reSee.it - Related Video Feed

First Speaker argues that Microsoft provided services and access to data, including Palestinian data, which allowed Israel to set up systems to mass target and mass kill Palestinians. They mention an application called "Where is Daddy?" that allows the army to randomly track people and reach them when they are with their families in order to inflict the most harm, describing it as brutal. They state agreement with this view and emphasize the importance of understanding that this represents the end of humanity and the civilization people have pretended to belong to. They claim Israel has the most sophisticated military in the region and has known exactly what it is doing for two years. They assert that many soldiers are breaking down and suicide rates are increasing among young Israelis who have served in the army, noting they are older than teenagers and have been turned by indoctrination into willing executioners of a genocide. They call for intervention by people who love Israel to save what remains of Israel. First Speaker contends that the biggest harm is being done by those outside of Israel who defend the regime. They describe the regime as having imposed a military dictatorship for decades on Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and until 2005 in Gaza, and claim this regime also extends to some Israelis who are part of the system. They argue that brutality toward others undermines one's own humanity. Second Speaker agrees and seeks clarification, asking if there is an app, possibly by an American company, called "Where's Daddy" that allows the Israeli government to murder men in front of their children. They reference the prior statements and want confirmation of that claim. First Speaker responds that Israel has developed not just a system but an automatized system to decide targets through a computing system, and that data has been provided by technology. They reiterate that this is part of a broader system of targeting.

Speaker 1 frames his connection to Israel: 'For two thousand years, we were a stateless people. And now we have a country of our own, defended by all the brave men and women of the IDF.' He highlights Israel's tech scene: 'after Silicon Valley, there's an area it hurts Herzliya has probably got more startups than any other place other than Silicon Valley in Northern California.' He notes Oracle's Israeli ties: 'we have two CEOs at Oracle' and 'Safra Katz, and she was born in Israel.' He asserts support: 'So again, we love the country of Israel, and we'll do everything we can to support the country of Israel.' Regarding Gaza criticism, he says: 'it's a difficult situation,' but adds that 'the Israeli army did everything they could to minimize civilian casualties' and that they've 'done a much better job than a lot of other armies all over the world throughout history.'

Speaker A: The moral concern is that if you can remove the human element, you can use AI or autonomous targeting on individuals, and that could absolve us of the moral conundrum by making it seem like a mistake or that humans weren’t involved because it was AI or a company like Palantir. This worry is top of mind after the Min Minab girls school strike, and whether AI machine-assisted targeting played any role. Speaker B: In some ongoing wars, targeting decisions have been made by machines with no human sign-off. There are examples where the end-stage decision is simply identify and kill, with input data fed in but no human vetting at the final moment. This is a profound change and highly distressing. The analogy is like pager attacks where bombs are triggered with little certainty about who is affected, which many would label an act of terror. There is knowledge of both the use of autonomous weapons and mass surveillance as problematic points that have affected contracting and debates with a major AI company and the administration. Speaker A: In the specific case of the bombing of the girls’ school attached to the Iranian military base, today’s inquiries suggested that AI is involved, but a human pressed play in this particular instance. The key question becomes where the targeting coordinates came from and who supplied them to the United States military. Signals intelligence from Iran is often translated by Israel, a partner in this venture, and there are competing aims: Israel seeks total destruction of Iran, while the United States appears to want to disengage. There is speculation, not confirmation, about attempts to target Iran’s leaders or their officers’ families, which would have far-reaching consequences. The possibility of actions that cross a diplomatic line is a concern, especially given different endgames between the partners. Speaker C: If Israel is trying to push the United States to withdraw from the region, then the technology born and used in Israel—Palantir Maven software linked to DataMiner for tracking and social-media cross-checking—could lead to targeting in the U.S. itself. The greatest fear is that social media data could be used to identify who to track or target, raising the question of the next worst-case scenario in a context where war accelerates social change and can harden attitudes toward brutality and silencing dissent. War tends to make populations more tolerant of atrocities and less tolerant of opposing views, and the endgame could include governance by technology to suppress opposition rather than improve citizens’ lives. Speaker B: War changes societies faster than anything else, and it can produce a range of effects, from shifts in national attitudes to the justification of harsh measures during conflict. The discussion notes the risk of rule by technology and the possibility that the public could become disillusioned or undermined if their political system fails to address their concerns. The conversation also touched on the broader implications for democratic norms and the potential for technology-driven control. (Note: The transcript contains an advertising segment about a probiotic product, which has been omitted from this summary as promotional content.)

The speaker states that the army acts in a more moral fashion than the world. When asked how many Palestinians he has killed, he replies he doesn't count. He finds the removal of Gaza and the topic in general to be funny. He believes most people are racist. He states that only America can help Israel, needing their support, protection in the UN Security Council, and assistance in the Hague. He thanks President Biden and the people in Congress for their support. He believes when Israel wins, the entire civilized world wins. He mentions people are looking for a baby.

Speaker argues the Israeli hard-right government has a mandate to ethnically cleanse Gaza, saying, "they're gonna try to ethnically cleanse Gaza," and to "remove 2,500,000 people from there." He adds, "the idea that they need to have a true truce or a peace treaty, that's morally crap after you see women and children be burned alive and dragged to the streets." He cites pattern recognition—"COVID, Maui fires, you know, Epstein"—and says his gut instinct is reliable. "I've been to Israel many times." He calls the country a fortress and notes "the whole country is surveilled." He claims "The last nine months, Israel is on the brink of civil war," with "hundreds of thousands of Israelis taking to the streets because Bibi Netanyahu was basically redefining the Israeli constitution"—"That’s not an exaggeration." Netanyahu has "an emergency government and a mandate to lead," and he asks, "Was there a stand down order?"

I don't advocate for America fighting wars for Israel. Israel is capable of defending itself, but if it's pushed to a corner, there's a risk of nuclear conflict. That's why it's crucial for the United States to offer support to Israel.

Natalie asks about the AI piece, expressing cynicism that there may be a push for a “war bot” to circumvent consumer AI limits that block starting wars with WMDs, and wonders if there is a benevolent reason. Matthew responds that it’s worse than that: Hengseth described a platform to run on military desktops worldwide—secure, like ChatGPT or Claude but for the Pentagon and military services—that “doesn’t allow information to get out.” The core issue, he says, is who controls the AI, and two key questions about the future of war with AI: who ultimately owns these AI platforms, and who informs them—who gives them the algorithm and programming and essentially orders on how to answer questions. He notes increasing concerns about reliability of information, including how ChatGPT handles questions about trustworthy news sources. He mentions that ChatGPT defers to institutional structures rather than historical accuracy. The risk, he says, is that military AI programs may not provide honest, candid, objective information to military personnel, but rather information based on narratives the Pentagon or manufacturers want. A common belief is that technology makes war more precise and reduces civilian harm, but Matthew contends this is a myth. He explains that precision-guided munitions were not about preventing civilian casualties but about increasing efficiency—“the purpose was to make the weapons more efficient, so we had to drop less bombs to, say, blow up a bridge.” He cites the small diameter bomb as evidence that the aim is not to limit civilian casualties but to allow more bombs to be delivered from aircraft. He highlights real-world examples of AI in warfare, referencing Israeli systems in Gaza. He explains that three AI programs—Lavender, Gospel, and Where’s Daddy?—play roles in targeting and timing strikes. Lavender scans theInternet and databases to identify targets (e.g., labeling someone as a Hamas supporter based on a past online activity), and Where’s Daddy? coordinates that information to ensure bombs hit resistance fighters “when they are with their families,” not away from them. He notes reporting from Israeli media and Nine Two Magazine about these programs and urges viewers to examine that reporting; Tucker Carlson’s coverage is mentioned as example. Matthew argues this demonstrates the dystopian potential of AI in war and cautions against assuming American AI would be more benevolent. He mentions commentator references to justify or excuse actions, including a remark attributed to Mike Huckabee that “Israel did not attack Qatar. They just sent a missile into their country aimed at one person,” noting the nearby injuries or deaths. He ends with a reminder of Orwell’s reflections on war and the idea that those who cheer for war may be less enthusiastic if they experience its costs, suggesting a broader aim to make the costs of war felt among ruling elites who benefit from it.

Speaker 0 asks why President Trump unleashed Prime Minister Netanyahu to resume genocide in Gaza, resulting in the intentional killing of 400 civilians. Speaker 1 believes Trump has no choice, due to agreements with major donors beyond Miriam Adelson, obliging him to underwrite Netanyahu's actions. Speaker 1 notes Netanyahu arranged a meeting between the U.S. and Azerbaijan, not the State Department, indicating the Israel lobby's grip. Speaker 1 believes Trump is obliged to comply and won't diverge. Speaker 0 asks if Trump has no choice but to militarily back Israel if it attacks Iran. Speaker 1 thinks so, noting the possibility of Israel precipitating a war with Iran. The expectation is the U.S. will reinforce Israeli actions, with joint strike planning and intelligence sharing already in place. Speaker 1 believes it's a foregone conclusion, though the timing is uncertain.

The speaker was asked about the IDF's use of AI, specifically Lavender, to identify Hamas targets. The speaker stated they are not on top of all the details of what's going on in Israel and their bias is to defer to Israel. They believe it's not for others to second guess everything and that broadly the IDF gets to decide what it wants to do and that they're broadly in the right. That is the perspective they come back to.

A speaker claimed few people get wealthy, and another speaker alleged Al Qaeda killed their family in Palestine using AI and technology. The first speaker stated the primary source of death in Palestine is that Hamas has realized there are millions of useful idiots. Another speaker accused them of using AI and technology to kill Palestinians, not just terrorists. The first speaker responded that if the speaker's argument was strong, they would allow them to talk. The second speaker thanked anyone else who supports using technology and AI to kill Palestinians.

Speaker 0 raises two questions: first, what is the view on the use of artificial intelligence or Lavender by the IDF in identifying Hamas targets; second, whether they agree with Elon Musk about population decline being a risk to humanity. Speaker 1 responds: “Look, I again, I'm not I'm not, you know, with without without going into all the deep you know, I I'm I'm not on top of all the details of what's going on in Israel because my my bias is to defer to Israel. It's it's not for us to to second guess every everything. And I I believe that broadly the IDF gets to decide what it wants to do and that they're broadly in the right and that's that's sort of the the perspective I come back to.”

Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss the implications of AI in military use. They consider whether consumer AI is being bypassed with a secure, military-specific platform that would be sealed—essentially one-way in and no information out—for the Pentagon and military services. The key questions raised are: who controls the AI, who informs its algorithms, and who gives it its orders on how to answer questions, highlighting concerns about privatization and outsourcing of war. Speaker 1 argues that the future of war with AI hinges on two issues: ownership of AI platforms and the sources of their programming. They note that AI can deflect or defer to institutional structures rather than empirical accuracy, raising concerns about the reliability of information provided to military personnel. They also reference the myth that advancing technology automatically reduces civilian harm, citing that precision-guided munitions were designed for efficiency, not necessarily to prevent civilian casualties, noting that the intent was to reduce the number of bombs needed to achieve targets. The conversation shifts to the concept of precision in weapons. Speaker 1 points out that laser- and GPS-guided bombs were not primarily invented to minimize civilian casualties but to increase efficiency. They mention the small diameter bomb as an example, explaining that its use increases the number of bombs that can be deployed rather than primarily limiting collateral damage. The discussion then moves to real-world AI systems used in conflict zones. Speaker 1 cites Israeli programs—Lavender, Gospel, and Where’s Daddy?—as examples of nefarious and insidious AI in war. Lavender supposedly scans the Internet and other databases to identify targets, for example flagging someone as a Hamas supporter based on years of activity. Where’s Daddy? allegedly guides Israeli drones to strike fighters when they are with their families, not away from them. This reporting is linked to coverage from Israeli media and Nine Seven Two magazine, and Speaker 2 references Tucker Carlson’s coverage of these issues. Speaker 2 amplifies the point by noting the emotional impact of such capabilities, arguing that targeting men when they are with their children is particularly disturbing. They also discuss broader political reactions, including a remark attributed to Ambassador Huckabee about Israel not attacking Qatar but “sending a missile there” that injured nearby people. Speaker 1 concludes by invoking Orwell’s reflection on the Spanish Civil War, suggesting that those who cheer for war may be confronted by the consequences when modern aircraft enable distant bombing. They emphasize the need to make the costs of war felt by the ruling classes who benefit from it, not just the people on the ground.

Speaker 0 describes a 2021 claim by the commander of Israeli intelligence to design a machine to resolve a human bottleneck in locating and approving targets in war. A recent investigation by Plus 972 Magazine and Local Call reveals that the Israeli army developed an AI-based Lavender system to designate targets and direct airstrikes. During the initial weeks of the Lavender operation, the system designated about 37,000 Palestinians as targets and directed airstrikes on their homes. The system reportedly had an error rate of about 10%, and there was no requirement to verify the machine’s data. The Israeli army systematically attacked targeted individuals at night in their homes while their whole family was present. An automated component, known as “where’s daddy,” tracked targeted individuals and carried out bombings when they entered their family residences. The result, according to the report, was that thousands of women and children were killed by Israeli airstrikes. Israeli intelligence officers allegedly stated that the IDF bombed homes as a first option, and in several cases entire families were murdered when the actual target was not inside. In one instance, four buildings were destroyed along with everyone inside because a single target was in one of them. For targets marked as low level by Lavender, cheaper bombs were used, destroying entire buildings and killing mostly civilians and entire families. It was alleged that the IDF did not want to waste expensive bombs on “unimportant people,” and it was decided that for every low-level Hamas operative Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; for a senior Hamas official, more than 100 civilians could be killed. Most AI targets were never tracked before the war. Lavender analyzed information collected on the 2,300,000 residents of the Gaza Strip through mass surveillance, assessing the likelihood of each person being a militant and giving a rating from 1 to 100. If the rating was high enough, the person and their entire family were killed. Lavender flagged individuals with patterns similar to Hamas, including police, civil defense, relatives, and residents with similar names or nicknames. The report notes that this kind of tracking system has existed in the US for years. Speaker 1 presents a counterpoint: a “fine gentleman of the secret service” claims to provide a list of every threat made about the president since February 3 and profiles of every threat maker, implying that targets could be identified through broad data collection including emails, chats, SMS. The passage suggests a tool akin to a Google search but including private communications. Speaker 0 adds that although some claim Israel controls the US, Joe Biden says Israel serves US interests. Speaker 2: A speaker asserts, “There’s no apology to be made. None. It is the best $3,000,000,000 investment we make,” and claims that without Israel the United States would have to invent an Israel to protect its regional interests. Speaker 0 closes reporting for Infowars, credited to Greg Reese.

The speaker addresses the use of artificial intelligence or Lavender by the IDF in identifying Hamas targets. They state they are not on top of all the details of what’s happening in Israel and that their bias is to defer to Israel. They say it’s not for us to second guess everything. They conclude that broadly the IDF gets to decide what it wants to do and that they’re broadly in the right.

"The events of October 7 were so catastrophically horrendous, such an appalling act of terrorism. You know, twelve hundred people killed, two hundred and fifty plus kidnapped, seven thousand more wounded." "They had a moral duty to defend their people, and I still believe that." "The bombardment has been utterly relentless all over Gaza." "They've obliterated 70% of Gaza." "At least 60,000 people have been killed, including reportedly over 20,000 children." "Ethnic cleansing— to displace and ethnically cleanse the Palestinians." "This is horrific." "It is a both sides problem." "When artificial intelligence learns to self design, in other words, think for itself, that's the end because it will pretty rapidly work out human beings are pointless." "I thought it was outrageous." "America's taken a view. We are all in with Israel because Israel would be all in with us."

But if you if you were to say, how does Israel solve this problem forever in the future? I think that if you leave a scrap of Palestinian DNA Wait. Can I ask you real quick? If we destroy all of Gaza, what is the loss to the world? I didn't say that there's a loss to the world. I don't really think that the Palestinians provide Wait. Time out. If Israel did eliminate 2,300,000 Gazans. Right? Let's say it took them even a long time, short time, whatever. They just completely eliminate, wipe them all out. This would cause a response by the Arab countries. There would 100% cause a response by the Arab countries. They would thank us. But I legitimately cannot think of any

Speaker 0: The discussion turns to how long you plan to stay in public life. Speaker 1: I don’t measure it by time, but by missions and tasks. I’m supported by a great majority of the people in the country, and that support comes despite foreign reporting. That is why I keep winning elections. When people say I might be a king, I respond that I’m not a king—I have to get elected, for God’s sake. I have great support at home: my wife is incredible, she’s a lioness; my two boys support me; and the people support me. Speaker 0: What do they support you for? Speaker 1: They want me to complete the quest for peace. They understand that I really liberated Israel’s economy from stagnant semi-socialism to become one of the most remarkable founts of creativity, innovation, and technology in the world. We have unbelievable technology today, and we now have an opportunity. Israel was a country with $17,000 per capita when I took over as foreign minister; I had a brief stint there. Today it’s going to cross $60,000 per capita. It’s still a way to go, but that’s a change that no country experienced because of the free market revolution that I introduced here. Speaker 0: There’s a sense of an upcoming revolution. Speaker 1: I see a much greater revolution coming. It’s here, it’s not coming; it’s already here. All the wondrous technologies we have—some of them are very frightening. I’ve talked to the leaders of AI in the world, and you ask yourself, there are so many blessings in this, but there could be a curse. The task is to challenge it, or to channel it into the blessings that Israel can give itself and the world. I think there’s another revolution coming, and I tend to steer it along with the achievement of a broader peace. These are two enormous tasks that I’d like to take on. And when history is within reach, you don’t step aside; you step forward. And that’s what I’m doing.

Smith onto the space. Harrison, thanks for joining. We’ve got questions about your tweet. How are you? Harrison: I’m pretty good. I just got home, trying to do Advent with my kids, so I have about ten minutes. I heard Matt Baker defending me, so I came to settle objections. What’s up? Smith: First of all, I appreciate you coming on. We’ve had disagreements on X. The first question is about your original tweet about someone telling you Charlie Kirk was going to be assassinated. Explain that, because I’ve got a question about your second tweet. Harrison: That’s it. There’s no further explanation. Somebody with knowledge of the situation told me that, and I tweeted it in response to something Ian Carroll had said, a month before. I told the story again on Moonbase Live when I talked to Jake Shields, a week before the shooting. I won’t tell you who told me because they asked me not to, but it’s basically corroborated. The person I talked to was not the same as those who talked to people like Max Blumenthal. So apparently, multiple people are telling the same story. Only I published it before the event. Did the FBI or TC or something ask you any questions about it? Smith: Nope. Harrison: And that’s the problem, Soleiman. That’s the problem right there. Smith: We’ll move on. He’s got ten minutes. The tweet today said: “the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been a resounding success for the left, they got to kill one of our shining lights, divide the right and normalise political violence and the only backlash they received was Jimmy Kimmel show got suspended for two days.” That seems to contradict your first statement, since the first tweet was before the assassination. How does that message come across? Harrison: The first tweet was before the assassination, so it couldn’t have anything to do with who I thought did it. It was before the assassination, a month earlier, and I had heard the rumor that Charlie Kirk feared for his life. The second tweet reflects the world view that most left people have: “we killed Charlie Kirk. We got away with.” It’s about the left believing they did it and got away with it, and it’s about the weakness of the right to treat threats against us with seriousness. Whether or not it was a leftist is still up in the air; I have unanswered questions about the patsy they have now. Still, the left has benefited. The left acts like they did it. The official story is the left did it, personally. I have questions about that story, but what matters is the widespread perception that the left did it and got away with it, and that informs their behavior. Smith: Do you think the widespread opinion matters? Harrison: I can’t hear you both at once. Matt? Smith: How do you feel about the genocide in Gaza? Harrison: I’m strongly against the genocide in Gaza. Vocally. Since before October 7. I’m against it as an Israeli shill? Smith: No one said that. The argument was that you’ve spoken out against genocide in Gaza before October 7, but Infowars promotes Zionist agendas and Zionist talking points, attacking Muslims in the United States and the UK. Zionist billionaires like Robert Shillman, etc. Harrison: I get it. Zionist interests overlap with mine, but it has nothing to do with Zionism in our calculus. I am for Western culture, America, heritage Americans of all backgrounds, and I’m fighting for Christianity. I’m against Muslims infiltrating Western countries, and I’m against Zionists controlling Western countries. These are not contradictory. There’s nothing Zionist about not wanting Muslims to take over your country, just like there’s nothing Muslim about not wanting Zionists to control your country. Infowars is anti-Zionist recently, and Alex condemns what Israel and Netanyahu are doing. But there’s a deliberate message of unity of all Americans who aren’t trying to dominate or subvert others. Unless they’re Christians, of course. Smith: So you’re saying you’re not arguing for a single team; it’s two enemies, rock, paper, scissors? Harrison: It’s two enemies, not one. I’m against both. I’m against Muslims taking over and against Zionists dominating. It’s not contradictory. It’s not about a single team. Smith: The point isn’t that you must pick sides; the issue is you’ve pushed claims that there is a Muslim takeover, which isn’t supported by numbers or power. People argue this is propaganda. Harrison: Okay. I don’t care whether the takeover has progressed. If I said it’s fake, I’d say that. I’ve got to go, but I appreciate the clarification. Smith: Posted on the day Jake Lang went; you were clearly talking about him. Harrison: I was talking about why Dearborn was the location of the march and why it was appropriate. Jake Lang is Jewish and Zionist; he’s not a Christian. He’s ethnically Jewish. He says he’s Christian, and in Christianity you can convert. I’ll call him a Christian man if that’s how he defines himself. Thanks.

- The speakers claim that American financial institutions and tech companies are deeply involved in the Gaza killings. They name banks, pension funds, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft as having provided services and access to Palestinian data that enabled Israel to set up systems to mass target and kill Palestinians. - They describe an application called Where is Daddy, asserting it allows the army to randomly track people and reach them even when they are with their families, facilitating harm. - The discussion characterizes Israel as possessing the most sophisticated military in the region, knowing precisely what it is doing for two years, and notes that many Israeli soldiers are breaking down, with rising suicidality among young soldiers who have served. - They argue that soldiers have been indoctrinated into becoming executioners of genocide, and that intervention is necessary to prevent further brutality. - The speakers contend that much of this action is driven by people outside Israel who defend the regime, which they describe as having imposed a military dictatorship on Palestinians in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza (the latter until 2005), and also affecting Israelis who are part of the system. They state that brutalizing others compromises humanity. - Speaker 0 presses for clarification about the existence of the Where is Daddy app, asking if it was a dream or a claim already stated. - Speaker 1 clarifies that Israel has developed an automated system to determine targets through computing, with data supplied by tech companies. He mentions Palantir as one company that publicly supports Israel. He references a public debate in which a Polish person protests that he is killing families, and the response is “you are killing civilians in Gaza,” to which the other person replies that the targets are “most probably terrorists.”

- Speaker 0 asserts that drones are in the air all day and mentions Palantir as “keeping tabs of on everything that was happening,” suggesting Palantir’s involvement in Gaza. Speaker 1 confirms Palantir’s involvement in Gaza, noting a long-standing relationship with Israel that began in 2014 and significantly scaled up during the Gaza events starting in 2020. They describe the source as biased and imply the article’s phrasing is questionable, but acknowledge the basic fact of Palantir’s use in Israel, including a mention that it’s “even on palantir.com.” - The discussion shifts to perceptions of bias in reporting. Speaker 2 notes that when Jamie mentions an article, Joe Rogan quickly labels it “a very biased article and that no one should trust it,” arguing that Palantir’s technology being used in Israel is a well-known fact. This is presented as something Joe Rogan “plays super dumb to,” influenced by fear of Peter Thiel, according to Speaker 2. - There is a critique of Joe Rogan’s appearance or demeanor, with Speaker 0 making a flippant remark and Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 continuing the thread about Joe’s attitude toward the information and his handlers. - The conversation revisits Joe Rogan’s relationship with his “handlers,” with Speaker 2 suggesting Joe’s handlers have been upset with him, possibly due to a recent Dave Smith podcast in which Rogan appeared anti-MAGA, calling MAGA supporters “a bunch of dorks,” and criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration policy while praising Obama-era deportations. Speaker 2 recounts that JD Vance said he would text Rogan to tell him he was wrong, indicating tension or pressure from political allies. - Speaker 1 quotes/digests a broader concept: “America is great. Make America greater, I’m down. But make America great again and then it becomes a movement of a bunch of fucking dorks,” noting that many participants are “dorks” and “real genuine patriots,” and that the idea of making America great is good, but the inclusivity of the team leads to problems. - Speaker 3 challenges a claim: Rogan roasted the Trump administration and suggested that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are better at deporting people than Rogan, claiming this is almost an exact quote, and questions whether MAGA is “full of dorks.” The group contemplates whether the audience includes many dorks, but asserts a distinction between dorks and genuine patriots. - The dialogue concludes with Speaker 2 asserting that there are people in the government with direct contact to Joe Rogan who push their agenda, implying Rogan might be under pressure to align with certain positions. This is presented alongside the idea that Joe is “skating on extremely thin ice” with these figures, and that Theo’s critique of the administration contributed to tensions. Joe’s response is characterized as telling Theo to “chill out and stop talk.”

Speaker 0: Do we need this connection with Israel? What is it? No one ever explains what it's for. I feel like. Right? That would help everybody have a much better understanding, you know, because it starts to feel like America is just a shell company, an LLC for Israel. That's what it starts to feel like a lot of times, you know? Do you feel like that that's realistic, or do you feel like that that's off base? Speaker 1: I would I wouldn't send them a dime. Like, that's my position. I don't think whatever we're getting isn't worth it.

Elon Levy, thank you for joining me. We need to end this war with Hamas and secure the return of our hostages. If we don't, Hamas will continue to attack us. The world's perception that Israel has no right to defend itself only emboldens Hamas and fuels extremism. We are determined to break this cycle of violence by putting an end to Hamas. Thank you for your time.

Speaker claims that “the Israeli hard right government has a mandate” and “they're gonna try to ethnically cleanse Gaza,” describing an effort to remove “2,500,000 people from there.” He says there is “a mandate to seek justice and revenge” and that “there is they this idea that they need to have a true truce or a peace treaty, that's morally crap after you see women and children be burned alive and dragged to the streets.” He cites pattern recognition—“COVID, Maui fires, Epstein”—and says the country is a fortress, with the Gaza border where “you cannot go 10 feet without running into a 19 year old with an a r 15 or an automatic machine gun that is an IDF soldier,” and that “the whole country is surveilled.” He adds that “the last nine months, Israel is on the brink of civil war,” with protests against Netanyahu, who now has “an emergency government and a mandate to lead.” He asks, “Was there a stand down order?”