War, Empire & the Truth: A Conversation with Kyle Anzalone

In this hard-hitting conversation, Kyle Anzalone joins Consciously Unmasked and breaks down the latest in global conflicts, U.S. foreign policy, and the hidden forces driving endless wars. From covert operations to media manipulation, Kyle exposes what the mainstream won’t tell you. If you want unfiltered insights on war, diplomacy, and the power plays shaping our world, this is a must-listen. Tune in for a deep dive into the realities of modern warfare and the truth behind the headlines.

Transcript:

(0:02) Welcome, welcome, welcome everyone. Another Consciously Unmasked. I think it’s eight or nine, (0:09) Jason? Nine, eight, something like that.We stopped counting. Yeah, we saw, I ran out of (0:14) fingers and toes. I just can’t count anymore.Yeah, and like I said, I had a farming accident, (0:20) so I can’t count fully. So today we have an amazing guest with us, Kyle Anzalone, (0:26) libertarianinstitute.com, anti-war. Kyle is a news editor of the Libertarian Institute, (0:32) opinion editor of antiwar.com, and co-host of Conflict of Interest with Will Porter and (0:38) Conor Freeman.Kyle, welcome. Jason, I hand it off to you because you guys have spoken before, (0:43) so you know what’s up, my friend. Now, when I hear opinion editor, (0:48) I’m wondering if you’re able to edit people’s opinions of the other writers on the staff.(0:52) Can you do that? I’m more just, you know, let them know if it’s something that we’re willing (0:58) to run at antiwar.com. It was Scott Horton’s job before mine, and I think the part of the (1:04) job description that, like, it really stuck with me is, you know, he says it’s your job to make (1:09) sure that bad stuff doesn’t end up on the page. And so, you know, most of our regular writers are (1:16) regular writers at antiwar.com because they’re solidly anti-war, and there’s not too much. But, (1:22) you know, occasionally we get stuff that we don’t agree with, and it’s my job to kind of filter it (1:28) out and make that decision.And occasionally I will engage with writers and say, like, hey, (1:33) you know, we’re interested in this article, but maybe not this part of it. Because sometimes (1:37) the issue isn’t necessarily that I even disagree with the writer, but this is antiwar.com. And so, (1:44) if you have an article that’s very good on the war in Yemen, but then you have, (1:49) you know, half the article about immigration policy or climate change or something like that, (1:55) then it’s probably not something that we’re going to run at antiwar.com because it’s not (2:00) antiwar article. And so, sometimes I work with writers and we change some stuff, but typically (2:07) it’s just a yes or no to whatever they have submitted to us.(2:13) Fair enough. I was hoping it was a little bit more power than that, but I guess. (2:17) And I don’t think I’ve ever really changed an article without the writer’s consent.I mean, (2:24) you know, if there’s just like a typing mistake or something like that, I do clean it up a little (2:29) bit. If it’s really long, I might take out a couple sentences that are redundant, but I’m, (2:34) you know, if there are any significant changes, I do run them past the author because I do know, (2:40) and I’ve heard complaints from people who will submit articles to more mainstream sources than (2:46) antiwar.com, but even some independent sources and, you know, they’ll strip out half of the (2:51) article and then still publish it under your name. And, you know, maybe you’re not comfortable with (2:56) that.And so, I always just want to make sure I go with what people’s comfortable with. (3:00) Yeah. Some people put their whole names on a whole book, like the new book about Biden being (3:05) demented from Jake Tapper, because, you know, he said the whole time he wasn’t.So, obviously, (3:11) something happened there. Biden’s perfectly fine, guys. I don’t know what you’re talking about.(3:17) Sharp as a tack. Sharp as a tack. Sharp as a tack, sharp as a tack.So, man, busy week. (3:23) What do we even start with, guys? I mean, first of all, it’s been busy (3:28) throughout the Trump administration. I can’t tell you how much of a difference it is between (3:34) the Biden administration, which, along with 90% of the mainstream media, really had a tight grip (3:42) on the narrative, right? How often did Joe Biden actually engage with reporters? And if he did, (3:48) it was, what, one, two, maybe three questions, all from mainstream reporters.He knew which (3:55) reporters he was going to ask the questions to in what order, so he probably knew the questions (3:59) or thereabouts as well. And there was never really any real information that came out during press (4:07) conferences. Everything was just so choreographed and so packaged up and messaged to us that way.(4:16) And the Trump administration is completely different, where it’s like this deluge of (4:22) information. And one of the things that Trump is trying to do is essentially overwhelm everyone. (4:28) If there’s 20 fires going on and you’re trying to go from each one to each one to put them out, (4:34) then you’re never going to put out any single fire.And so it’s been just really busy. (4:40) And I guess from somebody who covers and writes news every day, in some way, I do find it a little (4:47) bit invigorating. Rather than the Biden administration, where you’re searching through, (4:54) you’re watching all these different press conferences to try to pull out information (4:59) to see what you could find out about what the U.S. is doing behind the scenes, talking to Netanyahu (5:05) or Zelensky, now you have Trump going back and forth with the reporters for seemingly an hour (5:10) every day, or five or 10 posts on True Social, which are half in all caps, punctuation just (5:18) everywhere.You know, Shalom starts half of his post, right? This is absolutely the opposite (5:24) of highly choreographed and highly controlled. And you got to really pit through and feel like (5:31) this is a real story worth covering versus this is just some thing that Trump is throwing out (5:37) there just saying, and a lot of times it’s hard to decipher which is which. And so it was like, (5:43) you know, constantly searching for news to having so much news, you have to kind of search through (5:48) it and feel out what are the real stories.It’s interesting. It’s really interesting to say that, (5:54) because like, if I think about it too, is to like the lay person that may have voted Biden in 20, (6:00) and may have switched to Trump in 24. They’re looking at this because like Biden didn’t really, (6:06) we would just say kind of did nothing like kind of just was was existed.There was a four year gap (6:11) of some kind of memory hole or something. But coming out of that, it’s like whirlwind, right? (6:16) Now, it looks like chaos. So like, it’d be nice, because what happens is we got this moderate group (6:22) of people, it’s probably like 30 to 40% that kind of actually decide things, you know, at least (6:26) electorally or something.But like, those are the swing voters. And those are the ones that keep (6:30) going back and forth. They saw the Biden was incompetent, and they came over here.And now (6:34) they’re just seeing like, it’s not chaos. It’s just action. So we have to look at kind of like, (6:39) let people know, it’s like, this is how action works.You can disagree with the action, (6:43) but it’s great to see things happening. You know what I mean? It’s beautiful to see motion for us (6:49) again. You know, at times, and then of course, we have, like Trump just announcing on Twitter that (6:56) he is ramping up the war, or I guess on true social ramping up the war in Yemen significantly.(7:02) And you’re like, Jesus, like, please just put it down for a day. Like, somebody pull the Joe Biden (7:08) and take this man’s password away from him. Because, you know, it’s one thing when he’s (7:15) just saying belligerent things about US policy or about different Americans or something like that.(7:21) But when he’s threatening world leaders, then, you know, you get concerned. Now, that being said, (7:28) remember, like, eight years ago, now, it’s crazy to think that this was eight years ago that we (7:33) were sitting through the first Trump administration. But he was tweeting out fire and fury, (7:39) calling Kim Jong-un little rocket man, talking about his big red button.And there’s no question (7:47) that for decades, you know, maybe even going back to the Korean War, there’s no American president (7:54) that has engaged the North Koreans as successfully as Donald Trump. And he had real meaningful (8:01) gains when it came to his North Korea policy. When he left office in 2020, the US and South (8:07) Korea had ended their live fire war games on the Korean Peninsula.And these were major because (8:13) every single year, this really upset Kim Jong-un and the North Koreans, because it was the rehearsing (8:19) for a preemptive attack, a decapitation strike on North Korea. And to carry out these war games, (8:26) they would put all the military assets that you needed into South Korea to do so. And so from the (8:32) North Korean perspective, every single year, twice a year, when they were doing this, you had to (8:37) mobilize your entire military and get ready for war.And this also aligned with the planting and (8:43) harvest seasons. And so it was at a time where there was a lot of, you know, strain in the (8:48) workforce already. Like, you know, you needed all of your good men, all hands on deck to plant (8:52) and then pit the crops.If you had to have a million of them plus, what? Oh yeah, yeah, (8:57) it was intentional. The timing, the timing of the exercises is intentional to disrupt their, (9:03) their crop, like their light labor. I mean, it’s at that time of year.So, (9:08) yeah, you know, it does seem that way. We got to wonder how deep did this rabbit hole go? Like, (9:12) how deep are these psyops? Like it’s like the tinfoil, we need less and less tinfoil every time, (9:18) every time we get a new conspiracy theory, we need less and less tinfoil. You know what I mean? (9:22) I know it lines up that way.And I I’ve heard it said that that’s the case. I will look and try to (9:28) find an actual statement from a current U S official who actually says that that’s the point (9:33) or a former one who may be amidst it or something like that. I may be able to find some of that (9:38) information, but yeah, so this goes on and it just drives the North Koreans nuts.And so they (9:44) cadet all, all kinds of missile tests. And of course, from Kim Jong-un’s perspective, right, (9:49) he needs to show force to his people to say, you know, you don’t have to worry about a regime (9:55) change and look, I’m still the strongest man on the Korean peninsula. And so you do end up with (10:00) a situation where the U S is really stoking the tensions in, on the Korean peninsula, every single (10:08) spring and fall.And Trump had actually ended that at the end of his administration. And the North (10:14) Koreans were in a self-imposed missile more test moratorium. They were ending their missile tests.(10:20) They were dismantling their rocket facility. And in one of the most North Korean things, (10:28) they were blowing up some of their observation points along the demilitarized zone as like a (10:33) symbol of, you know, we’re, we’re trying to deescalate the situation. And of course, (10:38) under the Biden administration, Biden restarted the live fire war games and essentially went bad (10:44) to the Obama policy, which is consistent military escalations and agitations that upset North Korea, (10:51) but at the same time, refusing to negotiate or engage with the North Koreans unless Pyongyang (10:57) first agrees and dismantles this nuclear arms program.You know, the other side of negotiations (11:04) are never going to give up and make concessions up front. The point in negotiations is that some (11:10) come to some kind of deal where both sides could take slow steps to have a realistic (11:16) peace achieved at the end. And the Americans are essentially preventing that on the Korean (11:20) peninsula by demanding that Kim Jong-un give up everything from the get-go.And so this (11:25) really presents a problem and hopefully Trump goes back to his first administration policy, (11:31) although we haven’t seen any of that so far. Speaking of Korea, I know this is a little bit (11:37) old now, but South Korea, not too long ago, just suddenly declared martial law. The president did, (11:43) and then it was quickly ended and removed.But I know you talked about it, but what was, (11:49) what was that about? Did that have anything to do with the North Koreans at all? (11:54) So according, so yeah, you know, I’m not an expert on South Korean politics by any means. (12:02) You know, my interest on the Korean peninsula is North Korea and the American antagonism there, (12:08) the Korean war, which needs to end. But through that, I do know a little bit about South Korean (12:12) politics.And so last year, I think sometime in December, Yoon Suk-yool, who’s the president of (12:19) South Korea did declare martial law. And what was going on is that the South Korean opposition party (12:28) had won the legislative elections. And so I guess it would be maybe the closest to like the American (12:35) midterm elections.And so imagine you have Republicans in the White House and controlling (12:41) the Senate in the House, then midterms happen and the Democrats take like a sweeping majority (12:46) in both houses of Congress, right? And they just, they stop approving all of the like, (12:53) justice appointments, maybe something you could look at, like what the Republicans did during (12:57) Obama’s last two years in office, right? Where they wouldn’t hear his Supreme Court nominees, (13:03) and we’re just, you know, really blocking the administration from doing a lot. And so what (13:08) Yoon declared was this was essentially an operation by North Korea to undermine the South Korean (13:14) state when it really, this is what democracy is, right? Where if you’re doing such a bad job (13:21) ruling, the opposition party is supposed to get elected. And in the midterm, in that, you know, (13:27) that midterm period, that’s going to stop you from having so much power to enact your agenda.(13:33) And so that’s what was going on with Yoon. So it seems to have been generally speaking, (13:39) poorly planned and, but there was some real heroics by some South Korean lawmakers and (13:46) the South Korean people going out into the streets and basically saying that we’re not going to put (13:51) up with this. We’re not going to allow this to happen.Yoon was under house arrest for quite (13:57) some time. I think he’s actually out of jail and I think we’re going to find out in the next week, (14:03) exactly what’s going to happen to him. Now here’s kind of the good news of how all this works.(14:10) You know, imagine if this happened in the United States of America, where you had (14:14) Donald Trump or Joe Biden before declares martial law and it’s instantly quashed, right? It’s not (14:20) successful. The next time the American people go to the ballot box, you assume that they’re going (14:26) to elect the opposite party, right? Like we’ve had enough of the Democrats. They just try to (14:32) take over and seize all power.We just had enough of the Republicans. And so the hope from my (14:38) perspective is this ushers in somebody in the South Korea that’s more from the liberal half, (14:44) where Yoon was from the conservative half. Now, let me explain why, because I really don’t care (14:49) about any kind of issues, immigration, gay issues, whatever happened in South Korea.I don’t care (14:56) about their domestic politics whatsoever. The difference between Yoon and his predecessor, (15:02) Moon Jae-in, who was from the liberal party versus Yoon, was their treatment towards North Korea, (15:08) where Moon wanted to get along with the North Koreans. I think he deserves a lot of the credit (15:13) for actually the breakthroughs in getting Trump and Kim Jong-un to the table and taking some steps (15:19) down the path towards ending the Korean War.And Yoon has taken the opposite approach. He’s wanted (15:26) to buy more weapons from the Americans. He was willing to enter into a trilateral military (15:32) pact with the US and Japan.And this is a big deal in South Korea. The Japanese imperialism, (15:39) the occupation of the Korean Peninsula, not just South Korea, the entire Korean Peninsula (15:45) happened during World War II. There are still survivors, the men who are forced to work in (15:50) labor camps, the women who are taken and used as sex slaves, known as the comfort women.(15:56) They are still living. And so, especially in North Korea, I think seeing Japan enter into (16:03) a defensive path with South Korea is seen as a real threat towards the North Koreans, and not (16:08) just by Kim Jong-un, who sees it as the Americans trying to create an Asian NATO. But my guess is, (16:15) for all the North Koreans who know about this information.Now, I do want to say, (16:20) I’m recording a new episode of my new show, The Kyle Anzalone Show, tomorrow afternoon. And I’m (16:27) going to be interviewing one of the most important libertarians that libertarians don’t know about, (16:34) Joe Twillinger. He was Dennis Rodman’s translator when he went to North Korea several times.He’s (16:41) also a Columbia University professor who spent some time teaching at Pyongyang University. He is (16:48) a real, real expert on North Korea. And so, I’m going to talk to him about that, as well as (16:55) everything going on at Columbia University tomorrow.Awesome. Yeah, I want to check it out. (17:01) Well, can we go back to Yemen? Oh, Mark was saying something.(17:04) Oh, I was just saying, that’s awesome. That’s awesome. (17:07) Yeah.Yeah, back to Yemen. Big in the news right now, obviously. Some bombings happened.(17:15) That’s about the extent of what I know about it. Can you fill us in a little bit? (17:19) Before we continue, me and old Gen Xer and myself, was the coal, the one that was outside, (17:24) was ported in Yemen? Was it the USS coal that was blown up? Okay. I just want to make sure that (17:29) that was all together, too.That was like, 91? I don’t even know what that was. (17:32) I believe so. Yeah, that was 91.It was in the early 90s, well over 30 years ago, I guess now, (17:41) which is absolutely crazy to think about. I feel old when I say things like that. (17:46) But yeah, so the US has been intervening in Yemen, as you mentioned, for quite some time.(17:52) And the tension there has largely been between the Americans and the jihadists, which are currently (17:58) Al Qaeda in the Arabia Peninsula and ISIS. And so, the Americans for a long time, (18:07) through the 90s, through the 2000s, really up until 2015, were fighting a drone war in Yemen, (18:15) using the leadership of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, as a kind of a sop puppet in charge, (18:23) to take out Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. And then in 2011, Saleh is actually deposed by (18:32) popular protests in Yemen.But once he’s deposed, and the American organized new elections, (18:39) they’re not really elections, there’s only one man on the ballot, he goes and joins with another (18:44) group in Yemen who now control the Houthis, this is who you hear about a lot. And so, Saleh and (18:50) the Houthis actually took back control of Yemen pretty quickly, after the US not orchestrated a (18:57) coup, because I do think it was a popular resistance that drove out Saleh, but certainly (19:02) exploited the vacuum of power to put their own leadership in charge in Sana’a. And so, (19:08) once that happens in Yemen, you end up with the Houthis taking over.And for a few years, (19:13) until 2014, the Americans are actually okay with this. And we’re actually working with the Houthis (19:20) and Saleh, just as we were before, working with just Saleh, to take on Al Qaeda in the Arabian (19:26) Peninsula. At some point, the Saudis decide that this has become intolerable.There’s a few reasons, (19:32) a lot of them had to do with wider geopolitical issues, and really are important to Yemen, (19:37) as funny as that sounds, right? So, the big one is, of course, with the Iraq War, (19:43) the US took Baghdad, which was a Sunni majority city, and also the leadership of Iraq, (19:50) Saddam Hussein, who was a Sunni, and replaced him with Shia, who are the majority in Iraq. (19:55) We hold democratic elections, of course, the Shia win. And so, this really upsets the Saudi (20:01) Sunni kingdom.And so, a part of their response to that is, of course, the Syrian civil war, (20:09) and supporting the jihadists there, but also in Yemen, particularly as Barack Obama is making (20:15) the nuclear deal with Iran, upsetting the Saudis more. And so, the Saudis go to war in Yemen, (20:22) against the Houthis, and the Americans back them. Even though the Saudis are fighting (20:28) and using, at times, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as their proxy force in Yemen.(20:34) And so, we completely switched sides in that war. And that’s what we did from 2015 until 2022, (20:40) when finally the Houthis had just outlasted the Saudis. Saleh, during that time, (20:46) had a disagreement with the Houthis, and they killed him.And so, now it’s just Malik al-Houthi (20:53) who controls Yemen, and he’s the effective leader of Yemen. And after 2022, again, the Houthis (21:01) effectively win the war by outlasting the Saudis. And they enter into a ceasefire that extends (21:08) really until 2024, when the Houthis decide that they’ve had enough of the Israelis killing (21:15) Palestinians in Gaza, and decide to shut down Israeli shipping going through the Gulf of Aden, (21:21) which is just off of Yemen’s coast.And when they do that, the Americans decide to start (21:27) bombing the Houthis on behalf of the Israelis. And this continues through the end of the Biden (21:34) presidency, and the U.S. dropped over a thousand airstrikes on Yemen last year. (21:39) Now, earlier this week, Trump declared that that was actually a very weak response.And (21:44) if it was him in charge and he gave a harsher response, the Houthis would have- (21:48) This wasn’t enough. It wasn’t enough. (21:50) Right.And now we’re escalating the bombing campaign against the Houthis, which it seems (21:57) kind of absurd to say this, but it seems like the more this group is bombed, the stronger they get, (22:03) and the more capable the fighting force that they become. The Saudis have effectively bought and (22:09) paid for American military. And when the Houthis took over Yemen, they basically just had some old (22:16) Scud missiles that Saleh had bought from the North Koreans in the 80s, right? These are not (22:22) guided weapons systems.And then they start modifying them. They’ve developed their own (22:27) domestic drone and cruise missile industry. They have anti-ship ballistic missiles.Everybody says, (22:33) oh, Iran is arming the Houthis. The Houthis actually have some weapons capabilities that (22:38) they’ve homegrown developed that the Iranians don’t have. Now, the Iranians have a different (22:42) kind of military, of course, but it is important to note that the Houthis have some military power.(22:47) It’s an adaptive military for what they are, right? It’s kind of like a guerrilla weird (22:52) military air force, right? And what, $100 drone versus a $400,000 rocket to shoot it down? (22:58) Who’s going to ultimately win that contest, right? (23:01) Right. And this is the struggle that the Americans have had. During the Biden administration, (23:07) a U.S. general described the fighting going on between the Houthis and the American ships in the (23:13) Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden off of Yemen’s coast as the most significant naval engagement by the U.S. (23:20) since World War II.And this is because, again, as you mentioned, you know, they could launch (23:25) hundreds of these drones at the United States or, you know, usually a dozen or so at a time. (23:31) And I think the Navy ships started to rely on, I believe they call them SeaRAM systems, (23:37) at least they do on land, which are basically these Gatling guns that, you know, just fire (23:44) a lot of rounds. And that’s mostly what they’re using to take out these drones now.But they are (23:49) also using, I think they’re Sparrow and Sim, I forget what, S-I-M dash something, maybe SIT. (23:57) Yeah. Yeah.(23:57) And these are interceptors. (23:59) It sucks to put these out because like, if we say it wrong, they’re like, look, (24:03) Kyle lied about the missile system they use on that podcast. You know what I mean? Like, (24:08) they’ll totally clip it.Like, yeah, it’s whatever it is, right? Whatever missile system it is. (24:12) Yeah. So, I mean, it doesn’t really matter.But anyways, they have the more expensive (24:16) anti-drone missiles and anti-missile missile systems that they’ve, I believe, been trying (24:23) to use less because, as you said, you had this discrepancy where the drone cost the Houthis (24:27) a hundred or a thousand dollars to build, and we’re using $400 million missiles to shoot them (24:33) down. Like, that’s obviously not sustainable. Now, if you’re using the SeaRAM Gatling guns, (24:39) then you’re spending a whole lot less money.Although, you know, those are only effective, (24:44) I forget what it says, but you know- (24:46) And those rounds are expensive too. I mean, they’re pretty- (24:49) Right. But they had to be like within visual range where the Sparrows can shoot them down (24:53) out at sea.And so, you are taking a risk with the lives of American sailors when you start to try (24:59) to save money not using your missile interceptors. Yeah. That sounds really interesting.But once (25:08) again, it kind of plays into the military industrial complex, right? And it’s weird (25:12) watching this shell game of Afghanistan closes. All of a sudden, Ukraine pops open. What an (25:19) opportunity.And then Ukraine’s about to shut down, and it just shifts that shell cup over to Iran, (25:24) right? It’s unbelievable what’s happening. I mean, it’s a decent point that you’re making. (25:30) I don’t know if I would link all that together, but, you know, this reminds me of what Massey (25:35) said on Twitter a couple of days ago, where he pointed out we were getting $50 billion to (25:40) Afghanistan a year, and then it went to Ukraine.And, you know, certainly it seems like the military (25:46) industrial complex is always getting their share. And it’s increasingly getting very dystopian (25:52) when we’re talking about, like, these AI war planning systems that they’re developing, (25:57) or all the, you know, drone warfare, the war. Palantir, right? Isn’t Palantir doing a lot of the (26:03) drone, actually AI decides the target now on its own? I mean, I’m not good enough to name all which (26:10) company is which.I have covered a little bit of this over at the Libertarian Institute, if you (26:15) want to, like, search my name, and then AI weapon systems and stuff like that. Palantir, Andrill, (26:23) I know, is doing some of it. OpenAI, SourceAI are all companies that are involved.And then, (26:30) of course, they have, like, Project Maven, which I believe was originally Microsoft, and now is (26:36) all kinds of different tech companies that are involved in this. But this is their targeting (26:41) software, where with the, they, you know, they say that, basically, these are going to identify (26:48) the targets that we’re going to hit. And this, the Bloomberg did a report on this, where they (26:54) interviewed some of the soldiers using this programming software.And basically, they said, (26:59) the advantage of is speed, you can identify so many more targets, you just say, accept, accept, (27:04) accept. It’s like, this is like the worst kind of machine bias that you see, right? Where you hit (27:11) yes, whatever the machine puts in front of you. The Israelis also did this when they went early (27:19) in the Gaza war, when there was reporting on the Lavender AI program that was essentially giving (27:24) every man in Gaza, or every person in Gaza, excuse me, a Hamas social credit score.And if that social (27:31) credit score was so too high, you’re put on a list, a kill list. And the Israelis were only (27:37) checking that was an adult and that it was a man to get you on that list. Now with the Project Maven, (27:43) even Bloomberg, when they were doing like a puff piece on this program, said that the humans (27:49) identify targets far more accurately.It’s about 80% for a human and 60% for the AI program. (27:57) And that goes to 30% if there’s inclement weather conditions like snow. (28:03) So that’s worse than guessing.(28:06) Man, this is all just so disappointing because Trump ran on no new wars and taking out the (28:14) military industrial complex and all that, even his supporters bragged about it. And then it just (28:19) seems like the same thing over and over, we keep finding new wars to get into. (28:24) Well, one really important point here is that Biden was bombing Yemen all of last year.And I (28:30) think Trump supporters are going to say, well, we were already in this war. And in a sense, (28:36) I’ll give them a point here because this is what Trump did during his first administration where, (28:42) sure, he bombed all the same geographic territories that Obama did, but he still (28:49) conducted major escalations in several different areas. Iraq and Syria are the most notable, (28:57) but one very important distinction was that Obama did not bomb the Syrian government forces that (29:04) were fighting against Al-Qaeda and ISIS.Trump actually did on two occasions launch strikes (29:10) against Bashar al-Assad’s forces. And so that’s a very notable difference. Even still all within (29:15) the bounds of Syria, he was actually bombing the Syrian government versus bombing the jihadists (29:21) too.And then in Afghanistan, he significantly escalated that war. It had really wound down by (29:28) the end of the Obama administration. And while he didn’t send a bunch of new troops like Obama did, (29:33) he did have a surge, but it was a much smaller surge.I think doubled from like 2,500 to 5,000 (29:40) or something like that. Not the tens of thousands that Obama ended, but still he really ramped up (29:46) the drone war in that country. And then maybe the most notable Somalia where he dropped hundreds of (29:52) airstrikes on Somalia.I think he dropped more in his first year than Obama did in his eighth. (29:58) And so it’s not unlike Trump to ramp up one of these conflicts. And if we look at what happened (30:04) during his first administration, he wants to get it over with.When Trump is adversarial towards (30:11) war, when he’s making statements, I think he’s serious about that. I think he’s really horrified (30:16) by the fighting and the dying and all these young people that are dying unnecessarily. (30:22) And that’s what draws people even in the anti-war camp to Donald Trump, because he does sound, (30:28) and I think he is sincere when he says he doesn’t like that.And you have so many American presidents, (30:33) pure sociopaths. Joe Biden and Anthony Blinken will never sympathize, will never feel bad for (30:41) any of the Ukrainians who are fighting a pointless war for them, or at least Donald (30:46) Trump seems to. However, he has this belief that he basically has to intimidate everybody (30:52) into submission.And so it’s always escalate to deescalate. However, the U.S. has already (31:00) tried this in all these places, and obviously it does not work. And so he’s going to escalate (31:06) in Yemen and the Houthis are going to fight back.This is what that group does. I’m sure they feel (31:12) like they withstood a seven-year bombardment from the Saudis at a time when they had no air defenses (31:18) and they survived that. So why would they back down to the Americans now? And look, (31:23) the Americans are going to put a lot of targets in the region for the Houthis to shoot at.(31:28) I am very concerned that this is going to seriously escalate. The Houthis are not proxies of Iran. (31:35) I’m sure the Ayatollah or somebody from Iran is on the phone with al-Houthi right now saying like, (31:42) please, for the love of God, like don’t shoot any missiles at an American aircraft carrier (31:48) because you’re going to get Tehran bombed.But I don’t think the Houthis care that much. (31:53) I think they see their role as sticking up for the Palestinians and they’re going to block shipping (31:59) in the Red Sea because of that. And if the Americans want to pick a war with them over that, (32:04) then they’ll fight with the Americans too.I do think, see, this is where I, I don’t know (32:10) if I differ. I totally agree with every, all of that, but I think Iran’s inevitable. (32:15) It’s been on Wolfowitz’s list.I mean, how many times has the seven countries in five years been (32:20) mentioned? And it’s the last one. And it looks like that’s what we’re doing. We’re just shoving (32:27) our chips South or to the Middle East, you know what I mean? To the Middle East or over the Middle (32:30) East and just like going in.And it’s, and it, I don’t know what that is. I’m trying to understand (32:36) what that is. So I, you know, there’s important differences between Tehran and Yemen, right? (32:43) Yemen has been pummeled.They’ve been under blockade, right? Like, you know, I don’t want (32:48) to make it sound like these are just a bunch of dark, poor people, but it was the poorest country (32:53) in the Middle East before the Saudi bombardment of their country and basically a decade long (32:59) blockade of their country. You know, they’ve been under American sanctions as well. And so (33:04) where Tehran has nuclear facilities, it’s a somewhat modern country, right? Like I would (33:10) guess if Americans were in downtown Tehran, they could get, you know, maybe not every single thing (33:16) you could get in the United States of America, but it’s going to be a far more familiar situation (33:22) than being in Sanaa or anywhere in Yemen, right? Just with the amount of like infrastructure (33:27) and goods and services, like the people of Iran, like have some standard of living where (33:33) the, again, the people of Yemen are dirt poor.And so I, if I were the Israelis and the Americans, (33:41) I would look at the current government in Iran as being a lot of bluster, making a lot of threats. (33:48) But at the end of the day, you know, all the times that we were told that Iran will never let Israel (33:54) re-invade Southern Lebanon, they’ve done that. They’ve taken a huge chunk of Syria now, right? (34:01) They’re pummeling the Gaza Strip once again.They’re in the process of annexing the West Bank. (34:06) They’re humiliating every single Palestinian in historic Palestine as we speak. And I think (34:13) the Iranians calculate that it’s not worth it for them to go to war for Hezbollah, for Syria, (34:20) for the Palestinians, for the Houthis, for the Iraqis.You know, they do want some influence (34:27) in those countries and they’re certainly willing to spend some money to get that influence. (34:31) But at the end of the day, they’re not willing to fight a war. They’re not willing to trade (34:36) Beirut for Tehran or Damascus for Tehran as we’ve seen.They’re much more willing to let those (34:42) wars go on and not get involved. And so, you know, if you’re the Israelis or the Americans (34:48) who have transformed the Middle East over the past three decades, where you had leader after (34:56) leader who was capable and willing to stand up to the Israelis if they were doing what is currently (35:03) going on in Gaza and Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad, Muammar Gaddafi are all gone, right? (35:10) Cairo and Jordan are bought off and paid for by the Americans. The Saudis, the Emiratis have invested (35:17) billions of dollars in the Qataris as well of being part of the American empire, right? These (35:23) countries are major non-NATO US allies.And so the entire region is compliant. And if I were (35:31) Tel Aviv, I would calculate that at this point, the old Ayatollah is not willing to go to war with me. (35:38) And so you don’t need regime change in Tehran.I think it would be like from my, you know, savage (35:45) calculation, trying to put myself in the position of the Israeli general, whose goal is to expel all (35:51) the Palestinians from historic Palestine. And it’s a chunk of Southern Syria and Southern Lebanon. (35:57) I think going to war with Iran or trying to overthrow the Ayatollah would actually be (36:04) counterproductive to that goal at this point, because we have seen that the Iranians are (36:08) not willing to go to war against the Israelis.And in fact, no one is. And maybe, you know, (36:15) if you try to do a regime change in Tehran, if you go too far and start bombing the Iranians, (36:21) well, maybe they then do decide to get a nuclear weapon. And then you really do have to watch out (36:26) what you do.Then there really will be real limits on what Tel Aviv could do in the Middle East. (36:32) And so I, the only thing that makes me somewhat optimistic that we’re not going to war with Iran (36:38) is I don’t think Israel has to go to war with Iran at this point to get what they want in their, (36:45) you know, near territory. Again, that Southern Lebanon, Southern Syria, and getting the (36:50) Palestinians out of Gaza and removing a significant amount from the West Bank and then (36:56) annexing that as well.Do you think that Israel’s also making the same calculation or are they like, (37:04) the United States has given us whatever we want right now. Let’s use it. This is our (37:08) opportunity to take the, you know, take over whatever we want at this point or? (37:14) Well, Netanyahu is, you know, I don’t like him.I think he’s an evil man. I think he’s a monster. (37:20) I also think he’s very, very savvy.He’s very smart. He’s an amazing politician in two countries, (37:29) right? It’s impressive how much political influence he has not only in Israel and in Tel (37:37) Aviv, but in America with Americans and in Washington, right? He is, I don’t know how (37:43) popular he is among Americans now, but you know, he has Americans convinced that Israel is (37:50) necessary to American being there, right? Like, and this is huge. And he has so much influence (37:59) in Washington and has remained control in Tel Aviv, you know, scandal after scandal, he’s on (38:04) trial for corruption.He’s tried to rework the country’s judiciary and has gotten knocked down (38:10) there. You know, that was called an effective coup. And then October 7th on top of it, where (38:15) you had Netanyahu’s decades long policy, right? It was his idea to prop up Hamas in Gaza, (38:23) because this was going to keep the Palestinians politically, as well as geologically divided.(38:30) And that’s the PLO, right? From the PLO, the Palestinian Authority and the West Bank from (38:37) Hamas, right? Because Hamas is a militant organization and they are the government of (38:43) Gaza. Netanyahu was able to point to Hamas year after year after year and say, I can’t negotiate (38:49) with the Palestinians. Israel doesn’t have a partner for peace.And so that policy blew up (38:57) in Israel’s face on October 7th. And Netanyahu has managed to skirt all political responsibility (39:04) for that. You know, the first time an Israeli organization has pointed the finger somewhat at (39:11) Netanyahu for October 7th, it was the Shin Bet a few weeks ago.And tomorrow he’s going to fire, (39:18) I think his name is Roseanne Barr, the head of the Shin Bet, right? Like Netanyahu is an (39:24) absolute political savage. And, you know, as much as the Betzel Smoltrich and the Itmar Ben-Gavirs (39:32) in the Israeli government, who are just lunatic right-wingers, right? Like these are the Marco (39:38) Rubios of the Bill Crystals of Israel, the John Boltons of Israel, right? Like these people are (39:46) not smart. They just, you know, they see an enemy and they want to charge in and go to war like a (39:51) raging bull.But Netanyahu isn’t that way. And Netanyahu may see the reality of the situation (39:59) in Iran and with Tehran. And again, I’m not saying that this is a guarantee that Netanyahu is going (40:06) to see it this way, but I think there’s a decent chance that he’s smart enough to understand this.(40:12) And if we don’t go to war with Iran over the next four years, I think we’ll look back and we’ll see (40:17) in the long-term that the reason that was that Israel calculated, they were able to get away (40:23) with what they wanted without going to war with Tehran. Huh. Okay.So I, once again, I really (40:32) think, I think you’re correct once again, but he’s got the momentum. I’m looking behind the (40:37) curtain and the Adelson funding. And what I think the ultimate goal is Trump sees those dollar (40:43) signs from the renovations and all the rebuildings and all the, he’s getting all that weird (40:46) distraction, military industrial complex.They have nothing to lose by having all that stuff (40:51) shipped down there. So it doesn’t, you know, it’s almost like it’s, it’s kind of like the thing (40:55) about Carlin. It’s like when converging interests, you know, or when interest converge, there’s no (41:00) real conspiracy here.It almost seems inevitable only in his face. You know what I mean? And that’s (41:05) a real concern. Well, you know, I, along with maybe the Israelis not wanting it, I don’t think (41:11) the American military wants it either.And I’m less sure about Pete headset than I was say Lloyd (41:18) Austin or Mark, not Mark Milley Mattis, James Mad Dog Mattis who I did think understood from like (41:27) the military tactical position and, you know, care for their own troops in understanding the losses (41:35) of going to war with Iran and what that would mean. I imagine that Trump would ask those (41:41) questions and understand that, but I’m not positive. And I don’t know about headset or (41:47) Tulsi Gabbard or John Ratcliffe.If any of them are willing to tell Donald Trump, like, you know, (41:52) do you want tens of thousands of American troops to die to fight this war with Iran? And that would (41:59) be another reason not to wage what would be an unnecessary war in unnecessary, even from the (42:06) perspective of Tel Aviv possibly. Hmm. Is there any credibility to the Iran threat? Like they (42:14) said things like Iran was behind the Trump assassination attempts and stuff like that.(42:19) And they’re always trying to push this war. I mean, is there, is there anything there that’s real? (42:26) Well, so on the assassination attempts, like the actual two people who tried to, well, one did, (42:34) and the other one tried to take a shot at Trump. No.We’re working and we’ll have a definitive (42:41) account of this at the Libertarian Institute. Ken Silva is writing a book on it. And so that’s (42:47) going to get like down into all the, you know, details and court filings and all the really (42:53) important information that I just don’t know.But I have looked at all the evidence and claims (42:59) about Iran being behind the Trump assassination. And there’s nothing that links Iran to the two (43:05) actual assassination attempts. Now there’s this one that seems like an FBI entrapment plot where (43:11) some guy who was already in trouble with the FBI told the FBI that Iran was trying to pay him to (43:17) assassinate Donald Trump.And I think John Bolton too. And that just, it is, it’s a little bit (43:23) suspicious. So on that front, you know, there, no, Iran hasn’t done that.Now there’s, you know, (43:32) other claims like Iran supports groups in the Middle East that America doesn’t like. And that (43:37) is true. But if you look at the groups that Iran say supports in Iraq, those are the popular (43:43) mobilization forces or the Shia militias that by the way, received American support to fight (43:50) against the Islamic state when the Islamic state took over half of Iraq and Iran bat the Assad (43:57) government in Syria, who was fighting against the Islamic state and Iran bats Hezbollah in (44:03) Southern Lebanon that, you know, previously stood as a bulwark against Israel.And so Iran does (44:10) Assad though, they turn on Assad and then look what happened. Boom out of this out as Assad, (44:15) right. And they supported that, you know, it’s like, so anyways, I guess it’s not to say that (44:21) people in the U S who are imperialists don’t have complaints about Iran that aren’t true.But (44:28) if you look at what Iran is actually doing in the Middle East, it’s usually (44:32) not supporting terrorism. It’s usually trying to kill terrorists because, you know, the Sunni (44:39) jihadists, the Al Qaeda’s, the Islamic States that want to come to America and kill Americans (44:45) also want to go to Iran and kill Iranians. And so in that way, if anything, we should kind of (44:52) ally with Iran in the Middle East and not want to go to war with them.Yeah. You would think so. (44:58) If you’re a sane person, that seems to be a rational position not to want to go to war with (45:03) anyone, but yeah.Why Iran? I’ve, it doesn’t make sense to me. And once again, I felt that same way, (45:09) but like, look at Libya and Gaddafi. I mean, Gaddafi was, I don’t, I don’t think he didn’t (45:15) pose the actual threat of the nuclear.It was like, it was the monetary, right? Like getting away, (45:20) having some kind of gold back currency that really threatened the Petro dollar here. It’s like (45:25) Saudis. Everybody seems to be on board with the Petro, which makes sense, right? To kind of, (45:28) that’s how that, that’s how the Abraham Accords kind of worked together.Cause it was more of an (45:32) economic strength too, for everybody. Right. And then this now all gets blown up with October 7th (45:38) and now we’re back at square one with like, what do we do with everything? It’s like, (45:41) it’s unbelievable.Well, Libya was a much easier, you know, Gaddafi is not Iran is not the Ayatollah (45:49) and it was much easier to overthrow in that way. And also, I don’t want to dismiss how much of (45:56) Libya in the intervention there was just Hillary Clinton looking to have something to run her next (46:02) election on and seeing an opportunity to remake a country, right? She was going to be the queen of (46:08) reform and women’s liberation in Libya after she went in and killed that rapist, Muammar Gaddafi (46:16) and in, you know, instill this bright new shining government in Libya. Of course, there’s a failed (46:21) state slave trade, horrible crimes going on all the time, like three different warring groups still (46:27) vying for control of that country.But at the time Hillary Clinton, same situation in Yemen, (46:33) right? She thought she was going to remake, reform that country and then, you know, be like the queen (46:38) of reforming the Middle East and making it a better place. And of course it all blew up (46:43) spectacularly in America’s face. Well, what’s going on with the Ukraine ceasefire, because that’s (46:52) been happening.I’ve heard that they had an agreement and then maybe Russia violated it. (46:56) I don’t know. I just, I see a lot of different news articles and I don’t know what to believe.So (47:02) now I think it’s still on the table. They’re talking about it. Ceasefire, Ukraine and Russia.(47:08) Where are we at? So after Trump came into office, he says he wants to engage with the Russians and (47:16) has so far. There was one pretty successful meeting, I think, where it was Secretary of State (47:22) Marco Rubio, national security advisor, Mike Waltz and Middle East envoy, Steve Whitcoff, (47:28) who all went to the Middle East and met with Russian officials, including Sergei Lavrov. (47:32) And there they made an agreement to normalize relations and work towards an end to the war (47:37) in Ukraine.Then a couple of weeks later, Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz, this time without Whitcoff, (47:43) went to the Middle East and they had a conversation with Ukrainian officials. And (47:48) afterwards they announced this 30 day ceasefire and they said the Ukrainians are on board with (47:53) this ceasefire, but the Russians are, but now the ball’s in Russia’s court. They have to accept (48:00) the ceasefire.And so why I think Rubio, Waltz and the Ukrainians were trying to do is kind of (48:06) play Donald Trump here. And to make it that the Russians are the ones that are willing, (48:11) unwilling to accept the ceasefire. Now this is a very broad ceasefire.It doesn’t include any, (48:17) like, you know, Ukraine isn’t saying like, Hey, this is the idea that we’re thinking about for a (48:23) final agreement. And so we’re really close. Let’s have a ceasefire so we can negotiate this over the (48:29) finish line.They’re just asking for a 30 day ceasefire. And the Russians have been taking a (48:34) lot of Ukrainian territory over the past two or three weeks. The Ukrainians are really over (48:39) extended, particularly in Kursk.And, you know, they’re struggling with manpower, ammunition, (48:46) all kinds of different things. They’re, they’re in real trouble. You know, when Trump was telling (48:50) Zelensky in the white house, you don’t have the cards.He really meant it that the Ukrainians are (48:55) in trouble. They’re losing territory at one of the fastest paces since the start of this conflict. (49:00) And so with that, the Russians are going to be unlikely to just agree to a ceasefire (49:07) because it’s going to give the 30 Ukrainians 30 days to get new troops to the front lines, (49:13) get more ammunition in from their Western backers, you know, give their troops a little (49:17) bit of rest.And since they’re on the defensive, build more defensive positions. And so what Putin (49:23) did was I think kind of tricky and in a good way, he told the Americans that he agrees with the (49:30) broad outlines of the ceasefire, but we have to hammer out the details. And so that was kind of (49:36) punting the ball back to the Americans to come to the Russians with a workable proposal.(49:42) And so just today, right before we recorded, Trump got off the phone with Putin and put out (49:47) a post on true social saying that the Russians had agreed to a 30 day pause on attacks on (49:54) infrastructure. And if this is true, this is, I think actually a pretty clever agreement here, (50:00) where tactically Russia probably won’t see this as something that really gives a huge benefit (50:07) to the Ukrainians, right? Where they’re not able to, you know, get more troops to the front lines, (50:13) more ammunition to the front lines, but it is going to be some reprieve to the Ukrainian people (50:18) who are going to be able to work and repair some of their energy infrastructure, have lights and (50:23) heat in the next month or so. And so in that way, I think it’s a good thing.And hopefully Ukraine (50:29) lives up to its end because it’s been carrying out a lot of tasks on Russian energy infrastructure (50:33) over the past month as well. There are some questions about when this is supposed to go (50:39) into effect and if Russia is already violating it. There are reports that Russia was already (50:45) bombing Ukrainian energy infrastructure.I will say just watching war after war after war, as I (50:52) have over the past decade or so, I noticed that let’s say two sides are in discussions about (51:00) coming to a ceasefire agreement. That is going to be the most intense period of fighting that (51:05) you’re going to see, right? Because both sides want to have as much as they can for the negotiating (51:10) table. And then let’s say they agree and you see this a lot with Israel.Okay. The ceasefire is (51:17) going to start on Tuesday and it’s Sunday. And so whatever power dominant, whatever power is on the (51:22) offensive is going to be absolutely brutal and carry out a lot of attacks in that window between (51:29) now and when the ceasefire technically starts because they know that they could basically (51:35) extend as far forward as they want.They’re not going to have to secure that position right away (51:40) because the ceasefire is coming into effect. And so it gives you a chance to just carry out all of (51:45) your airstrikes on all the targets that you have and things like that too. Go ahead, burn through (51:50) all of your ammunition.You’re going to have a chance to logistically bring new bombs up to the (51:55) bases. Bombs are constantly rolling off the production line and things like that. So my (52:00) guess is that if they agree that this ceasefire is going to effect in a few days, Russia is going (52:06) to pummel Ukraine for those few days as a matter of just gaining as much leverage as they can.(52:14) Yeah. And it’s interesting because I saw it about energy infrastructure, even more than just (52:18) general infrastructure. So it’s like, okay, we won’t attack the power plants.Okay. Big deal. (52:23) It seemed like it’s something to write, something to put down.So it’s like, look, (52:28) we started a ceasefire. We made one. And then it’s also one for Russia to be like, yeah, it’s (52:32) also one, but it’s kind of like, it doesn’t have much teeth.But the elephant in the room is the (52:37) United States hockey team might play the Russians. What a turn of events. What an amazing thing out (52:43) of this.So look, whenever things like that happen, my first reaction is to kind of be like, (52:52) this is insignificant. However, Ron Paul always said the best thing that you could do is engage (52:58) in sports with other countries and had this sports diplomacy. And this was one of the things that Ron (53:04) said that I was never really convinced about.But Joe Twillinger, who I was talking about earlier, (53:09) who served as Rodman’s envoy to North Korea, said that when Rodman brought the NBA players to North (53:16) Korea for Kim’s birthday game, and he was sitting there with Kim Jong-un during the game, Kim Jong-un (53:23) told Joe that Rodman showing up with former NBA players to play in North Korea was the first time (53:30) that American had ever kept his promise to a North Korean. And so there are these kinds of (53:36) things that can really be important to like breaking down barriers. I was being totally (53:42) glib, but yeah, you’re totally right.Cause it is, it is a diplomacy. Cause like if you guys, (53:47) if you can get along and shake hands after or something, you know what I mean? It’s everyone (53:49) gets along, you start actually humanizing it right between the two sides. I think that’s the (53:54) big thing is, and an element of humanization, especially where the US-Russian relationship (53:59) is right now.You know, effectively there’s not diplomatic missions for Americans in Russia and (54:06) vice versa, right? Where they’ve expelled all the Russian diplomats from the US. I believe at (54:12) one point I read like the American officials that are stationed at the US embassy in Moscow, (54:18) and I believe it’s the only one the US has in Russia at this point, have to do like janitorial (54:23) jobs and things like that because they’re so short on staff at the embassy. At the Russian embassy, (54:29) they, I guess have to as well.I’ve read that they can’t pay their sanitation workers because (54:35) American sanctions, you know, prevent them from paying money to Americans. And so now they can’t (54:41) hire Americans to, you know, come and do whatever maintenance or anything at the Russian embassy. (54:48) Wow.Yeah. Sports are, I mean, definitely important just to hit that point home again, (54:53) like. They are.I mean, 1980 really turned this country around. Can we, can we say that miracle (54:58) was like, I mean, it was a bunch of everything, right? Yeah. But it’s a way for people to like (55:03) get out that aggression, you know, you, you get that tribal instinct in you and people fight, (55:08) but it really doesn’t have like, you know, obviously life or death consequences.So I think, (55:13) yeah, I think it’s a really good way to get out your battle. (55:17) Battle bots. I love it.Battle bots. That’s pretty much what we’re doing with the, (55:25) the drones and everything, isn’t it? Yeah. Well, look, I feel like hockey is a low risk (55:30) sport for Americans to agree to play the Russians in here.You know, nobody really (55:35) expects you to win. The Russians are supposed to be on one of the best hockey players. I mean, (55:39) look at Siberia, all those people gotta be better skaters than all the Americans.We got sports (55:45) teams into Tampa Bay, you know, NHL teams so that I’m sure to the Russians, that’s a huge joke. But (55:50) if we go and win, then it’s a big upset victory for us. And if we lose, that’s what was expected.(55:55) Anyways. Yeah. Yeah.It is true. Now I feel like a douchebag for making a joke. (56:05) Yeah, man, don’t interrupt cows in a flow.Anyway, I forgot where we were. We’re talking about (56:14) Russia. I mean, is there probably talked about this before, but is there any like, (56:19) real good actual end game for this? What, what can be the terms of a ceasefire or an actual end (56:26) to the war? Yeah.So the good news is, is that when I believe it was Whitcoff was talking about (56:35) this a couple of weeks ago on the Sunday morning show, he said that the U S and the Russians were (56:40) discussing the Istanbul framework. Now the Istanbul framework where negotiations between (56:48) Russia and Ukraine dread negotiations that were going on in the month to two month period after (56:54) the invasion of Russia, Russia invasion of Ukraine in March and April of 2022. And in Turkey, (57:01) a NATO state, there were real successful negotiations that had essentially hammered (57:07) out a deal.At that point, Russia was actually going to withdraw entirely from the Donbass (57:12) and then was going to withdraw from all the other Ukrainian territory they held. (57:18) And Ukraine was going to agree to neutrality, a level of demilitarization, denazification. (57:27) And then of course, I guess, most importantly, not taking shipments of American weapons.(57:32) And so this was agreed to from the Russian and the Ukrainian side. And then Boris Johnson went to (57:40) Ukraine and taught Zelensky out of signing the deal. And this was what was reported in a Washington (57:46) post at the time that while Ukraine was ready to accept the deal for some in NATO, they didn’t want (57:55) to take it.And because the Boris Johnson representing NATO went to Ukraine and told Zelensky (58:04) that we’re not going to support you if you make this agreement, but we’ll continue to send you (58:09) weapons if you choose to fight, Zelensky chose to fight. And so now Russia has altered, (58:16) they’re not going to give Ukraine back Donetsk, Luhansk, Kurshan, Zaporizhia. These four oblasts (58:24) of Ukraine are now a part of Russia.They’re now Russian regions. Moscow has annexed them. (58:30) But I think other than that, they’re still willing to negotiate on the broad frameworks (58:34) of the Istanbul Accords.And if that’s the case, I think a deal could probably be made. (58:42) Now, the tough part is that Zelensky is going to have to admit that in 2022, he went to war, (58:52) got hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Ukrainians killed. And all he managed to achieve (58:58) was losing four oblasts that Russia was willing to give back.And so that’s going to be a tough (59:04) pill to swallow in Kyiv. But I think if the Russians are willing to agree to it, it’ll be (59:09) a pretty decent deal for the Ukrainians, just based on what they could possibly get at this (59:15) point. Jason, you’re muted, buddy.Sorry, my bad. You were so good there too, man. (59:29) That’s the first time.What would it look like in Ukraine after this kind of deal? I kind of (59:35) expect Zelensky would have to go. Would they have elections again? Is this something the US would (59:41) still be involved with, trying to select the right person? What do you think? (59:47) This is the interesting and the problematic thing. And one of the reasons where, (59:53) you know, for all the reasons that Putin had to invade Ukraine in 2022, I think the best argument (1:00:00) for having him not invade is that he was never going to get a more reasonable negotiating partner (1:00:07) in Kyiv than Zelensky.And by invading, he ensured that the government to come in Ukraine (1:00:16) is going to be more nationalist than Zelensky. No, it’s important to remember that Zelensky, (1:00:22) when he was elected, was running on a campaign of, I am going to implement the Minsk Accords, (1:00:29) and I’m going to end the Ukraine civil war. And the civil war was being fought in Ukraine’s Donbass (1:00:35) region between forces who are receiving support from Russia and factions of Ukraine that actually (1:00:41) preferred to be a part of the Russian state versus being a part of Ukraine and the Ukrainian (1:00:46) government.And Zelensky said, I am going to implement the Minsk Accords, which was agreed (1:00:52) to between Ukraine, France, Germany, and Russia, to have the Donbass Oblast of Donetsk and Luhansk (1:00:59) to essentially become autonomous republics, but still a part of the Ukrainian state. (1:01:05) And so they would have their own kind of domestic policy in the sense of things are going to be in (1:01:13) the Russian language. They’re going to name the streets, the roads, and things like that.The (1:01:18) schooling is going to be run out of the Donetsk and Luhansk. However, still they’re a part of (1:01:26) Ukraine, and I’m sure it would send troops to Kiev and things like that in the long run. (1:01:31) And so I think that if you look at Zelensky, he may be the most reasonable person that Putin (1:01:40) could have to actually negotiate with here.And so it’s possible that in the medium term (1:01:46) for the rest of the Trump administration, maybe, that the US essentially has to put some troops (1:01:52) in Ukraine to protect Zelensky from the Ukrainian nationalists, who are likely to at least try to (1:01:58) kill him if he accepts this deal. There’s this recent podcast, I have never heard of it before, (1:02:04) but a lot of people had Trigonometry, Trigonometry. Trigonometry with Kirsten, Kirsten, (1:02:11) Kirsten? I don’t know the guy’s name.It’s Konstantin Kirsten is the guy that’s called (1:02:15) out Dave for the woke right stuff, that Konstantin Kirsten guy. Yeah, he’s in Trigonometry with this (1:02:21) other guy. Yeah.So him and his podcast buddy are talking to Boris Johnson and Boris Johnson (1:02:29) is telling them that in 2019, Zelensky was actually trying to implement this deal that he had made (1:02:35) with Putin. It was, I think, like the Normandy format and extension of the Minsk agreements. (1:02:42) And Zelensky was in what is, I guess, Eastern Ukraine, telling the frontline Ukrainian (1:02:48) nationalist forces to pull back, that we are implementing this ceasefire to stop the fighting.(1:02:55) And they laughed at him. And rightfully so, because look, if you ever know that somebody (1:03:01) is a really feckless and an unimpressive man, he goes, I’m 41 years old. Like he’s like standing (1:03:09) on his tippy toes, go, I’m a 41 year old man.I’m a man. I’m 40. He’s like that coach from (1:03:15) Oklahoma State.Right. And he looks like an absolute clown. But at the same time, (1:03:21) Zelensky did want to implement this, right? That was his goal was to implement this.And so, (1:03:27) I guess, I don’t know if Zelensky goes, if it creates a situation for Russia and the US where (1:03:35) they could actually implement the deal, if Ukrainian nationalists are going to end up taking (1:03:39) over Kiev and being even more belligerent than Zelensky is. And so, Zelensky might have to stay (1:03:45) put for some time. Yeah.And that’s the thing is like, they’re going to have to protect him (1:03:51) because it really is. I mean, wasn’t it C14 and the right faction per Scott’s book that helped (1:03:57) push out Yanukovych last time, forcefully, right? Under threat. So, I think if they stop the war, (1:04:04) the A’s off and everything, everybody’s pushing that war because they just wanted to continue.(1:04:09) Right. Then this is going to be a real problem for implementing any deal. And part of the reason (1:04:16) why Zelensky might have to stay around.It’s a cash cow for them. They are making, (1:04:20) they’re all bilking. They’re all skimming off of that.Let’s not kid ourselves. They’re all (1:04:24) profiting somehow off of this. So, it’s kind of crazy when they’re like, yeah, we vote all, (1:04:28) all of us vote to keep going.It’s like, well, I guess, but I guess you guys are not fighting (1:04:33) and you’re just getting whatever extras coming through, right? (1:04:38) Yeah. I’m sure they’re making a lot of money. Hey, I’m back.Sorry about that. I lost audio (1:04:45) all of a sudden. I’m sure you had a great answer to my question.I’ll have to go listen to it later. (1:04:49) It sounds like you said Zelensky will be sticking around. (1:04:54) That’s my general prediction, but.So, you think Zelensky’s going to stick around and then (1:04:58) the US might have some offers, some protection for him in some way. (1:05:03) If he accepts the deal, I think, yeah, they will have to offer protection for him. (1:05:07) You think he might just bug out and come to the States? (1:05:09) Or a ride.Yeah. One or the other. They’ll have to give him a ride or a coffin or a protection.(1:05:22) All right. So, once again, we’ve got, JFK files just dropped too. So, we’ve got a lot of (1:05:27) competition everybody.So, but hey, I am for, I am just joined. So, welcome everybody. We’ve got (1:05:33) 36 people on.We’re with Kyle Anzalone of antiwar.com and thelibertarianinstitute.org. (1:05:38) Kyle, do you want to share a little bit about the fundraiser you have going on for (1:05:42) the Libertarian Institute and anti-war? Yeah. So, the Libertarian Institute, we are, (1:05:48) we do like basically just an annual fundraiser. We try not to ask for money very often.(1:05:53) The money we do take in at the Institute either pays for salaries. So, it allows me to spend my (1:05:59) writing news articles and reading about all this, doing both of my shows, Conflicts of Interest and (1:06:06) the Kyle Anzalone show to cover all this foreign policy stuff and be up to date on it. (1:06:11) We also spend some money to publish books.The latest is Scott Horton’s Per Vote, but there’s (1:06:17) a whole list of books. And we not only try to print books and of course sell them to people, (1:06:23) but also try to distribute them to members of Congress or people who are in powerful (1:06:28) positions to educate them, members of the media and things like that. And so, when you donate to (1:06:34) the Institute, we promise that this is really going to further the libertarian movement, (1:06:39) either creating new content to deal with either historic or contemporary issues to make sure that (1:06:46) the conversation of the day always has the libertarian voice and that libertarians know how (1:06:52) to like kind of apply what’s happening to some of our philosophy and things like that.(1:06:57) We have a great staff at the Institute, of course, founders Scott Horton and Sheldon Richman, (1:07:03) myself, Keith Knight, James Blovard, Laurie Calhoun, Ted Galen Carpenter, just a really, (1:07:10) really great staff. And I mean, this is like a quarter of the staff I just listed. (1:07:15) Another really great thing about the Institute is Scott has helped to cultivate a lot of the (1:07:20) new generation of the libertarian movement.And so, you know, as a lot of our heroes get (1:07:26) older and older or, you know, people become less active over time, people unfortunately pass away, (1:07:33) you know, we need new writers. And there’s a lot at the Libertarian Institute, people in their 30s (1:07:40) or even younger in their 20s, who are really, you know, figuring out libertarianism and writing and (1:07:46) putting out a lot of really great content at the Institute. And so, Scott has developed like a (1:07:53) really awesome bench and team at the Institute.And there’s so much great content there. (1:07:59) Right now, we do have matching funds. And so, if you make a donation, the impact of that donation (1:08:04) will be doubled.Scott is offering signed copies of his book, Provoked, to some higher level donors, (1:08:11) if you want to go out and get one of those. But if you just want a copy of one of our books, (1:08:15) I think like 25 bucks, and we’ll send you the ebook of your choice. And there are some great (1:08:20) ones.And some of our books are just available online for free, like both of Keith Knight’s books, (1:08:25) Domestic Imperialism, and the Voluntarist Handbook. You get free PDFs on the Libertarian (1:08:31) Institute website. We have the Waco Archive, or we’re working on the Waco Archive.We have the (1:08:37) Oklahoma City Bombing Archive. I mean, there’s just so much at the Institute that is important (1:08:43) libertarian content. It’s every single day.I’m not sure there’s a libertarian site that puts (1:08:49) out quite as much content as we do right now. Yeah, it’s excellent. All those people you (1:08:56) mentioned are great.Keith is awesome. Sheldon Richman, I’m reading one of his books right now. (1:09:01) All really good stuff.So, definitely go check it out, guys. (1:09:07) 100%. So, Iam4am was talking about Mar-a-Lago Accords.Is anybody familiar with that? Or (1:09:14) I’ll post this up here. I have not heard of that. (1:09:17) Do you want to read about that, Jason? Mar-a-Lago Accords is about dealing with (1:09:21) debt payoff, devaluation of the dollar to increase manufacturing in the United States, (1:09:25) and new revenue.I am not familiar. (1:09:29) I don’t know. That just sounds like normal government policy.(1:09:33) Devalue the dollar to keep increasing our debt. There we go. It’s just something to put up.Iam, (1:09:41) thank you for joining, and thank you for sharing that as well. We are all over the (1:09:45) place today just because it’s Kyle. Kyle knows a lot of stuff.So, anyway. (1:09:51) What do you do when you’re not looking into all this conflict stuff? Do you have other- (1:09:58) Yeah. Right now, I have a six-month-old, so that’s pretty much it for the most part.(1:10:03) I got a house with a little bit of property. So, I like being outside, yard work, building a garden, (1:10:11) greenhouse, things like that. It’s all a little bit of fun too.Got a couple of dogs (1:10:16) that run around, and a little bit of tension when I could find some time for them as well. (1:10:21) So, I got a lot going on with just family stuff around the house, which is really nice. I got (1:10:29) these amazing distractions from all the horrors going on.(1:10:33) That’s great. How much time do you think you spend actually digging into this stuff? (1:10:38) Every day? Yeah. (1:10:42) I listen to a lot of podcasts, and so that allows me to do some outdoor stuff while I got my (1:10:48) earbuds in and things like that.But I would guess with listening to podcasts, I don’t miss (1:10:53) obviously the Scott Horton show, Judging Apolitano’s Judging Freedom. Glenn Greenwald’s (1:10:59) show I think is essential. The Mads Blumenthal, Aaron Maté show.There’s a lot of content that (1:11:06) I listen to that helps me sift through and keep up with the news. And then between that, (1:11:13) reading headlines, reading articles, I’d say 12 hours a day. It’s been a little bit more since (1:11:18) the Trump administration, just because there’s just a little bit more news to go through.(1:11:24) And it’s a little bit more fun to be on. Well, I mean, it’s a little bit more enjoyable right now (1:11:28) because there’s just so much more happening. And it’s not just listening to these grueling (1:11:33) press conferences with these sub-tier press boatsmen like you have with the Biden administration.(1:11:40) It’s Trump, who even if he’s saying horrible things during his press conference, it is (1:11:46) entertaining and even somewhat enjoyable how rude he is to the mainstream media. (1:11:51) Yeah. And I’ll admit, even if Trump’s going to do or stuff happens, if it’s net less, (1:11:59) I’ll take it.I’ll take it. You know what I mean? Let’s start somewhere. It’s less (1:12:04) carnage, just a little less than the rest of them.Or even if it’s as much, but people pay (1:12:12) attention. That’s another thing about Trump is when Biden was killing the Palestinians, (1:12:19) really nobody cared. There was a limited number of people, but they were from Biden’s base.(1:12:24) And there were a lot of people who felt as much as I hate what’s going on, if I’m critical of Biden, (1:12:31) it’s going to help Donald Trump. And so there were so many people who kind of pulled their (1:12:35) punches and didn’t talk about what Biden was doing on the imperialist side because they didn’t want (1:12:42) to give Trump any ammunition or talking points. And so now, and of course, this didn’t work during (1:12:49) Trump’s first administration, right? Where rather than becoming anti-imperialist and anti-war, (1:12:55) as they should have when Trump returned to the White House, the Democrats called Trump a Putin (1:13:01) apologist and claimed that he was sacrificing America’s empire and abandoning the world (1:13:07) international order and crazy things like this.But this time around, I do wonder if it’s going (1:13:13) to be different just because what’s happening to the Palestinians is so horrific that maybe (1:13:20) once the liberals start to notice it, that they really turn against the war machine again. (1:13:26) We can hope. I don’t know.(1:13:29) It’s an optimist to take. I’ll admit that. (1:13:33) Yeah.Well, cool, man. Anything else that we missed that’s going on? I mean, we talked about (1:13:41) Ukraine, Iran. Those are the big ones.Is there anything kind of under the radar that’s been going (1:13:46) on that people should pay attention to? I mean, at this point, I think those are (1:13:53) the big ones. There’s just so much going on right now that I can’t imagine that Trump has much (1:13:59) attention for anything else. I mean, of course, the US empire is always doing little things, (1:14:06) but especially with Donald Trump, I’m not sure how much it’s worth focusing on them until Trump (1:14:10) really gets involved and starts commenting on them.It’s really hard to know what position (1:14:15) he’s going to take when it comes to Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, all these countries where the US (1:14:22) has been doing little bits and pieces here and trying regime change and fighting proxy (1:14:27) wars and things like that. But I don’t know. This is probably enough information without (1:14:33) overwhelming people.So I have a question for you. How did you get to your philosophical (1:14:44) ideology, like where you stand on the anti-war stuff, Libertarian Institute stuff? And how did (1:14:48) you get into the journalism aspect or the reporting on this? How did that come up inside you or how (1:14:55) did that get expressed? So I was always pretty interested in politics from the time I was (1:15:02) probably a teenager. And in high school, I was, you know, a pretty hardcore Bush supporter.(1:15:08) And really what happened was, is I like being right. And so it’s kind of easy as you’re coming (1:15:14) of age to be a Republican and to think you’re right all the time. But after three or four (1:15:19) years go by and all the things you said are untrue, then you kind of look stupid.At the same (1:15:25) time, I went to high school with a bunch of really annoying liberals and I definitely wasn’t a (1:15:30) Democrat. Like I knew that more than anything else. And so in 2009, I went to college and a (1:15:36) friend of mine introduced me to Ron Paul.And it just, it kind of clicked, right? Where he was saying (1:15:42) and identifying all the things that the Republicans are doing wrong, right? All the things I was saying (1:15:48) about the Republicans and George W. Bush that turned out wrong. Ron Paul explained why and how, (1:15:54) you know, had he been a real capitalist, you know, if he really was trying to reduce the federal debt, (1:16:00) if he really wasn’t fighting all these foreign wars, then, you know, it would have turned out (1:16:07) better than it did. And you would have been right to advocate for like Republican conservative (1:16:12) policies and things like that.And so basically what happened was, is the last thing I disagreed (1:16:19) with Ron Paul on was foreign policy. And really in an effort to kind of debunk Ron Paul, I had to (1:16:27) get really into this and start looking into all these conflicts. And of course he was right about (1:16:32) everything.And so then, you know, just through college, I wasn’t like particularly politically (1:16:39) active or anything. I wasn’t doing any writing. It was more just like, you know, me and my friends (1:16:46) liked Ron Paul.We talked about Ron Paul. You know, we would debate other kids on the college (1:16:50) campus. And at the time it wasn’t a big deal.Like this was like in the glory days of America, (1:16:55) in like the 20, like 2010, 2011, where engaging in political debate was thought to be like a (1:17:02) healthy thing that two people could do. Like it was a good thing if you had democratic friends, (1:17:06) because it could show that like, you know, you weren’t just like dogmatic and hateful and things (1:17:11) like, it’s completely the opposite now. And it’s so sad.But so that, you know, that was college. (1:17:16) And then when I got out of college, I was still like assuming all the content, but I didn’t have (1:17:20) like anybody to or not as many people to talk to it about. Right.And so I ended up starting a (1:17:26) podcast. And then the Tom Wood show, Tom was doing this Blue Hose deal. And so I started my first (1:17:34) blog that way.And basically, I was getting no audience with the blog. And around the same time, (1:17:42) Scott was starting the Libertarian Institute. And he said, Hey, if you got content, send it over, (1:17:47) and maybe I’ll make you one of my writers.So I sent him my stuff. And I started out there on the (1:17:53) blog. And I was doing that for about a year.And then at probably, I think, like 2017 or so, (1:18:02) Scott made me like an editor over at the Libertarian Institute, where I was just (1:18:06) kind of posting all this stuff I did there, writing occasional articles and things like that. (1:18:11) And my role has just kind of grown as the institute and Scott have grown. I have his (1:18:18) old job at antiwar.com of opinion editor.And then I started writing news stories, I found that I (1:18:24) really liked it. I didn’t think I ever wanted to be a writer. But now that I do it, I actually do (1:18:29) really enjoy it.And so with writing news stories, Scott’s like, all right, I’ll add news to the (1:18:34) editor title, and you will be our news editor. That’s really cool. I love the origin stories, (1:18:40) because we all come from different places.Our buddy Sean’s like, no one starts a libertarian, (1:18:45) because I have a very similar path to you. And the same thing was the same. I was always like, (1:18:50) the Iraq stuff, the Tucker thing.Got that whole thing, bought into it, was all in. And then it was (1:18:56) like, wait a minute, this was all BS. This didn’t turn out that way.Yeah, when you were on my show, (1:19:03) you mentioned the Ron Paul movement, again, as one of the high points of the libertarian (1:19:07) movement, people getting together and being really excited about it. (1:19:11) I mean, do you think we’ll ever get back to something like that? Is it possible? And what (1:19:15) would it take? I don’t know, is the answer. I think the last few years with the libertarian (1:19:26) movement has made me, in some ways, very encouraged.Because if you look at the rest of (1:19:34) the world, a lot of times where minor or more marginal parties have influence, it’s not actually (1:19:40) ever having people elected. It’s more trading their votes or their margin away for different (1:19:46) concessions. And so something like, and I know it only kind of counts, like RFK Jr. being the (1:19:52) Health and Human Services Secretary.And maybe that blows up in our face, because rather than (1:19:57) going after Anthony Fauci, he goes after campus protesters that are pro-Palestinian. I mean, (1:20:03) that would be awful, or the pardon of Ross Albrecht, or something like that. So I think (1:20:11) there are places where we’re starting to see libertarians be able to trade our voting block (1:20:17) for influence.And I think that could be a really positive sign if we could continue to move down (1:20:23) this road. I think there are libertarians within the foreign policy sphere, or people with strong (1:20:31) libertarian leanings, who may be Republican or Democrat, but are strong libertarian leanings, (1:20:37) and share our worldview, who could potentially get into a future administration. I mean, (1:20:44) as stupid as this sounds, imagine if you have a libertarian get into the Trump administration.(1:20:52) And let’s say their role sounds very marginal, like the Deputy Undersecretary of State for (1:20:59) South American or Korean policy. Well, that could be bad, but this could also be the person that (1:21:05) opens up diplomatic relations with Venezuela, with North Korea. And so I think if we really (1:21:13) start to look at trading our influence for our voting block, for political influence, (1:21:19) then there could be places where we get to make a real difference in policy implementation.(1:21:25) But that being said, I’m not a big advocate of spending a lot of time investing in a political (1:21:33) party or a political movement. I mean, I think there’s value in the libertarian party and it (1:21:39) more being like a social club than actually a political party. I think it’s fantastic that (1:21:45) every couple of years we all get together in a room, people from all over the country get to (1:21:50) see each other, people I had only ever podcasted with, I got to shake hands with.Forming those (1:21:55) connections I think are really important and I think really advance our movement and make it a (1:22:00) far stronger movement than something loose. But I’m not sure that the solutions actually come (1:22:07) through the libertarian party, even if growing the libertarian party is a vehicle for us having (1:22:14) just a stronger movement with more influence, if that makes sense. (1:22:20) Yeah, for sure.Jason, you want to read that question? IM’s got a really interesting question. (1:22:26) Yeah, Kyle, what are your thoughts on agorism, counter-economics, building parallel systems, (1:22:30) divorcing ourselves from their system, starving the beast, or can we fix it from within? (1:22:37) I mean, the answer to fixing it from within seems very unlikely at this point because the beast is (1:22:44) just so big. That being said, there’s the statements of, what is it, decades happen (1:22:52) where nothing happens and then days happen where decades happen.And so let’s say that the US (1:22:58) government really does start to scale down very quickly or can no longer do what it currently does (1:23:04) very quickly. Maybe having people in the positions of government at that time or even political (1:23:12) commentators of influence who can help to steer and direct the narrative, that could be important. (1:23:19) But generally speaking, if you’re the kind of person that can set up your life to live (1:23:24) independent of even an oppressive government, then I think that’s definitely the best path to take.(1:23:31) My dad is somebody who often tells me that through his whole life, it never mattered who was in the (1:23:43) in any way was NAFTA and that was in a negative way. But now he has land and he kind of just (1:23:49) lives out on his own and he’s like, it doesn’t matter who’s in Washington to him at all. (1:23:54) And so if you could set up your life in that kind of way, then that might be preferable for you.Now, (1:24:01) not everybody could do it. Not everybody could live like that. Not everybody wants to live like (1:24:05) that.And so if you don’t and you want to live a different lifestyle than do, but I certainly (1:24:09) think that’s a very valid way to fight against the state, not only fight against the state, (1:24:15) but also live a very free life. Yeah, agreed, man. I’ve always thought it’s not really going (1:24:23) to be fixed from within, but if people start actually trying to break off and do their own (1:24:27) thing, it at least helps to have somebody in there who’s not going to use violence against you.(1:24:33) They’re at least going to be sympathetic to you and see that, okay, maybe we can just let it go, (1:24:38) like secession, for example, if that were to happen, I can imagine some presidents or some (1:24:43) leaders would be very much against that and fight and do everything in their power to stop it. And (1:24:47) some might be actually sympathetic and say, you know what, they want to go, let them go and we (1:24:52) can go peacefully. So there’s at least something to keep it together.Yeah, right. Yeah. Well, (1:25:00) and look, you know, if things ever really did start to fall apart, like having say Dave Smith, (1:25:06) go on Joe Rogan and say, you know, if John Brennan is on MSNBC saying that libertarians (1:25:13) are the same thing as anarchists and Nazis and domestic terrorists, and we have to take them out, (1:25:18) and Dave Smith could go on Joe Rogan and be like, I’m a libertarian.I’m a normal, nice guy. (1:25:23) Wouldn’t you like, trust me to watch your kids because I’m such a normal, nice, functional (1:25:28) human being. I’m clean.I’m well-dressed. I’m well-spoken. Like, I do think it’s probably (1:25:34) important that if things really did start to fall apart, there was some libertarian in the (1:25:39) public sphere who could humanize the rest of us.Like, you know, there are advantages to that as (1:25:44) well. It’s a difficult job to do. Yeah, we know boot on head guy’s not going to do it, right? (1:25:48) We know that’s not going to happen.Vermin supreme, you mean? (1:25:54) Yeah. Well, I, at least even that guy comes off as harmless, right? Like, you know, boot on his (1:26:00) talking about ponies. People might think you’re crazy, but he’s not exactly somebody when the (1:26:05) revolution comes that you think you got to, like, disappear or take out, right? Like, (1:26:10) he could just be on his street corner yelling.Yeah. (1:26:16) You a blockchain guy at all, Kyle, or are we skipping? (1:26:20) This is not my area of expertise whatsoever. (1:26:23) Thanks, Zach.No, no. Good question, Zach. It’s an excellent question.Jason, what do you know about- (1:26:28) If people want to send me crypto, I will happily take it, and I won’t get rid of it. (1:26:31) Like, you know, if you’re like, hey, hang on to this, happy to do that. But I cannot, like, (1:26:38) know everything I know about foreign policy and understand Bitcoin.I’m sorry. (1:26:43) Fair enough. Oh, you got any other questions, Mark? We kept you for a while here.(1:26:50) I’m just excited to have, like, these ideas and thoughts because you shared things that (1:26:56) I didn’t exactly know or see, and you’re opening my mind in the geopolitical way, (1:27:03) in a less cynical way. You’re giving me, like, you’re white-pilling me a little bit, (1:27:09) and I like that. All right.Well, I like that. I love somebody with that impression. (1:27:13) I was expecting it to be like, we’re moving all the ships to Iran.It’s over. There’s going to (1:27:17) be mushroom clouds everywhere. I just thought, I don’t know what I was expecting, but I just (1:27:21) thought it seemed a little more dire the way they were pushing it, the way they’re driving it, you (1:27:25) know? It just seems like it’s more.But you’re making me feel a lot better, and I like that. So, (1:27:30) thank you for making my heart rate settle down a little bit. All right.Well, happy to have that (1:27:36) effect on someone for a change. Your stuff’s really great. You know, we’re happy to promote it, (1:27:41) and it’s really great.Can you share again a couple of links, your social media stuff? And (1:27:47) then, Jason, if you have a couple of questions before we call it, that’d be awesome. (1:27:51) No, go ahead. Plug your stuff, man.I think we answered the big things, and I really appreciate (1:27:56) it. Definitely go check out the Libertarian Institute. You can get on the newsletter, (1:28:01) the debrief.I read that every day just to keep up with what Kyle’s doing. But yeah, (1:28:06) what else do you got, Kyle? Yeah. So, anybody, please sign up for the debrief, because I write (1:28:11) that every day, and I think that I explore some of my writing over there.Like, I try to be a little (1:28:18) bit more punchy, maybe a little bit funny at times, where my news stories are very factual, (1:28:23) my podcast is very factual. I think I’m typically a very serious person. So, I have the most fun (1:28:29) every day writing the debrief.So, if you head on over to the Libertarian Institute and sign up for (1:28:34) that, I would really appreciate it if we have more people reading that. And then also, you know, (1:28:39) you could share out that debrief. They do come with, like, a URL link at the bottom, (1:28:44) and that would be huge.Find me on Twitter, at Kyle Anzalone, underscore, is the best place to (1:28:50) keep up with all my work. Any show I do, whether it’s Conflicts of Interest or the Kyle Anzalone (1:28:55) show, gets posted there. Any story I write, whether it’s for Antiwar.com or the Libertarian (1:29:00) Institute, gets published there.All the news stories at Antiwar.com, I throw on my Twitter (1:29:05) feed, so you don’t miss very much if you’re on, just following me there. And then over at (1:29:12) LibertarianInstitute.org, we are holding our fundraiser. So, if you like what I have to say, (1:29:16) if you’re a listener of my show, or my work, follower of my work, want to support Scott (1:29:22) Horton and the whole team, make a donation today.Again, we do have matching funds right now. So, (1:29:27) effectively, if you donate 100 bucks, it’s 200 bucks, and that’s huge. (1:29:33) Awesome.(1:29:33) Awesome. Well, thanks for joining us. I really appreciate it.(1:29:36) Thank you, guys. I had a great time. (1:29:39) Thanks so much.Yeah, like, it’s been great working together. And Jason, thank you so much (1:29:43) for joining with, like, getting us all connected too, because we’re, once again, we’re just (1:29:47) messengers too. It’s like, we can live our lives less connected as well, so we can be the change (1:29:53) we want to see.But we do need messengers that have some kind of sanity and lucidity to them, (1:29:59) and can express these opinions in a way that doesn’t push people off, you know? So, (1:30:05) it’s kind of nice to have people like that around. So, thank you for all that you share. (1:30:10) Yeah, good to have experts like you filling us in on the gaps, because definitely, (1:30:14) this is not my wheelhouse.So, it’s, yeah, great to hear from an expert. (1:30:19) Happy to do, guys. Thank you.(1:30:20) Right. Well, guys, thank you again. We had another Consciously Unmasked. Thank you, (1:30:25) everyone, for joining us. Zach and I am, and Aaron, everybody in the chat, great questions. Kyle, (1:30:31) thank you again for joining us.Have a great day. Jason, any final words, sir? (1:30:36) Nope. All good. Have a good night, guys. (1:30:39) All right. Take care, everybody.