Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty, Armstrong and
Speaker 1: Getty and he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2: There's gonna be a heck of an hour. I can
Speaker 2: just feel it in my bones. Oh, you have no
Speaker 2: interest in getting in. You know, podcasting conflicts with anybody.
Speaker 1: I don't. Number one, I don't care, and you know
Speaker 1: number two is just unproductive. But I've got to admit
Speaker 1: I am fascinated by a couple of different media twist offs.
Speaker 1: Tucker number one, because I thought so highly of Tucker
Speaker 1: as a writer. Everybody did the thinker, Oh yeah, my goodness,
Speaker 1: so so good. But he's turned towards this groy fery
Speaker 1: anti semotism that I find very, very troubling, and it's
Speaker 1: it's a shame.
Speaker 2: And why because he was already ungodly wealthy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think he actually believes what he's pitching.
Speaker 2: Now did he always believe that? And he was keeping
Speaker 2: it quiet? Certain didn't seem.
Speaker 1: Like it, no idea, No, no, it didn't. This seems
Speaker 1: to be some sort of change, the idea of falling
Speaker 1: over Vladimir Putin, And what a wonderful place. Rush is
Speaker 1: is just that is so looney tunes. It's difficult to
Speaker 1: explain by I mean it's either mental illness or an
Speaker 1: ideological capture of some sort. But the other character that
Speaker 1: fascinates me in a weird way is Candace Owens, who
Speaker 1: we met once. We did an event with her. Extremely
Speaker 1: articulate and confident I think it was Rich Lowry in
Speaker 1: the National Review, and we'll touch on this in a minute,
Speaker 1: points out that confident to the point of just being way, way,
Speaker 1: way over the top.
Speaker 2: Well, we were in a green room with her for
Speaker 2: forty five minutes quite a while, and it was just Joe, me,
Speaker 2: her and like her assistant.
Speaker 1: I think it's like four of us in the room.
Speaker 2: She was incredibly standoffish, like just not willing to engage
Speaker 2: in any conversation whatsoever, and work in the phone. But
Speaker 2: now I know she's a complete weirdo. I mean, she's
Speaker 2: a very strange person. So here are a couple of examples.
Speaker 1: I don't remember what's in the audio that we're about
Speaker 1: to play you, which is entitled all the Questions Candace
Speaker 1: owns is just asking, which if you're not hip to
Speaker 1: this is a way that people can say things that
Speaker 1: are they know will be greeted as horrifying, but they
Speaker 1: just say, I'm just asking the questions. It's it's just
Speaker 1: it's transparent once you become aware of it, whether it's
Speaker 1: a fake historian claiming the Hitler was really a good
Speaker 1: guy and didn't mean for a few Jews to die
Speaker 1: or whatever. But like Candace lately, if you're not familiar
Speaker 1: with her act Is said, and I quote, I'm starting
Speaker 1: to think that the assassination of Charlie Kirk was something
Speaker 1: you kin to a regi aside, right, the assassination of
Speaker 1: a king to install a new ruler who the king
Speaker 1: would never have approved of. And the new ruler of
Speaker 1: Turning Point USA turns out to be Kirk's widow, Erica Kirk,
Speaker 1: and owens Is argued the Turning Point is covering up
Speaker 1: its involvement in Kirk's assassination and that Erica Kirk knows everything.
Speaker 1: She also then she says, but it's a vile smear
Speaker 1: to suggest she's implicated Erica Kirk and her husband's assassination.
Speaker 1: But she's just asking questions. Why don't we go ahead
Speaker 1: and play this audio and then we'll follow up go ahead,
Speaker 1: Michael twelve.
Speaker 3: They and other influencers will invoke Erica as the reason
Speaker 3: that it's not appropriate to ask questions. It's just not
Speaker 3: appropriate while Erica is still morning for you guys to
Speaker 3: ask any questions. And I'm just going to come back
Speaker 3: at you with some common sense. What sort of widow
Speaker 3: wouldn't want people to investigate the assassination of their husband.
Speaker 3: Every day that goes on, it feels to me like
Speaker 3: Turning Point is engaged in a cover up, So criticism
Speaker 3: is pertaining to anything at Turning Point. USA that are being.
Speaker 1: Directed at Erica are fair. Obviously they are fair.
Speaker 3: You are recognizing that the people around Charlie are not
Speaker 3: acting in the way that they should be acting, that
Speaker 3: their emotionality is not needing the moment of violence that
Speaker 3: we all witnessed. Nothing in Charlie's life is real. It's
Speaker 3: just something that keeps me up at night.
Speaker 1: Just nothing in his life was real, And.
Speaker 3: It just so happened that Charlie Kirk kept notebooks and diaries.
Speaker 3: He was so diligent that he wrote down his succession
Speaker 3: plan featuring who he wanted to take over for the
Speaker 3: organization in the event of his untimely death, like you
Speaker 3: know in the third notebook. He was like, Oh, and
Speaker 3: if I accidentally get shot on campus, here's.
Speaker 1: What you should do.
Speaker 3: Call AIRICUB and then after you call Aerica, come find
Speaker 3: this notebook. Oh but wait, Charlie, wasn't it like a
Speaker 3: boy genius? Pretty us, a pretty bright kid. Wouldn't he
Speaker 3: have maybe formalized that succession plan outside of like a diary.
Speaker 1: But no, he wanted to put it in these notebooks.
Speaker 3: The plan was to guilt us, I think, to try
Speaker 3: to haunt us with the ghost of Charlie's notebooks that
Speaker 3: were never going to be allowed to read. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 3: putting the fire here right at the feet of turning
Speaker 3: point because I am disgusted.
Speaker 1: I am genuinely disgusted.
Speaker 3: I am looking around and wondering whether Charlie's entire life
Speaker 3: was the Truman Show. But I'm starting to think that
Speaker 3: the assassination of Charlie Kirk was something akin to a regicide, right,
Speaker 3: the assassination of a king to install a new ruler
Speaker 3: who the king would have never approved of.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: So she's suggesting that these diaries journals that he kept
Speaker 2: are fake. I guess that his wife faked him up. Says, See,
Speaker 2: he wrote it down here. He wanted me to be
Speaker 2: in charge if something happened to him.
Speaker 1: Exactly saw a little too, pad. Isn't it a little tinting.
Speaker 2: That she was involved in having him killed because she.
Speaker 1: Wanted When you say, wait a minute, are you hinting
Speaker 1: that she was involved in having him killed? You say,
Speaker 1: that's despicable? How dare you question me? Yeah, it's crazy.
Speaker 1: As Rich Lowry writes, when Alex Jones was at his
Speaker 1: height and he hasn't gone away, it felt as though
Speaker 1: he was in it for the entertainment. He was like
Speaker 1: the WWE announcer who knows the wrestling is fake, and
Speaker 1: knows that we know the wrestling is fake, but impuse
Speaker 1: his play by play with a sense of great import
Speaker 1: all the time. I would agree he was despicable, but
Speaker 1: that was the vibe. Owens is different. To be sure,
Speaker 1: she's entertaining too, and he gives some examples. But Owens
Speaker 1: is more alluring and sinister than Alex Jones. She wants
Speaker 1: followers not just to sell them the equivalent of supplements,
Speaker 1: but to gain influence and turn mega in a direction
Speaker 1: hostile to Israel, Jews and Judaism. Now it is true
Speaker 1: that Owens is ignorant of basic things and makes embarrassing
Speaker 1: elementary factual mistakes all the time. Yet she's very glib,
Speaker 1: and her credibility as a talker is bolstered by the
Speaker 1: near sociopathic self confidence of someone who believes her saying
Speaker 1: something must make it true. And then her riff about
Speaker 1: the moon landings being faked is characteristic. She kind of
Speaker 1: knows something about the Van Allen radiation belt, which is
Speaker 1: more than most people can say, but overstates its potential
Speaker 1: as an obstacle, and she misunderstands how temperature works in space,
Speaker 1: among other things. Or her contention that dinosaurs are fake
Speaker 1: and gay. This apparently stems from her wholly erroneous belief
Speaker 1: that only paleontologists have ever found dinosaur bones, so there
Speaker 1: must be conspiracy among them to fabricate fossils to undermine
Speaker 1: faith in God. Clearly true, and the Jews have a
Speaker 1: special place in her conspiracies. Harvard is a Masad base,
Speaker 1: which Rich writes highly convenient. One assumes if Israel wanted
Speaker 1: to carry out an operation against Tufts or Bodouin. Israel
Speaker 1: was involved in the September eleventh attacks, The Holocaust is
Speaker 1: exaggerated or fake. Eli Weisel is a liar. The Jews
Speaker 1: carried out the Bolshevik Revolution in order to exterminate Christians.
Speaker 1: The Jews kill JFK and for some reason, also Michael
Speaker 1: Jackson Stalin was a secret Jew, and so is ed
Speaker 1: a Turk. Jeffrey Epstein, of course, was doing Israel's bidding.
Speaker 1: She hasn't accused the Jews of poisoning the wells, but
Speaker 1: give it time.
Speaker 2: And she's portraying. I'm reading her Twitter posts from today.
Speaker 2: She's portraying it is like she and Charlie were really close.
Speaker 2: She and Charlie Kirk heartbreaking. They really killed my friend.
Speaker 2: But justice will be served, and that she's being attacked
Speaker 2: for trying to get the truth out about who killed
Speaker 2: her friend. Right today, on the show We Go Max,
Speaker 2: we find irrefutable proof that Turning Point knows more than
Speaker 2: they're telling us. Charlie was right. He knew I would
Speaker 2: be the one to defend him after death. Join us Live,
Speaker 2: blah blah blah. She's got seven point four million followers
Speaker 2: on Twitter. I don't know how much money that makes
Speaker 2: you Quite a.
Speaker 1: Bit, yeah, I got a bunch of examples of there
Speaker 1: were actually two shots. The rifle shot was used only
Speaker 1: to cover up another shot from an unknown assata in
Speaker 1: a close range that would be difficult to coordinate Robinson.
Speaker 1: The actual shooter's role was to drive around campus assisting
Speaker 1: in costume changes. Let's see she heared that Robinson is
Speaker 1: bewildered by the idea that he carved messages and bullet casings.
Speaker 1: She also doubts the authenticity of his text messages with
Speaker 1: his trans boyfriend. She believes the text aren't credible because
Speaker 1: there's no way Robinson would use a fancy word like
Speaker 1: vehicle instead of car. Rich writes, not only his vehicle
Speaker 1: not a particularly uncommon word. Owens messes up what she
Speaker 1: considers to be evidence that cinches the point. In sleuth mode,
Speaker 1: she says that police bodycam footage of Robinson after the
Speaker 1: car accident shows him using the word car instead of vehicle.
Speaker 1: But in the course of that very tape, he also
Speaker 1: says vehicle and.
Speaker 2: Pretty slim no matter what I mean.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, yeah, yeah. And this goes on for
Speaker 1: a long time about the Jews, especially about the Jews.
Speaker 1: There's a couple of ages of this, but that's enough
Speaker 1: of that. So the broader point that I find really
Speaker 1: interesting and compelling is how these conspiracy theories work and
Speaker 1: how do they get people? And I remember when QAnon
Speaker 1: was big, I read an absolutely fantastic description of how
Speaker 1: that works. What are the various triggers that the perpetrator
Speaker 1: of these hoaxes use? And I wish I could find
Speaker 1: it because it's very straightforward and easy to understand.
Speaker 2: I got to admit, if my conscience would allow me,
Speaker 2: it'd be pretty fun to do the canvas thing where
Speaker 2: you just make stuff up and kind of ride this
Speaker 2: wave of nonsense and keep people pulling people along and
Speaker 2: come up with new wacky ideas. It'd be pretty fun.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, it's a great mental exercise. You get to
Speaker 1: know the four or five tools of your craft and
Speaker 1: then you have to react quickly and make new stuff up.
Speaker 1: It's it's almost like a creative writing exercise in a way.
Speaker 1: But anyway, I came across this by Claire Layman, and
Speaker 1: we'll take a break and come back with it. The
Speaker 1: New Medievals. The bones of conspiracy theories haven't changed through
Speaker 1: the centuries, though the details are different. How conspiracy theories
Speaker 1: are right out of the Middle Ages. Thought this was intriguing.
Speaker 1: Hope you enjoyed it.
Speaker 2: And then there's also the other end of it is
Speaker 2: that certain people that really really really want these I
Speaker 2: don't want them, but some people do. It makes them
Speaker 2: feel better. That's its own interesting thing. Anyway, lots on
Speaker 2: the way stay here, so uh, they're voting on the
Speaker 2: Epstein files.
Speaker 1: Dan.
Speaker 2: I only bring that up because that's, you know, to
Speaker 2: be a popular conspiracy for a very long time and
Speaker 2: obviously has a lot of conspiracy conspiratorial things around it
Speaker 2: with him being involved with the Jews, and that's how
Speaker 2: the Jews blackmailed people is through Epstein et cetera.
Speaker 1: And that's one of the many versions of it. So
Speaker 1: we're talking about conspiracy theories and how they work and
Speaker 1: what's at the the root of them. And I remembered
Speaker 1: a piece I brought to you a while ago, about
Speaker 1: a month ago, about gnosticism, how a lot of the
Speaker 1: people pushing this stuff are like the first century Gnostics,
Speaker 1: a Christian heresy that holds that the material world is evil,
Speaker 1: that a special KnowledgeR knows this with a g lifts
Speaker 1: us out of its corruptions into redemption. Salvation under its
Speaker 1: theory requires neither faith nor action, only the recognition that
Speaker 1: you're being lied to and that your soul belongs elsewhere. Gnosticism,
Speaker 1: like orthodox religions, asks why evil exists, but instead of
Speaker 1: traditional answers rooted in personal responsibility, it posits that malevolent
Speaker 1: forces control the world. Knowledge of these forces becomes the
Speaker 1: work itself. Discover them and you are redeemed, which is interesting.
Speaker 1: But then this from Claire Layman, a piece called the
Speaker 1: New Medievals, and he goes into a variety of people,
Speaker 1: including Candace Owens, who has been implicating everyone in the murder,
Speaker 1: from the Israeli to Turning Point Usa itself to Erica
Speaker 1: Kirk and last week her speculation reached its apogee when
Speaker 1: she suggested that Donald Trump himself was involved, which is, well,
Speaker 1: what the hell go for a touchdown if you're throwing
Speaker 1: the ball. But then she writes to Claire Wright's owns,
Speaker 1: while theorizing is an anomaly, it's part of something older
Speaker 1: and darker. There's a distinctly medieval quality to much of
Speaker 1: the conspiratorial right, a world animated by unseen cabal's moral
Speaker 1: corruption and divine punishment disguised as politics. Then she talked
Speaker 1: about how in journalism if it bleeds, it leads in.
Speaker 1: Any story that features a villain or a group of
Speaker 1: villains doing something dastardly to innocent victims is much more
Speaker 1: likely to be read and shared than an article that say,
Speaker 1: debunks such narratives with statistics, she explains, our mammalian brains
Speaker 1: are wired to perceive and anthropomorphized threats. When our ancestors
Speaker 1: saw thunderbolts down from the sky, they didn't think it
Speaker 1: was caused by electricity in the air and complex weather systems,
Speaker 1: but by the wrath of vengeful gods. That's what I
Speaker 1: believe it looks like humans. Yeah, Jack still believes that
Speaker 1: we have to talk him down after every weather forecast,
Speaker 1: But so media entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs, whether it's a canvas owns
Speaker 1: or a big publisher or executive, knows that readers want
Speaker 1: to be frightened by stories of plotters, vandals, criminals, and killers.
Speaker 1: In literature and film disproportionate attention compared with the works
Speaker 1: of other sorts. For example, thrillers make up over twelve
Speaker 1: percent of adult fiction sales in the US, True Pride
Speaker 1: Crime podcast account for nearly a quarter of the top
Speaker 1: rank show US It's very very hot. Yet conspiracy theories,
Speaker 1: those tales of shadowy cabals wreaking havoc in the world,
Speaker 1: seem to be the most seductive at all, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: the most seductive of all. They combine the adrenaline of
Speaker 1: a thriller with the morality of a fable. These moral
Speaker 1: horror stories, as literary professor Jonathan Goshall argues in a
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one book called the Story Paradox, succeeded not
Speaker 1: because they persuade people rationally, but because they gratify audiences
Speaker 1: on an emotional level. He wrote, quote, conspiracy stories promise
Speaker 1: heroes and villains, secret clues, and moral urgency, and each
Speaker 1: one invites the listener to join a righteous crusade. That's
Speaker 1: a really good example. Heroes and villains, secret clues, and
Speaker 1: moral urgency, and you get to join a righteous crusade.
Speaker 2: I get this, and clearly it's true. I just it's
Speaker 2: interesting to me that some people like me just aren't
Speaker 2: susceptible to it if it doesn't make sense, like, well,
Speaker 2: I don't get that, and then there's no proof that
Speaker 2: it's that this is true, and then I just let
Speaker 2: it go.
Speaker 1: You know. One more note before the break and then
Speaker 1: I want to come back with more of this because
Speaker 1: it's super thought provoking. But he mentions, She mentions a
Speaker 1: couple of scientific experiments psychological experiments through the years, where
Speaker 1: people who feel powerless, confused, overwhelmed, powerless begin to see
Speaker 1: patterns that are not there because they really want to
Speaker 1: bring order to the disorder that they perceive. Quote. Participants
Speaker 1: who lack control were more likely to perceive a variety
Speaker 1: of illusory patterns, including seeing images and noise, forming illusory
Speaker 1: correlations in stock market information, force, even conspiracies, and developing superstitions.
Speaker 1: The authors wrote. Another twenty twenty study found that the
Speaker 1: lack of a sense of lack of agency also predicted
Speaker 1: belief in Jewish conspiracies.
Speaker 2: Specifically, well, maybe that's why conspiracies don't work on me.
Speaker 2: Then I don't generally feel powerless or lacking agency, so
Speaker 2: they don't grab me in the same way.
Speaker 1: So a little more of how this applies to the
Speaker 1: modern world, and some examples from history coming up in
Speaker 1: a moment or two. Who please do stay tuned. If
Speaker 1: you can't stay tuned, just grab it later via podcast.
Speaker 1: You ought to subscribe or follow Armstrong and Getty on
Speaker 1: demand Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3: They and other influencers will invoke Erica as the reason
Speaker 3: that it's not appropriate to ask questions. It's just not appropriate.
Speaker 3: While Erica is still morning for you guys to ask
Speaker 3: any questions. And I'm just going to come back at
Speaker 3: you with some common sense.
Speaker 1: What sort of widow wouldn't want people.
Speaker 3: To investigate the assassination of their husband everyone?
Speaker 2: So that's Candice Owens. I saw a different podcaster that
Speaker 2: is not as popular as her, but pretty popular. He
Speaker 2: had a video of Charlie Kirk and his wife on
Speaker 2: some sort of podcast interview show in anyway. They were
Speaker 2: asked how they met, and Erica Kirk said how we met?
Speaker 2: And she paused for a little bit, and then the
Speaker 2: podcast host stops it. Who has to pause to remember
Speaker 2: how they met their spouse? Something is weird here, That
Speaker 2: is not normal marriage, that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: Great example, yeah, great example. So we're in the midst
Speaker 1: of discussing a couple of different pieces of thinking on
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorists. Michael, why do you look so troubled? Everything? No,
Speaker 1: everything's great. Actually, I'm just yeah, we're getting indigestion. Are
Speaker 1: you enough? Californian prones guilt. I'll grab some guilt. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there you go. All right. So anyway, we're we're talking
Speaker 1: about conspiracy theories and the shapes they take in the
Speaker 1: kind of ancient origins of them. If you're just joining
Speaker 1: and joining them, maybe gravit via podcast later I'm strong
Speaker 1: getting on demand. But the conspiracist worldview transforms chaos into
Speaker 1: drama and tragedy into design. It restores meaning in a
Speaker 1: confusing world by insisting that every disaster, every death, every
Speaker 1: downturn must have a reason. The most enduring conspiracy theories,
Speaker 1: like those surrounding JFK's assassination This is so interesting, often
Speaker 1: follow events that feel too momentous to have been set
Speaker 1: in motion by something as mundane as one mentally unwell
Speaker 1: into visual.
Speaker 2: I get that it's hard to deal with Jamie Palmer,
Speaker 2: who's an editor at Quillette.
Speaker 1: When the senior editors had he was a conspiracy thinker
Speaker 1: for years. He's not anymore. He noted that the idea
Speaker 1: of a communist misfit killing an American president was an
Speaker 1: embarrassment to the New Left, which he was part of.
Speaker 1: Unable to accept that a unremarkable loaner could alter the
Speaker 1: course of history. Many instead turned to elaborate alternate explanations.
Speaker 1: And I like this so much, I clipped it. Psychologists
Speaker 1: call this the proportionality bias, the belief that great events
Speaker 1: require great causes. A solitary gunman feels arbitrary and small.
Speaker 1: A hidden cabal, on the other hand, restores symmetry, purpose
Speaker 1: and a sense of moral order. Yeah, the proportionality bias. Now,
Speaker 1: this is where it really gets interesting. Long before a
Speaker 1: modern variance, conspiracy theories were spread via word of mouth
Speaker 1: in the Middle Ages. Jews were targeted in particular because
Speaker 1: they lived among Christians, but apart from them, they were
Speaker 1: marked by different laws, different rituals, and occupations were reviewed
Speaker 1: as the people who had known Christ but had rejected him.
Speaker 1: When a boy was kidnapped and murdered in twelfth century England,
Speaker 1: the accusation that Jews used the blood of children and
Speaker 1: their passover rituals began to spread across Christendom the original
Speaker 1: blood libel, and during the Black Deaths, Jews were again
Speaker 1: blamed for deliberately spreading the plague through the poisoning of wells,
Speaker 1: which led directly to pilgrims, meaning the slaughter of Jews
Speaker 1: across Germany, France and Switzerland. During the Reformation, Martin Luther
Speaker 1: oh produced texts of virulent anti Semitism, urging Christians to
Speaker 1: eject them forever from their lands and raise and destroy
Speaker 1: their houses. These stories of villainy served the function the
Speaker 1: United Christians against a common enemy, blamed catastrophes like the
Speaker 1: Pandemics on humans rather than complex systems that they didn' understand,
Speaker 1: and legitimized violence, as well as the confiscation of Jewish property.
Speaker 1: The specifics change. Demons become globalists, witches become elites, and
Speaker 1: covens become cupls, but the psychology remains the same. Conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories offer what old religions once did, moral structure, belonging,
Speaker 1: and the assurance that evil is real, identifiable, and conquerable.
Speaker 1: The platforms have changed, but the pattern has not.
Speaker 2: I was listened to a podcast the other day a
Speaker 2: topic I've talked about a lot before, the Witch Trials
Speaker 2: of that period. At the time the printing press became popular.
Speaker 2: It really drove the witch trials in that, like the Internet, now,
Speaker 2: you had printed material out there that anybody could say
Speaker 2: anything they wanted, and lots of people believed everything they
Speaker 2: read and the whole witch things spread. Forty thousand witches
Speaker 2: they believe were killed over many, many decades during that
Speaker 2: period of time, which is a witch long conspiracy theory.
Speaker 2: Blaming is a discomfort with the number of unwed women
Speaker 2: there were, is a lot of what it was driving
Speaker 2: it culturally.
Speaker 1: Wow, So the first real use of the printing press
Speaker 1: was printing crap about witches. Yeah. If that don't tell
Speaker 1: you everything you need to know about humanity, I don't
Speaker 1: know what was. So here's the interesting question. I think,
Speaker 1: if you're thinking a man or woman, what's the difference
Speaker 1: between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory? I mean, because
Speaker 1: there are plenty of conspiracies, more than one person working
Speaker 1: toward a despicable end, gotting illegal end, you got to
Speaker 1: give JFK people, certainly in the early part a pass.
Speaker 2: So it turns out the guy lived in Russia, went
Speaker 2: to Cuba recently.
Speaker 1: I mean, come on, had been id'd by the CIA
Speaker 1: in the.
Speaker 2: Midst of the Cold War. Yeah, it's almost a stretch
Speaker 2: that he wasn't involved with the Soviet.
Speaker 1: Union somehow, right, Yeah, I would agree there was plenty
Speaker 1: of risks for that mail.
Speaker 2: But and then he gets murdered the next you know,
Speaker 2: like two days later, So you can't ever answer any questions.
Speaker 1: I mean, come on, yeah there was who was it?
Speaker 1: Was it? Neil Ferguson did a takedown of Darryl Cooper.
Speaker 1: Was that his name? The fake historian that Tucker said
Speaker 1: was the most important historian in America or something like that,
Speaker 1: a point by point takedown of Daryl's reasoning about why
Speaker 1: the Jews did this and that why Hitler actually wanted
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, and just utterly dismantled it. But in
Speaker 1: you had to read the dismantling because the case Daryl
Speaker 1: Cooper made sounds so authoritative, because he cites specific sentences
Speaker 1: from specific documents or letters from one diplomat to a
Speaker 1: president or something like that, and you need the explanation
Speaker 1: of why, oh, that was like one sentence from one
Speaker 1: advisor who dissented from the mainstream, and two sentences later
Speaker 1: he pointed out why that probably wasn't true, but he
Speaker 1: thought the president ought to be aware of it. That
Speaker 1: sort of thing. It's, you know, back to the whole
Speaker 1: incredibly frustrating notion that if you're explaining you're losing. It's
Speaker 1: very easy to make authoritative sounding claims that sound very
Speaker 1: very reasonable, and you have to spend the time to
Speaker 1: dig into them to debunk them. And who has the
Speaker 1: time right especially, you know, given the deliciousness as Layman
Speaker 1: responds or described about conspiracy theories. And my final thought,
Speaker 1: it's one of my favorite quotes from Aldus Huxley. I've
Speaker 1: actually got it pinned to the studio wall. The surest
Speaker 1: way to work up a crusade in favor of some
Speaker 1: good cause is to promise people they will have a
Speaker 1: chance of maltreating someone, to be able to destroy with
Speaker 1: good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call
Speaker 1: your bad behavior righteous indignation. This the height of psychological luxury,
Speaker 1: the most delicious of moral treats.
Speaker 2: That fits in with the witch trial thing. A lot
Speaker 2: really allowed people in anti Semitism and uh yeah, and
Speaker 2: a lot of Islamic fundamentalism. Right right before we take
Speaker 2: a break, Hey, Katie, have you seen the video of
Speaker 2: the guy who rushes on Ariana Grande? I have?
Speaker 1: Wow? Have you seen that? Joe? Uh yeah, I didn't
Speaker 1: think much of it.
Speaker 2: I just saw an angle of it. Those different Well,
Speaker 2: he didn't do anything, He just ran up and got
Speaker 2: his picture taken.
Speaker 1: But this Finley crap.
Speaker 4: He's notorious for doing that at red Carbon events.
Speaker 2: Just the point of claiming to have security at any
Speaker 2: event ever, if that can happen, he ran, God, it
Speaker 2: looks like twenty yards at least. He just kind of
Speaker 2: pushes past the so called security guard who is probably
Speaker 2: making minimum wage and had no weapon. If you want
Speaker 2: to get to people other than the president, and that's
Speaker 2: even a question, well.
Speaker 1: I was gonna say, if the murder of Charlie Kirk
Speaker 1: and the near murder of Donald J. Trump having convince
Speaker 1: you that most security is security theater, I don't know
Speaker 1: what she has.
Speaker 2: So a level of concerncurity you're gonna have for a
Speaker 2: movie star who was walking on the red carpet for
Speaker 2: some movie premiere, apparently none a guy if he'd wanted
Speaker 2: to kill her, he could have absolutely undred present killed
Speaker 2: her before anybody could have stopped her.
Speaker 4: It wasn't even her security that got him off of her.
Speaker 4: It was her co star that hold her.
Speaker 2: Away around her that the security perimeter was wide, The
Speaker 2: guy blows past that's a perimeter with no effort whatsoever. Yeah,
Speaker 2: then gets all the way to her and has his
Speaker 2: arm around the four foot ten eighty pound woman to
Speaker 2: get his picture taken.
Speaker 1: Right. And you know, the maybe the most troubling part
Speaker 1: of all that is why would we need so much security? Right? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Why are so many people intent on hurting other people? Right?
Speaker 2: As it was that many years ago that you could
Speaker 2: walk up to the White House and knock on the
Speaker 2: door and walk in if you wanted to.
Speaker 1: We're debating whether teachers should have guns, and whether the
Speaker 1: fences at the elementary school ought to be electrified, and
Speaker 1: a hundred others.
Speaker 2: What that's a decay of our culture and society, which
Speaker 2: I was talking about last week, which I blame on
Speaker 2: Elvis and the Beatles. I think it all fits together,
Speaker 2: the long handle, so it brought it. We will finish
Speaker 2: strong next Tronts of the Oval Office with NBS. The
Speaker 2: guy I runs Saudi Arabia. Super wily dude, very impressive.
Speaker 2: It's got kind of the practiced, uh, just sitting there, pleasant,
Speaker 2: pleasant expression on his face while Trump answers all kinds
Speaker 2: of questions about all kinds of different things.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, every time I have witnessed him doing interviews
Speaker 1: with American journalists, including a really good long sit down
Speaker 1: with Brett bar I've thought, oh, this guy has a
Speaker 1: plus plus game. He is one smart, calculating, ruthless son
Speaker 1: of a gun. It's also a bit of a visionary
Speaker 1: in Soaudi Arabia in a good way and in a
Speaker 1: lunatic way. That weird. What was a fifty mile long,
Speaker 1: mile wide city in the desert thing is materialized about
Speaker 1: as well as you'd think it would, just insanely over budget,
Speaker 1: behind schedule, and people are starting to think, what are
Speaker 1: we doing well?
Speaker 2: And he's done some relaxing of their strict laws, but
Speaker 2: he still has women in prison who tried to drive.
Speaker 1: So uh yeah, he's these liberalized X amounts and if
Speaker 1: you say it should be X plus one, you go
Speaker 1: to prison. So what are these clip? Mixed record? Which
Speaker 1: of these clips are? We think of a plan before
Speaker 1: we get out of here. I'm confused. You have an idea, Mike? Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: allfire of this one. Mister p.
Speaker 3: Is it appropriate, mister president, for your family to be
Speaker 3: doing business in Saudi Arabia while you're president?
Speaker 5: Is that a conflict of interest?
Speaker 1: And your royal minus?
Speaker 3: The US intelligence concluded that you orchestrated the brutal.
Speaker 6: Murder of a journalist nine eleven families are furious.
Speaker 1: That you are year in the over who watched Americans?
Speaker 1: Who you were? And the same genus now who you were?
Speaker 1: How do the ABC News sir with who?
Speaker 2: ABC News, sir?
Speaker 1: Fakeness?
Speaker 6: ABC Fakeness one of the worst, one of the worst
Speaker 6: in the business. But I'll ask you a question. I
Speaker 6: have nothing to do with the family business. I have
Speaker 6: left and when I've devoted one hundred percent of my energy,
Speaker 6: what my family does is fine. They do business all over.
Speaker 6: They've done very little with Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 1: Actually they could.
Speaker 6: I'm sure they could do a lot, and anything they've
Speaker 6: done has been very good. That's what we've done. We've
Speaker 6: built a tremendous business. For a long time, I've been
Speaker 6: very successful. I decided to leave that success beee behind
Speaker 6: and make America very successful. And I've made America more
Speaker 6: successful by far than it ever was, and that it
Speaker 6: ever could have been. No matter who was president, there
Speaker 6: would be nobody bringing in twenty one trillion dollars. That
Speaker 6: I can tell you right now, as far as this
Speaker 6: gentleman is concerned, he's done a phenomenal job. You're mentioning
Speaker 6: somebody that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn't
Speaker 6: like that, gentlemen that you're talking about, whether you like
Speaker 6: him or didn't like him. Things happened, but he knew
Speaker 6: nothing about it.
Speaker 1: And we can leave it at that.
Speaker 6: You don't have to embarrass our guests by asking a
Speaker 6: question like that.
Speaker 2: Yes, don't embarrass our guests by asking a question like that.
Speaker 2: I agree. By the way, look into Kashogi. How did
Speaker 2: he become such a sympathetic figure for everybody? I mean, whatever, Wow,
Speaker 2: Jack's oft on the murder of dissidence. That's nice, that's nice. Disgusting,
Speaker 2: but as you pointed out earlier, we do Trump sat
Speaker 2: down with freaking Putin right, and and Hijin.
Speaker 1: Ping and fat head from North Korea. They're monstrous.
Speaker 2: Actually, yeah, why do we mention anybody other than President
Speaker 2: she I mean, he's got a country of over a
Speaker 2: billion people. They have slaves for crying out loud.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're conducting an actual genocide against the wager people.
Speaker 1: All right, a genocide. But there's business that has to
Speaker 1: be done with China the end. Listen. And I'm not
Speaker 1: pro the murder and bone sawing of dissonance of any regime. Okay,
Speaker 1: but this people act as if Koshogi had the secrets
Speaker 1: of the universe, including happiness and the cure for cancer,
Speaker 1: and was an entirely innocent character, and therefore he is
Speaker 1: the only issue that matters between our two countries for
Speaker 1: now until the end of time.
Speaker 2: If I remember when I looked into this last time,
Speaker 2: maybe I'm wrong, but as I remember it, he was
Speaker 2: an Islamist. He was just a different kind of Islamist
Speaker 2: than what MBS is into.
Speaker 1: Right, And he wrote from the Washington Post occasional columns.
Speaker 1: And they loved him because they could embrace him as
Speaker 1: a foreign guy in a Muslim and show how enlightened
Speaker 1: they were that they loved him. He might have been
Speaker 1: an utterly charming guy. I didn't know him, but again,
Speaker 1: as despicable as his murder might have been, the idea
Speaker 1: that the death of that one man should be the
Speaker 1: primary issue in the relations between our two countries, just
Speaker 1: is childlife? Where is the entire history of that up?
Speaker 2: Oh my god, I do hear that we just have
Speaker 2: a little time? How did kus Shogi respond to the
Speaker 2: being asked about the bones?
Speaker 1: Eyne just here you're allowed to answer?
Speaker 5: You know, I feel painful about you know, the families
Speaker 5: of ninety eleven in America. But you know, we have
Speaker 5: to focus on reality. Reality based in CI documents and
Speaker 5: based on a lot of documents that the Laddin, he
Speaker 5: used Sadi people and that event for one main purpose
Speaker 5: is to destroy this relation, to destroy the American Saudi relation.
Speaker 5: That's the purpose of ninety eleven. So whoever buying that,
Speaker 5: that means they are helping was a ladin purpose of
Speaker 5: destroying this relation. You know, that's a strong relation between
Speaker 5: America and Saudi Arabia. It's bad for extremism, it's bad
Speaker 5: for tourism, and we have to approve him wrong and
Speaker 5: to build our relation could continue to floping our relation.
Speaker 1: It's a critical in the safety of the world.
Speaker 5: It's a critical against extremest him in terrorism about the terrors,
Speaker 5: it's really painful to hear, you know, anyone that been
Speaker 5: losing his life for you know, no he'll the purpose
Speaker 5: or nope, nothing unegal way. And it's been painful for
Speaker 5: us in Saudijabia. We've did all the light steps of
Speaker 5: UH investigation, et cetera in Saudi Arabia, and we've improved
Speaker 5: our system to be sure nothing happened.
Speaker 1: Like there you go or it's all a lie either way.
Speaker 2: And now final folks with Armstrong and getting engaged. Here's
Speaker 2: your host for final thoughts, Joe Getty. Let's get right
Speaker 2: to some final thoughts. Michael Aigelow hit it. Yeah, that
Speaker 2: Koomi the Bear. It's gonna be a hot seller on eBay.
Speaker 2: Everybody loves forbidden toys.
Speaker 1: All right, Katie Green or Steve Newswoman. As a final thought, Katie.
Speaker 4: Candice Owens is nuts or rage baiting all of us?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah, ing is a thing too, Jack the final
Speaker 1: thought you'd like to share?
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I heard one of my favorite quotes from
Speaker 2: Munston Churchill earlier today. When you get into States, there
Speaker 2: are no such things as friends. You only have interests.
Speaker 2: You don't have friends, you have interests between countries.
Speaker 1: My interest is in telling you about the hot new
Speaker 1: t shirt at the Armstrong of Getty superstore ruin the
Speaker 1: entire country. Newsome twenty twenty eight, Wear it proudly.
Speaker 2: Wow. Armstrong and Getty rap here about another girling for
Speaker 2: our workday order now so.
Speaker 1: As to get it in time for Christmas. So many people,
Speaker 1: thanks so a little time. Go to Armstrong and Getty
Speaker 1: dot com. We will see you tomorrow with all the
Speaker 1: news of the day. God bless America. It's the Armstrong
Speaker 1: and Getty Show.
Speaker 3: Christmas Shopping Sometimes it's so tough. It can feel like
Speaker 3: you're just buying a bunch of random stuff. Get focus
Speaker 3: and spend your money right.
Speaker 5: We've got the perfect gift on that special person.
Speaker 2: All the Armstrong and Getty supersto shop nack, arm Strong
Speaker 2: and
Speaker 1: Getty dot com, Armstrong and Getty