or coalition forces and we're torturing them and putting them on video to make proper

kind of videos.

So there was a lot of, you know, unease around this and eventually realized we're going

to send in troops to knock out the Iraqi forces in Kuwait and that worked to get them

out of there.

But we had a very long bombing campaign from January 17 to the ground invasion started

February 24.

So that was over a month and that's basically the plan we have like four or five weeks,

you know, a month time of a bombing campaign.

I will not to see if it works, but, you know, this is also what the effects of it are.

And there was a huge spike in oil prices when Iraq took over Kuwait.

The other states in OPEC are particularly all states in order to all set the disruption

by that invasion, you know, increased production so to moderate oil price spikes.

So that wasn't as big a problem, but now we're having a huge just like abrupt hit to gas

prices and that's going to last as long as the war goes on.

And that's going to create domestic problems for support for the war and for Trump and

for the Republican.

So we've kind of expressed the similarities between the complexes that one, we imagine

that it would just be a bombing campaign.

It's going to be impossible for us to have a ground invasion force there because one,

there is going to be universal opposition towards it among the general public.

Trump does not care about popularity.

He does not want to scuttle his entire presidency on the ground invasion force.

And talk about chips on the ground are generally special operators.

I don't even support that, but the type of scale up in Iraq war, either the first or second

is going to be an extremely tough sell.

He's going to have to go to Congress to appropriate funds for that.

They're not going to give him funds for that.

There is not even, there's not going to be enough Republicans to support this.

And the feeling among the public is going to be very low.

And I don't think that Iraq, the country of Iraq, is not going to agree to allow staff

combat forces there.

I don't know where we would evade them from.

I guess we could do it entirely in Phibias and Salt.

I don't know if that would work.

And it would take a very long time to build up.

I don't see that happening.

But anything could happen.

So similar as the ground invasion force.

They largely had the thing about the current conflict is that we do have a lot of support

of the Middle East for this.

We don't have much support from Europe and elsewhere for this, which is different from

the first call for.

But the Gulf states, and unlike actually the first call for, we had to keep Israel out

of it in order because Iraq is throwing hers shooting scud missiles at them to get them

to intervene in order to break up the coalition, but we had to keep them out.

Meanwhile here, this is US, Israel, joint war, and the Gulf states are not turning on this.

This is like a huge change in how the Middle East conducts diplomacy and foreign relations,

where there's all these expectations that the Middle East and the entire world is turning

against Israel.

But in terms of where it's matters, yes, it's true that Europe is an American public opinion

or souring on Israel, but in terms of their neighbors, they have far higher or have to

worry about less than they did in the early 90s.

They still had to deal with Syria, even they worried about Egypt, the Gulf states were

much more hostile towards them.

Today, they're having to worry about Turkey, which is not as, but which is not nearly as

big of a deal as the enemies they have to deal with before.

So that's something to keep in mind.

One thing is that I did see this whole thread where people were like, this is Billion

Analysis.

It's that, you know, Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, where it's like they had to have a huge

victory by setting off the Gaza war and the argument was it was a huge victory because

they've lowered public opinion of Israel and like Europe and America, which, you know,

has it translated into much?

It's, I don't know how this has been a huge loss for them, but people will imagine it

as anywhere.

But going to the similators and differences, but the differences are that we didn't have

global support for this latest conflict.

Russia doesn't care in a similar way.

I don't even believe that stuff that they're helping out with intelligence.

I think this is the same bullshit as the Russian bounty stuff that was used to prevent

Trump from removing troops from Afghanistan.

I think that they're bringing out the intelligence that they're utilizing intelligence.

Here is to scuttle a peace deal in Ukraine.

I don't, I have a lot of skepticism towards it.

China is not a fan of this, but they're not doing anything about this.

They're stepping aside.

Europe is, you know, lukewarm.

They're not joining in.

There's not the type of full on opposition like there was for the Iraq War, for the second

of all, for, and there's kind of there.

There's not this type of global opposition.

You saw a way, there was a lot more global opposition towards the, towards the Iraq War

than what we see today.

This has less popularity than America in online, but it's not translating into street protests

or even Democrats really caring about it that much.

There's a lot more opposition towards this at a public level in both wars than there

is today.

Now that could change depending on how long this lasts, but for right now, you're not,

you're seeing very small protests.

Democrats seem to be just shrugging their shoulders and utilizing this for their own

put, trying to make this all about the midterm.

You know, you're not seeing quite the level of rhetoric and opposition that you saw for

the past, for the past two Gulf Wars.

And that's even the case within Europe is where they're, you know, kind of all over the

place and deciding on this is that some, you know, Starmer was initially like, we don't

want to be involved.

Now they're involved.

Germany is supporting it, but they're, you know, they don't have a firm opinion while,

meanwhile with the, with the Iraq War, you know, France and Germany and a lot of other

European states were like, we're fervently against this.

And also Russia, and Russia tried to prevent the war along with France.

You're not really, you're not really seeing anyone come to the aid of Iran.

But this war is happening at a different moment.

All three of the wars have happened at different moments in American, global hegemony is that

the Iraq War, the first Gulf War announced America as the, the only world hegemony, so

that the Soviet Union, despite Iraq being an ally that they've sold weapons to them for

many years, then intervene, and it was just allowed America to do as they pleased into

establish a world, or the new world order as George H. W. Bush famously said.

And we're able to get pretty much the entire world on our side.

To do what we want and to be the world's placement.

This is the world's placement, and we're facing zero opposition.

We're just facing opposition from 10 pot dictators.

Then the second we've been a full decade into world hegemony, but we're facing more

opposition to this, both from Europe, from Russia, even some opposition from China over

our move, but we're still able to do a unilateral assault on Iraq.

We're able to get a cobble up enough allies who want to be on good terms with us, a lot

of Eastern Europeans, the Brits, Australians, and we're able to invade Iraq.

And then we, there's a lot of hubris in thinking that we can just turn Iraq into another America

through nation building.

It was us overstepping our what we're capable of, is that we felt that for, in the first

fall four, we're just simply enforcing the world order we wish to see, but we're not

trying to do any type of radical experiments here.

We're just like, we can do whatever we want.

We're going to do a radical experiment here to import Americanism to another state.

And it failed miserably, but we had this.

Now this new war happens when American global hegemony is being challenged by China, by

Russia, by Iran, by one of these people, one of the partners in there.

And we're going at it alone.

We don't even have real arguments for it.

We're just going in there for the hell of it in a lot of ways under Trumpism.

There's no talks about Hitler or even the Neville Chamberlain stuff.

Like people just like, we don't even care about trying to say this.

This is just, we're going in whatever.

And we can because they're weak and we're strong.

It's almost a social Darwinian way of doing this and we're seeing what can work.

And we're trying to see how the new global order works and what we're able to get away

with.

Well, you know, that's similar to the first call for is that this is establishing what

the future may look like.

And that's happening with that in a post-Cold War era.

Second, we already know what we can get away with.

We're just doing it anyway.

And here, we're seeing what we can do.

Once again, when we have China as a rising global power, Russia is asserting itself much

more so than it did in 1990, 1991, and in the early 2000s.

And you're taking out a much stronger partner or trying to take, neutralize much stronger

state than Iraq.

And Iran is much greater power than Iraq was in 1991 and especially in 2003.

In 2003, it was a very, very weak state and we overstated its ability to threaten anyone.

So that's what we're seeing now.

So I think it's important to look back into the history of how we gained this engagement

is that in the first call for during the bombing campaign, a lot of the same concerns,

maybe not as hyperbolic as imagining the American regime is going to fall if this bombing

campaign doesn't work.

People were very much worried about thousands of casualties.

There was also worries about gas prices and economic effects.

There was also concerns as like we've been doing this bombing campaign for weeks, so there

are no results.

We'll see that.

And I think with this, what Trump has at most a month to wrap this up, at this last

more than a month, gas prices are going to be nuts for the rest of the year.

People are going to remember that and they're going to pay back Republicans at the ballot box

in November.

And so we have to, Trump has to end this as soon as he can in declared victory.

I don't know what type of victory he's going to have.

I think I do suspect that Iranians are just not going to give him the deal they want,

but he's going to U.S. and Israel are going to neutralize a lot of their, you know, destroy

their navy, destroy a lot of their missile capabilities, wreck more of their nuclear facilities,

oil.

And they're already, even though this is America is apparently offended by this, is that

Israel is not targeting their oil facilities.

You know, they're going to be much more, they're going to be crippled state, you know,

as somebody said, a wounded animal.

They may determine that they're not as much of a threat as they were before, or they

might even be more of a threat, we'll see.

And they'll just conclude, well, like, well, we knocked out their navy, we knocked out

their missile capabilities, we further depleted their ability to build a nuke, uh, victory

is ours.

So we're just going to go and stop and, uh, we'll see if Iranians stop firing missiles.

But, I mean, if Iran is, is only, is, is losing its capability of fire off all these rockets

and drones, then they may just say that's a victory in them itself.

And so we'll see, but I, I don't think that that will, um, that won't be the victory they

imagine, but it will be enough of a victory to, to, to, to extricate ourselves from this.

Gas prices to return to normal, you know, if we clear up, keep the straight apart moves,

the hormones open, heat gas prices, uh, keep gas coming here, uh, and Americans will probably,

and if there's minimal casualties, Americans will forget about it.

Republicans have a lot of other problems in the midterms besides this.

So, uh, but that would eliminate one problem.

Uh, I do think that like some of our rhetoric is like, this is going to be the greatest

defeat for America in its history.

I don't think that is going to be a Vietnam was a massive humiliation where we lost 58,000

Americans, all for a communist country to easily bulldoze over the ally we had built up and

it was a major win for communism.

We had to worry much more about the Soviet Union and the spread of communism in the 70s and

we lost all this blood and treasure and it had a really devastating impact on our economy

about the money we spent on it and it was all for nothing.

I don't think that the war, the war could be inconclusive.

It could definitely have long-term repercussions for us, but it will not be the greatest

defeat in America's history, which people are just, because people are just designed for

engagement, and you can't really, X is just not useful at the moment.

Unfortunately, I would want criticism, I want there to be like,

sowing the downsides of this and there are clear downsides of this because oil prices are

skyrocketing for no good reason.

You know, my main concern is us accomplishing our domestic agenda and if it's coming at the

expense of, you know, poorly argued foreign conflicts, then I'm opposed to it, but I think people

are choosing to rely on fake news and AI to make the case that the American regime is going to

fall just because gas prices rose a little bit. That's not going to happen, but it is going to

piss off people to punish Republicans in November, but this won't be the greatest defeat in American

history. Ron doesn't have the capability to do with that. A greatest defeat is still going to be

Vietnam, and even the Iraq war is going to end up as a bigger problem to disaster for us in this

I'm not saying that will beat this will be a good thing. I think this could be end up

bad for America, but I don't know if this is fortunately or unfortunately, but for whatever

it's worth is that Vietnam and Iraq were bigger problems for America than whatever this is going

to be end up. But we'll see, a lot can happen between now and whenever this war concludes.

So that is it for the opening segment. We'll go to our questions. So we'll start off with New England

refugee. He's got a question saying, I thought there would be more protests from the left about a

war. Trump started, especially against the non-white country, but there were far more about

white ice stuff. Why? I think it's just that they're the general left wing base. The average

resistance Lib-Tar cares more about immigration than they do about war. You can see this reflected in

democratic politicians. They're kind of lukewarm in their opposition towards this war. They're not

really going off on it. I think it's also just a breakdown and type of the traditional left

protest movements is that, you know, if you look at the first call for it and second call for

it's like all these big left wing activists groups got their people out there like green piece

stuff like that and they were able to mobilize their voters. I don't think that they really are

as capable of mobilizing young people like they could before. And a lot of those young people,

if you look at the major left wing protests, they're about Palestine and they're about ice.

A lot of the ice protestors don't have a personal connection to this. This is just

raised the imagine that there's a racist, you know, Trump administration going out and

implementing Nazism or whatever. So they feel the need to go out and protest. With the

Palestine stuff, it's people who are personally connected to it are as in our field of personal

connection to it. And that's primarily Muslims. There are other people who joined in those

protests, but they're primarily led and organized by Muslims in America. And they feel deeply

connected to that issue. This is an issue. Some many of them are Palestinian or from neighboring

countries. And so they feel that deep connection to that. And that's why they mobilize. I think with

here, the only people who feel deep connection to it are Persians and they're having protests in

favor of it. So there's not that many people with that. And you can't expect the right to

organize a protest. So, but I think it's also that people feel that if they want to protest

something, they just go online and post about it. And I think that's how it's been established

after COVID. You know, there were protests during the Salamani strike over the Salamani strike

here. And weren't that large, but they were larger than we've seen now. And you know, we that was

not even close to, you know, we're in a week. We're in what something could be called a war. We

were not in a war standing then, but there was more protests than there is now. And I think it's just

that if you really care about this, you just go online and post. And for the left, I think it's

what really motivates them is just stuff about immigration or anything that they have a deep personal

connection to. And I think with Iran, you know, they don't have a deep personal connection with,

like, keeping hands off of Iran. I don't think that there's much of a,

um, the anti-war sentiment is popular on the internet. And these people do, you know,

if you want to be a popular online influencer, you have to be anti-war. There's not a large

audience for a pro-war online influencer. You know, if you look at all from both the left and

right, you know, whether you're Tucker, Dave Smith, Assam Piker, they're all have, they're all

united in this because that's what the audience, you know, that's what the audience generally agrees on.

One of the things they agree on, they agree on a lot of all the things as well, but

that's definitely one thing. But I don't think that they feel the motivated to actually

join in a protest. I think it's for a lot of people to just simply, you know,

we'll write, we'll write something on Twitter or do a TikTok video and they feel that's enough.

But I mean, that is reaching a number of people. And maybe that's a more effective way of

showing opposition and we're building opposition towards it. But I think if you're not,

if you're not having those large-scale protests that does signify that people don't care that much about it,

as, you know, ICE became, you know, the battle over Minneapolis became a problem for Trump to do these

nationwide protests over it. And he's very aggressive protests to try to prevent ICE from doing its job.

But I think it just indicates what the left cares about that they don't care. The establishment left

the definitely the older resistance lip-tards who are a bigger part of this stuff, more than, like, younger

anti-fodd Jason guys, which a lot of the ICE protests were just like old boomers, like,

showing up. You still have those anti-fodd Jason people in Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland. But in

a lot of these places, it was just these old lip-tar boomers. And I think the lip-tar boomers don't

care that much about Iran. But they do care more about immigration. They feel it's a more

morally offensive what Trump's doing there, rather than with Iraq or Iran.

Newing the refugee also had a second question about it. Trump's time at the New York military

economy, though he did not serve spending four years at the New York military academy, probably made

him far more willing to use the military than others. Do you agree? I don't really, I don't really

look into that. I think it did make him have this respect for the military, which he's been a little

bit too agreeable with generals because I think it's that time there. It made him, you know,

worship the uniform and be more agreeable to what generals tell him. That's most what I think

about his military academy experience. Let's see who else we've got.

Dollar Bill asked, do I have any thoughts on the bizarre 2023 death of Obama,

chef when he drowned, close to the Obama summer house on Martha's Vineyard? Is there a reason

to expect foul play? I really looked into it. I did like all the jokes that he was like Obama's

stuff. I mean, it was weird, but I haven't really thought about it in order. I think it's, I mean,

it could be important if it's that, but knowing what I know about Obama's biography, I don't think either

Obama or Michelle or capable of murder. Maybe Michelle is, but Obama is not. I could imagine more of

that with the Clintons, but I don't suspect foul play. So I don't really know what happened there,

but I don't think Barack killed that guy. So that would mean my thoughts on that. James has a

question saying, while I don't believe that the Iran conflict will amount to much toward the midterms,

it does seem to highlight the online rights biggest weakness of thickliness. I'm not in favor of

prolonging Iran, but I am the camp of waiting it out. However, much of our side is feeling betrayed

and have felt this way since the summer of 2025 comments. Well, if you want higher engagement,

you be hyperbolic and hysteric. And so we are an algorithm driven movement, you know,

Richard Weaver wrote ideas, have consequences. Well, for the online right, it's algorithms have

consequences. And so people need to keep their audience entertained. And, you know, if you say,

wait and see, that's not going to get you much engagement. But if you're saying the American

empire is going to fall, Trump has betrayed us once again, and all this stuff, you're giving it

like 20,000 likes. And people need constant sense of novelty and engagement and entertainment. And

so there's no, there's no degree of patience. I mean, it's also with our societies, like we're

very patient society. We want things like wrapped up immediately. Even in the 1990 with the first

golf floor, where, you know, I pointed out, is that the American public was already, you know,

becoming uneasy with it by the fact that we hadn't seen victory after week of bombing.

So there's, I think there's that. And I think it's especially online, especially with online,

because there's constant need for immediate gratification. And the stuff is, is that I think it's

a huge difference around the first Trump term is that you didn't really get much engagement for

attacking Trump in the first term. Now you get more engagement from being attacking Trump than

you do for promoting him. If you're an online influencer, it's smarter to be a wayward Trump

supporter who's saying that Trump betrayed me again and the movements over. It's far smarter for

you to be that than to be a Trump supporter. The algorithm rewards you. There's a bigger audience

for it. I think it's also that a lot of our audience on social media is now as foreigners.

And all these foreigners hate Trump, even if they're right wing. You can see that with a lot of

the European nationalists. And so I think it's just, it's a matter of that people, you know, the

audience demands immediate opinions. They want you to be anti. They want you to say the worst

is happening. They want you to say the world, the sky is falling. That has always been the case with

our consumer market. And it's getting more true by the day. So I think people don't,

people don't like the war for legitimate reasons. And people are upset about it. And they're

tweeting out their motions, which I think, you know, some places are warranted. But it's also

you know, what the algorithm rewards. And there's all these stupid comments like,

X is suppressing anti-war commentary. Are you kidding me? Like X is entirely anti-hostile to the war.

It's like why there's all these fake AI videos that go viral. And it's doing nothing, you know,

suppress them. So yeah, I just think it's that a big reason that more people are moving in that

direction is because they're, they feel that there are more rewards for being an online influencer

by being anti-Trump than being pro-Trump. Some people are legitimately that way that they've

decided that this is better for them or that's what they generally believe. But I think it's also

that they're rewarded by the algorithm and the audience for taking these positions. And saying

the betray is that we have, our side is very much addicted to betrayal porn.

Because we want to feel like, like, you know, we just showed up at our house and we found Trump

with another, I don't know if we want to imagine Trump as another, as another man in a related

relationship. But let's say it's our wife and like people are just like obsessed with this fighting

their wife and in bed with another man. And like a lot of people are just like wanting to imagine

that with like Trump as our wife and where he just keeps cheating on us. They're like, we

haven't been betrayed again. And a lot of the rhetoric is just all about that is I think getting

off on this in a way. And all these guys aren't, haven't been Trump's borders for a while. But,

you know, algorithms have consequences and we see those results are on a daily basis.

He also asked, could I do an IQ someone on Elizabeth Holmes on Theranos? Maybe. Maybe we'll think about

it. Nitro has a question. First off, congratulations on your highly accurate prediction of Nome's

Alster. What do you think of the new leadership? It is this generally a good sign. Nome getting out

is is a good thing. Somebody asked about Mullin, Mark Wayne Mullin. Let's see who asked about

Mark Wayne Mullin. Somebody did ask about Mark Wayne Mullin, but we'll get to that question.

Now I think it'll be better. I think it'll be less corrupt and Nome getting out. Nome was just

running a clown show there. So it's a good thing. I think it's a good sign that she's out because

there was just way too much corruption. Mark Wayne Mullin is a bit of a clown himself, but less so,

than far less so than Nome. And I don't think he's going to be as corrupt. I think it's going to be

more focused on the mission and not playing dress up and doing advertising that like Nome was doing.

Second, do you think Trump has basically decided to say, screw it, vis-a-vis the midterms,

or is this high line talk on Iran just a typical Trump negotiation tactic? No, he's definitely not

saying screw it, vis-a-vis the midterms. I think it just that he feels that he can do more on the

forum on the global stage and he wants to have a lasting legacy and he's taken out Maduro and he

feels he can now take out Hamani and that this will establish him, this will ensure his name lives

on history. He wants to establish a legacy for himself and I think that's why he's so eager to

do these radical forum policy measures because all our presidents eventually find this with

domestic policy as they can't do anything domestically so they turn to forum policy matters.

Nixon was like this, he's like I couldn't do anything domestically even though our whole side

thinks he was about to implement like fascism here or something. He couldn't do anything domestically

which is why I just focus on forum policy matters. A lot of presidents end up doing that because

Congress won't pass anything, they can't get any, they're agenda through, everything that they

want to do, they have to do by executive order and that's limited by both Congress and the courts,

meanwhile for policy they have a lot more room to do things in established or legacy and I think

that's what Trump is doing with Iran. Yeah, do an normative, ask about Mark Wayne Mullin,

I'm not the biggest fan as I said but I think he'll be better than no and so that's really my only

question or my only answer on that. Myopic EOR asked, Scott Avenue and IQ Supplement which he wants

me to do IQ Supplement on Tom Watson who was a famous Southern pop list, there's great biography

of him by C fan Woodward who I like who's one of the most prestigious 20th century American historians.

Yes, I'd probably do that eventually but I guarantee you that's going to be a podcast that our

audience at my audience is going to like that's going to be one of those requests that people do

and they're like can you please do this and then you know I get like zero comments and like five

likes on it and but we'll probably do that down the line. We'll do that down the line. KMAX

has questions R is one for his role in the Iran conflict could Lindsey Graham finally be vulnerable

to losing a Senate seat in South Carolina know that they're never going to get rid of Lindsey Graham

like it's like people have been trying to get rid of him for years and he he's not going to get removed

from office he's never he's able to he's able to he's an effective fundraiser nobody can

compete against that they can't get rid of him no we always think he's going to be vulnerable in a

Senate primary and then he wins by like 40 points and this time he's got like two different

challengers you know there's a lot of attention towards Paul dance he's appealing the online right

but I don't know how much that's going to translate into into a primary but no Lindsey Graham's

going to still win his primary he sucks but it's you know the time to have removed him they

thought that this was a really going to be a good time in 2014 when this is a Tea Party era and

they're like we're going to finally get rid of him this is going to be our time and then they ran

into like oh easily won a lot of suddeners just don't they just vote for whoever they come in is

he's like an R the like well I'll lock him he's R he's a Republican and then they vote for him

and he's the democrat is not going to beat him in South Carolina he's got our bias name

I think it's that the internet I mean he's clearly not very popular among the internet for all

obvious reasons and legitimate reasons but one thing you gotta realize is that internet opinion

isn't the same as off wide voter opinion especially among a lot of these boomers which

the boomers and gen X was all the ones to vote not the people under 30 and especially in

Republican primary so no he's going to keep his seat but this might be his last election I mean

he's I think he's in the 70s now so I don't think he's giving around much longer but we'll hopefully

he's not around much longer um girls enjoy ask do you think the military actions have been as

well in a wrong prove that America has always been the same hyper power we were in the 90s

we just lost the will to use that power after rack and the demoralization my woken is the 2010s

no I think we were no we have never been the same hyper power we didn't get involved in anything

until like World War One we were always trying to get I mean outside of the plant America

no we didn't lose that will after a rack we got involved in Libya we wanted we nearly got involved

in Syria against Assad and we still struck Assad over alleged chemical weapon use we also got

involved in against ISIS I don't think we got well the one shoted by Iraq is that we

unfortunately America was not one shoted enough by Iraq because we kept getting we kept intervening

under Obama under Trump one and under Biden I mean look at our all our involvement with with

Ukraine is that we've bankrolled Ukraine or efforts so no we uh

Iraq didn't change that I think that there's a lot of criticism over the hyper power because a lot

of times we we think we can do more than we can and that might prove the case in Iran with this conflict

so and demoralization my woken is the 2010s I mean Obama intervened and did plenty of interventions

himself you know and he backed uh he backed sanctions against Russia over Ukraine war and all this

stuff so I don't think we lost the will to use that power it says that we are doing things that

much more aggressive actions than we've ever done in the past you know these targeted assassinations

targeted kidnappings you know this is something we haven't done so I don't think we've not been

the same hyper power we were in the 90s uh well if you mean we've been the same since the Gulf War

yes we have it's just uh a matter of the arguments we use to deploy that high our hyper power

has something much do you think we're seeing a permanent riff between Trump and Tucker the latter

has never criticized Trump so openly before this and Trump has now repelled said he's not mega

and also not very smart what does this mean for the movement well Tucker is going to try to keep

that criticism of Trump to to a mild degree because Trump Tucker still wants that influence within

them within the Trump White House and he knows that he can't go full attack mode like a lot of his

audience wants because he wants to retain that you know being invited to the White House and having

good relations with JD Vance and that but if more of a rift opens up I think that opens up the

opportunity for him wanting to run for president which would kneecap uh Vance's presidency he wouldn't

win but he would be a competitive candidate and it likely hurt Vance uh Vance's chances of winning

the primary but I could see him that because there is like a demand for a rumble right candidate

whether it's massive MTG ban and I think all those all the three have their own problems but

Tucker would be the one who would be the most competitive he wouldn't win but he would be

um you know he'd be a person that people would have to pay attention to

tyberian fam wanted uh movie reviews of saving private Ryan or maybe one of

saying peck and paws westerns uh I don't probably not a peck and paws busters but we'll definitely

do one on saving private Ryan that would be a one that would be a iq something people would really like

worse than the Tom Watson when I'd still do the Tom Watson one as that's just a personal interest

for me but uh I will definitely do a movie review of saving private Ryan arm day enjoyer has uh questions

two questions online I've seen plenty of examples of black and Hispanic kids with white kids and

suburbs at someone's house before prom etc yet an early binary housing policy or article interviewed

a black family who said they preferred to live in franklin said the heinous area of national saying

that the suburbs saying that suburbs or races for keeping them out well you mean they prefer not

to live in franklin because franklin is a very white uh for getting that I hope we are still

as segregated as loves but it it says it feels like the lines are blurred I mean even franklin is

seven percent black on sexist is ten percent black well those are southern cities and there's

like a degree of blacks um he has another thing with like franklin he says I found that the blacks

and Hispanics tend to gather in certain areas is that where the townhouses and condos are rather

than mic mansions I mean we already gave them access to neighborhoods and they're buying big houses

too then can we just shut up about racial inequality already well I'd have to see where they are

I mean why does the county has changed a lot I grew up in Williamson county which is where franklin is

um they figured out how to put all the blacks in Hispanics into one high school which was centennial

high school um I forget I think the there's an area in north east waves and county that's

like historically black they were in it managed to put them in centennial and then Hispanics and

also some of the blacks who have gone to franklin high also went to centennial and they also put

Hispanics there and centennial had a lot of the townhouses and condos and cool springs that was

where the kids went and it wasn't really like a bad school compared to like national schools but it

was more bad than though like because all the other high schools like uh you know

John Hughes like Utopia high schools like our whole side would think that this is like peak

golden age America for the other high schools in Williamson county but then centennial there were

the blacks in Hispanics would fight each other during school which you wouldn't witness any fights

at the other high schools so but some percent black for any place in the south is really good

like you you're not gonna get better demographics than that in the south all right if you want

better demographics you're gonna have to move to like uh the mountain the mountain west and stuff

like that like that's uh they've always been there but there's like there's neighborhoods and

stuff that have been always historically black and there were a lot of segregation academies

that were built up in Williamson county despite it not having that many blacks but a lot of

segregation academies emerge in the sixties you know for what academy battleground battleground

um couple of others emerged in the sixties in order to prevent like integration so they had blacks

there they it's probably been always been around seven percent black in Franklin I have to look

at historically but even even if I could guess because it's like extremely expensive to live in

Franklin it might be less black now than it was 30 40 years ago don't quote me on that but

they're there so they're in a couple of areas that Hispanics live in the mostly that

the cheaper like the townhouse of the condos and the areas probably around I would imagine that

those areas are a lot different than they were when I was growing up probably a lot of Indians

there now so um I wouldn't I wouldn't have the best guess on that but there's a lot of historical

historically black areas in Williamson county but they just managed to put them all into they managed

it sure that they all went to one high school and when I was growing up so that would be my answer to

that uh lots of music questions today uh we'll get to those at near the end uh Costco Frank asked can

you say more about what you call the Goyish tendencies in the GOP and how it's time he's

them from exercising power I thought it might be a generational thing like the senate boomers

keeping the blue slip tradition but then you see brylon holly hand types and wonder if it's

something more I don't know if it's like you know it keeps them from exercising power you know

bush launched a unilateral war in Iraq 2003 that's like exercising power and then the patriot act

and all you know all these international kidnappings and stuff you know that's like exercising power

so um when they all support of that I think it's just more that the average GOP voter is

leery of you know open racism of that sort that they're not going to go along with that they're

very much like colorblind individualists and they think a lot of them anyone could be an American

you know I think a lot of the online rhetoric they go with it when it's um tailor to their

views and opinions but a lot they're not as radical as the online right especially when it comes

immigration race so yeah I don't think that it's not like their Goyish is like we can't do this

like we're that's wrong that's really most an elitist abushing thing about like using the

filibuster and stuff and we owe and we overstate how like we're afraid of using power even the

democratic base always complains that they're not willing to use power every base complains about

that but the GOP is willing to do a lot of stuff now more than they were in the past I don't think

that's a part of the Goyish tendencies I think it's just more of their outlook on the country and

you know carrying mostly about tax cuts and all this stuff more than immigration I would say

that's it I would probably call that I would I will return more to this topic in the future we've

voted a lot of our energy and thought power to Iran and foreign policy stuff so we'll definitely

return more to this topic on the Goyish tendencies and the GOP I don't think it's one of the things

of this time is them from exercising power I think it's just more of an establishment thing

or how the establishment views this renowned has a question

I don't know when he asks he's like should Trump step down now

so he said the question should Trump oil us those who care about his legacy hope that he steps down

in 2026 or 2027 and allows shady vans to lead the country in the next presidential election

pretty much every person hates Trump also hates vans if not more so so I don't think that would

please anyone and that would just weaken the movement and hand and ensure that vans loses in

2028 he'd be a lame duck president also Trump's time we're going to do that

and vans doesn't have the right now doesn't have the ability to keep the base united people would

complain more about vans than they would about Trump and no I don't think I still laugh at

you for saying that Trump's going to resign it's only this is an idea that's only popular among

democrats and internet addicts he's not going to resign people what our side wants is that

Trump vans both resign and my johnson resigns somehow fishback or mtg our casey push becomes speaker

of the house I don't know how that happens or Tucker or banan and then they become president

and then everyone we he has 95% approval rating for after nuking television or something

that's really what they are side think so nobody would be happy with that they would then

demand vans resigns and is arrested for I don't know crimes against america or something so no

or just weaken our movement if you want to ensure that the GOP returns to its old pre-Trump form

you should want Trump to resign if you if you want like Paul Ryan is in back advocate for Trump

resign because if you resign you can kill maga you can meet you're gonna you're gonna undermine it

you're gonna undermine vans you can undermine any potential successor to Trump who would carry

on america first and maga and you'd have a much worse situation you also ask like what's the

formal what's the process for winning a Pulitzer Prize he wants to nominate Michael Tracy for a

Pulitzer I think you have to go through a major publication to do that I don't think a major

publication is going to nominate him so I don't think he's going to win a Pulitzer for his reporting

on Epstein but I don't think you can start a campaign on that so I think I can go to the music

questions and then we'll go to we will go to lk work so can ask thoughts on opath I hate opath

I don't like opath opath is they're just like a band where they don't have reasonable song structures

they're just like trying to per mix prog rock with death metal and it just doesn't work because it's

just like oh look at how eccentric this is oh my god this part's really heavy and he's growling

and then this part is really light and soft and he's singing oh in this part it's really it's got

like a jazzy section like oh my god I love this it doesn't really all come together as one

and a lot of bands had this where it had different you know sections of like you know kind of a

soft melodic side and then it'd be heavy you know I once I've seen comparisons before between opath

and my dying bride which is this old doom death band which I have a big fan of you know turnlucis

once one of my favorite metal albums and that works you know it works the different dynamics that

they're incorporating are better it's not as technical as opath it doesn't have a lot of the you

know as much as obvious prog rock influences as opath but I think it works better opath just

doesn't work it's like you move completely different between different songs and I think that

works with some of the older prog rock bands but when it works with metal it just is annoying

and I never thought that their metal parts were really strong I didn't think that they had really

what's necessary the the meat of metal is like solid riffs and you know that really strong emotion

I don't think that they always fell to that so I'm not a big fan of opath we got another

modern metal band also from Sweden kind of a gimmick band but I'm less a negative on it's like

have you less than a sabotage on before and if so what are your thoughts on them I in comparison

with opath I think opath is needlessly pretentious and stupid and just unenjoyable to listen to

and just as in principle it's one of those bands in principle I just don't like I don't like what

they are trying to do with their music that I don't like uh sabotage it's okay it's cheesy it's goofy

it doesn't pretend to be more than what it is I'm not a big fan of it but it's fine if people

listen to it I will send a few other songs they're okay I think they're fine I don't have a problem

with sabotage I'm not really into sabotage now so that is my answers for that and now we will

conclude with okay work if I for some reason mix missed you harass me and I'll get to you for

the mailbag they said you said in the mailbag that you were unfamiliar with a fallout series and

since I don't really care about the current thing I guess I'll ask about that the cliff notes

version is that there is and so he explains uh fallout

goes into it about the nuclear fallout mutants 40 years after that there's a three-way war

of a Las Vegas and Hoover Dam between bledrants that are essentially Joe Biden Elon Musk and

back on a scale of one to ten how intriguing do you find this also keep in mind that I'll left

that a lot of important details for the sake of gravity I think the storyline sounds not fine

sounds like an interesting post-pocalyptic story I've seen a lot of references to it our side

I find the storyline fine so I'd give it seven out of ten six or seven out of ten so

that indicate some degree of interest so that is if for highly respected today we will be back

with more great content later this week so be on lookout for that so until next time stay respected