Welcome to the commentary magazine podcast for today, Monday August 26th, two thousand and nineteen, I'm John Podhoretz. The editor of commentary back from is in Israel with me, as always senior editor. Greenwald High a hi John so is there no roster? I know I come back and in Washington senior writer Christine Rosen HI, Christine Hi John, so you guys up, for discussing the topic of Donald Trump

Hilti Jews Ilhan Omar she to Tlaib and at all that, until until my return, I've just posted on the we just posted on the commentary website a lewd personally long blog post by me on this subject that if any of you in the hearing of my voice, get from the beginning to the end, I will give you a cookie it's very long and very self indulgent I apologize for for that, but I am jet lagged and this is how it how it came out anyway. So let's see, let's just at Lou, just give my view of this matter simply for the historic, record as commentaries, of course seventy odd year old monthly of Intellect analysis, political probability and cultural criticism from a conservative perspective, a magazine created for the purpose of explaining America too.

In jewelry and explaining jewelry to America and therefore or this is a topic that is near and dear to our hearts and very close our mission and all that and they laid out very succinctly. Donald Trump is one of the best friends that Israel is ever had in the White House. How do you know this? 'cause he's nice to Israel and he enacts policies that are friendly to Israel and two twist this around to say that he's not or that he's doing so with the anti semitic content or something like that. Is to bury yourself in excessive complexity and contradiction: Occam's razor is the truth. Here. He's a friend of Israel, 'cause he's friendly to Israel and that's all there is and to say otherwise is to say not that people who would enact other policies. Is to say that people who would enact other policies because they think is

is doing things wrong, headedly and therefore should be opposed or should be attacked or should be. Assaulted all well and good, but that doesn't make them friends that doesn't make them friendly. That doesn't mean that they're friendly it could mean, as they often say, that they are full of love. But it's tough love thus expressing an incredibly condescending view- tour de vibrant democratic nation that has gone through hell over the last twenty five years, attempting to figure out how to handle the image really complicated issue of palestinian rights, palestinian statehood, the palestinian role in the israeli polity and having having a scented in its democratic process to a an effort, to achieve peace through a two state solution only to be met with a terror war of

of extreme length and extreme bloody mess. Thus, in your ring, the people of Israel for the most part from the feeling that what they need to do is a peas or make large gestures toward the Palestinians, who have not yet accepted their existence and who seem to believe that it is ok too in act terrorist. Solutions to their own problems. Israelis are done with it. They had they had. This was a hard fought, fifty the issue in Israel, for you know two thousand five hundred and thirty

Sears and they took they. They they took every step necessary to attempt to make peace and their efforts to make these were seen as either forms of weakness or forms of. I don't know why I didn't so the, and so the the the gestures were met were met with war and we're not going to see those gestures again, for a very long time and so to suggest that people are friendlier to Israel when they try to wag their fingers at Israelis whose children ride on says and go into the army and will have to fight wars if there are worse and all of that and to wag your finger from the safety of American Living Room or or a you know, or a or tv broadcasting studio, because you think you know better fine, that's all well and

but that doesn't make you a good friend of Israel and such an attitude as a friend would make you a good friend of anybody. So Trump is a better friend is real than all of those people and, as I stand, the blog post. In twenty fifteen when Barack Obama so Trump then said, of course, Jews who would vote cratic, considering the way that Tlaib and Ilhan Omar ACT are disloyal. So then there was this. You know total hysterical fit. How dare he's questioned jewish loyalty? That's ridicu! Wasn't questioning jewish loyalty to the United States, he was. He was suggesting that Jews who support. The democratic party, when it is not sent you're getting rid of doing something about the squad,

disloyal to jewelry and to Israel. Now is it appropriate for him, a gentile and the present eight states to weigh in on the issue of how Jews should relate to Israel. No, it is not rational person would say it was even if you like what he said, which a lot of people I know do it doesn't matter it's not. Is business length of the United States should not be opining on the be on the behavior of tiny religious minorities like like, like american jewelry, which makes up less than two percent of the population of the United States, even if his son in law is jewish, even if his daughter is converted to Judaism, even if he has jewish grandchildren, it's not his business and it's not appropriate and thirty five years ago, Ed Koch, the mayor, I've got into a huge amount of trouble 'cause. He said Jews be crazy to vote for Jesse Jackson. For president

The only reason that that was defensible is that he and Koch was a Jew. Therefore he was talking inside the case as we say inside the movie and so I thought it was fine, a lot of people didn't, and here we are okay so in when Barack Obama in 25th made the IRAN deal and a lot of people very upset what happened Did his minions go out and suggest to people, they suggested that to say that the IRAN deal was a bad deal because it was dangerous to Israel was, it was a was an act of dual loyalty that they were not They were not, they did not. Care He cared less about how this It's good for the United States that how was bad for Israel, and that was dual loyalty. That was an outrageous ACT of slimy behavior

a bunch of Jews in the Obama administration, but with Obama say so. Was that acceptable? No, with the back just the line way more than this cross the line- and I don't remember, hearing a lot of people, we're having this fit about Trump last week calling this out on the part of those LISA Ben Rhodes and and his end is slimy little Torpey pod Save America creeps. That didn't happen right so, whatever Trump did. It was way less meaningful than that and let's go final point. Then I will stop my monologue, which is, of course Trump says that Jews crazy to vote for anybody else. He's the other person He wants every. He thinks everybody should vote for him and you know

Elsa. Let everybody should vote for him, Barack Obama. You know whoever you know. You know that what every conservative, thinks every conservative thinks that you should vote for heard of Canada, you know what liberals think. They think that you should vote for liberal and if you don't you're wrong, that's means to have convictions and opinions. It's not well. I believe this and you believe that, but that's over that's fine! It's it's not like movie! It's like saying, okay! Well, you like into a movie, and I didn't know we'll just agree to disagree now in Seville, terms we are supposed to live in a society in which we can say. Well I believe this and you believe that- and I think you're wrong and I'm right, but we can still be friends or still. It doesn't mean that I don't think that We should vote the way. I vote I thought otherwise, I would vote the way you vote. So when Trump says you shouldn't vote for anybody else, but me I'm so good on Israel and you disloyal to your own people. If you, if you vote against somebody who so good to your

to the jewish state, there's nothing outrageous about that. It's outrageous, alpine generally about the question of what constitutes loyalty or disloyalty inside a community. That is not your community, but but asserting that everybody should vote for him. 'cause he's so great That is what every politician the difference between him and other politicians is that they put it this way. They say I'd like vote. I'm asking for your vote please vote for me. He said you should vote for me. I demand you vote for me. 'cause. I've done this, for you. Right. He said in this rally last week or the other He said, even if you eight me, you got a vote for me. Otherwise you're gonna get a little with Warren. So you better vote for me. I demand your vote. So Elizabeth Warren doesn't get the country or whatever you know, whoever he was really referring to so I'm

This goes then, to this whole question of whether or not there is anything that term can say on any subject at any time in any place that will not cause a complete and total psychotic break by people who have now he's been president for two and a half years he's been he's been a figure political scene for four years as the dominant figure american politics and Every time he opens his mouth, people have to lie on there, ending couches and get smelling salts, because they can't believe that he said it at what point we going to get over. This act of you know They love it, they do it 'cause they love it. They love the hysteria, they love being hysterical, they love route, you know, filing each other up and he, I knows that they love it and they know that he knows that he loves it and so we're in a kind of. 19th century victorian, melodrama in which he's tying. You know there

the damsels being tied to the train tracks every single day? it's exhausting and we've got at least what fourteen one slash two more months of this until until the election is this going to happen every day. Is it day that we are going to be sitting here. Having listening to people, on twitter and elsewhere. Passing out from rage. An outrage when this is Joe who he is, and this is the new normal and so fine so Howl at the moon, because that's the way, the moon, I hope they do- certain I heard I certainly take no pleasure in any sort of hysteria, but I loosely hope that we do not in your ourselves to the point where we say: okay, it's perfectly okay for the president to call it the FED chair at the equate him to a communist dictator, a murderous communistic to I certainly hope we never get to a point at which we are so

so in your so beaten by Donald Trump's, aberrant behaviors that we refuse to acknowledge them. Let me summarize briefly: I don't consider that aberrant. You can dislike it, yeah hello, that's not a what a normal person that let alone a president well, but you know there that's where you're wrong, because it is what a president does because he's the press red and he does it. Okay, allow me to open up a plate number that should employment, okay, but the should be here. This is the okay I in no way shape or form think that what he said about about Jay Powell and Angie was anything but disgusting, and it's fine say it's disgusting. This in vain, against the abnormality is an act of blindness. In my opinion, I prefer to think of it as the that's not to say another word saying this is not this not normal is wrong

is the normal he came president that defines the normality of the president at the moment and it should conditional tense. Be our objective to re apply standards that we would love with, will so why is applied to any other president? In this case, Donald Trump is rejects that, but should we relax those standards for every president in the future? I mean. Let me ask you: this is their utility? Is there? Is there actual utility in in in expressing opposition to the views or policies of somebody to have a screaming tantrum every time he opens his mouth? I'm I'm. I think it has precisely the opposite effect. He says in something I'm the chosen one and then people say he's sees God: we've got to get that he's Jesus GO, we've got to get the 25th amendment out and then and then something it's about how we said, maybe we could use a nuclear weapon to stop a hurricane he's insane. What is this

then he says bad stuff Jenny. The bass. So the argument also applied discretion, reasonable discretion between that which is truly a and what I maintain the coming. This kind of did. Yeah, that's were and stuff that is Joe the sort of stuff that I'd aging boomer and it called talk, radio show with sex. Agreed sure. I agree no, but I, but that is not what's happening Okay, well bring your for I'm a standard, then allow we're fifteen minutes into this thing. We got to get other people into this conversation. I want to summarize briefly the counter argument get you to respond to it, the smartest one I've seen so Trump. As we know, thanks in stereotypes, he thinks and racial and ethnic stereotypes. Sometimes he gives voice to them. Sometimes he doesn't he just. Implies it, but that's how he thinks and the in this case are good. He thinks they're good they're, never let they're nevertheless

choose their nevertheless stereotypes but they're they're good in so far as he thinks Jews should have as their primary in domestic interest loyalty to Israel. That suggests a sort of stereotypical thinking so Let's say that: it's okay, so it if he's, if he's saying that he thinks in stereotypes and that's not necessarily rooted in love, but it is a rooted in some sort of thinking. Then his comments about loyalty, weren't necessarily Phyllis a so much as a warning, shot a suggestion that his l t, rather his his support for Jews. Domestic Jews for Jews knows limits as long as they are tethered to some sort of transaction in which he benefits. Yeah. Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as I keep saying so, if

is conditional. This is pretty damn unconditional, conditional yeah. I also I think this gets to the the point of my blog post. I brought a much briefer blog post about this last week, the point which is that Trump, some sort of communicates in on complete thoughts and in order to talk about what he talks about, we have to flesh out his thinking, as I think no and or what we what we can divine from what he says, as I think no just did, and I think the problem with that is that there was actually no warning shot in what he said. It's it's it's something that has to be added to the the the the sort of the the little bread crumbs he gives us, and then we fight over that interpretation. Let's talk to mystically verses, internationally, Crist, think of it this way, so there are two issues with Trump and jewelry right. There's the issue of his relation to Israel

and there is his issue, the issue of his relation to american Jews. Domestically, let's say: ok, he believes as by the way, do I that let's say that can Jews that should have only one side. When it comes to Israel, I don't think they should have two sides, I'm sorry. This is The holocaust happened seventy four years ago and it's Every four years ago Israel was created, it's an in gathering of Jews, if it is harmed, if it is damaged, if it is destroyed, eh millennia, old, the oldest monotheistic faith, that surviving rem miracle of ancient of ancient times, will be destroyed and Jews, have a have have the signal, responsibility in the world of jewelry is to is to ensure the future of jewelry

period. That is my deepest held view on this matter, Heath thanks for his own reasons. The Jews should have one view of Israel and that they should like him for that. Ok,. American Jews that think otherwise. Wives do not want to have Israel as the primary focus of their not the primary focus, but do not want to be a key part of their lives. They want other things and they don't want to be tied to Israel and they don't want to be put under this pressure Beth Israel and they liked Obama and Obama was bad on Israel and they think that they hate Trump, and so everything that Trump does is bad, including what he does in Israel. So therefore, they twist themselves into pretzels, saying he's bad in Israel because they want to think that bomb was good and it because they don't care. Well. I think I think this actually goes. That brings us back to what you said earlier, which I think is correct, which

is that it's very easy to be an american jewish critic of of israel- a well sitting in the comfort and safety of your american living room and not having to sacrifice either personally or as it sacrifice the safety and well being of your family to be a part. Defending Israel. So I think that's right. I think that one of the challenges with Trump is that he does speak and act very in a very manichaean way, and I think you're right that it's you know this is how think of Israel. This is our one should agree with me and he gave what I heard was a version of the don't vote against your interests argument, and we see this from he says this to african american voters when he said when Trump and his supporters say you know, they've got you on the credit party plantation and things like that. It it's a version, What people say to wealthy folks who vote for

like Bernie Sanders like you're voting against your own economic self interest here. So I think there was a bit of at in his remarks at the park right line of thinking exactly know. I mean there. Is this this this voting against self interest, but I do think that he is more basic impulse it's you know he's he's very focused on on Obama and IRAN and Israel and all the fallout from that, and I think he's what he's saying in with some frustration is, you know, squabble all you want, but I'm the one doing something for Israel and- and so you should vote for me because of that and that angers, I think very complacent liberal. Jews who want to criticize Israel for everything it doesn't want to overlook the anti Semitism. That's on the rise in their own party right in the other part here is that in the United States it is one has to acknowledge that there are

dangerous, Anti Semites, who have had some kind of a fuse lit by had a fuse lit by the Trump And the sea- and there is some role that is played in these- you know at the tree of Life massacre in Pittsburgh to the shoot up of the of the about House near San Diego. There is the the rise, Trump plays some inchoate role. He cannot be blamed for it, but one cannot look at these things and say that they would have happened. Had Hillary Clinton been or something like that. It's there so there's something weird going on that in the world of american jewelry. You can't totaly dismiss it

and that's the one area in which, when he steps into this kind of thing and says well reward me, I'm so nice to Israel. Has to say to say you know it is understand double in my view, having ranted the other direction in the first ten minutes of this month, cast. It is understandable to say whoa whoa whoa, like you know, I think at the phrase that we used in two thousand, and sixteen was you know you inadvertently: advertently turned a rock over Somehow in America and people stuff is scurrying out in relay. To two Jews injury that is discomforting and- and so I don't say, I think that I believe this is an interesting challenge for Jews in twenty twenty as follows.

The Democratic Party is moving inexorably in the direction of the of an Omar on these matters. If a list This one or Bernie Sanders ends up as the presidential nominee with a bad record of the way they talk about these matters, but Donna and uh. Trump is the person on the other side Calculus is in my view. Well at least he's good to Israel. What are they? What are they there just leftists if you think that Judaism is leftism, which is what a lot of secular Jews in America who have who have, as my father put it in his book, why are Jews, liberals uh, you know they they they worship the Torah, the you know the tour of liberalism, not the tour of Judaism. Then they can do it happily. I know a bunch of people who are Zionists and tend to vote democratic, who

extremely um unnerved. By the choice that they are being thrown at there would have been no challenge them whatsoever. Even despite Trump's favor behavior Thord Israel. It would have been no challenge for them to simply go and vote democratic. Again. But to leave and Omar are giving them the Willis, and they know what's happening, and we see in Britain what happens when anti semite start taking over major political parties that I never thought about the turning over the rock stuff, and it's it's something I I I I I think about quite a bit on it and I'm it it doesn't. It doesn't detract from from the point about that. The the potential danger or the actual danger that that he

Trump has posed in sort somehow lighting a fire under under those people, but there is, I think, the idea that There are people there are angry populace in this country who without Trump's, being so pro Israel might actually be a whole lot more or in fact anti semitic and that that might be a apart their populism in a part of the rage in a way that it is not because the person at the head of the of their movement so to speak, is so pro Israel. Well, we know that that the the tree of life guy and was angry with hated trump. Because of this because he betrayed his

I'm paying right, but that's me very upset with him and I'll have to make this pretty clear, though he thought this guy was on his side, yeah in twenty six yeah, that's why he came out from under the rock. That's why they all dead. That's they're all very explicit about this and they're, not going under the rock again and there's only one person to blame for that condition. So we can turn around now and say: okay. Well, I'm super follows somatic, because I'm doing with the Republican Party does which, by the way, is extremely different from what Donald Trump Late Republican Party has ideological affinities and GEO political affinities tortoise re. Which are embalmed, changing and immobile. As long as there's a real maintains. Its current structure. Donald Trump, is much more transactional and that's why it could be much more ephemeral, which is it would be much more content will be more concerned about, but that, but if the tree of Life shooter thought that Trump's campaign, because of Trump's campaign that Trump Presidency was going to be anti Israel or or Anti semitic, I think that's because he's he's

was crazy. I mean, I don't think it's 'cause. He was crazy. We published in twenty sixteen in our from seriously injured, we published a piece by by who I can met Danniella did no not Daniela great, was it doesn't matter, but we published a piece on taking trump seriously in Israel and during m. He very cautious, about say he said I don't want to take sides. This is I want to do with deal. This will be a fantastic real estate deal. I'm not taking sides, don't expect me to take sides and so sign in under those conditions, impact meeting and saying you guys care about money. I write about money that was on a pack that was, that was the republican jewish coalition, but yeah, but he was. He did not in fact it was not necessarily to be expected that he would take this it's this If that he was going to go in this direction, we did not expect it but he wasn't he wasn't

at the Israeli isn't the ideology rate like he was on no, but this is where I think when I was. I I think now is a he. He was clearly not he did not. On to say that he was a big supporter of Israel and then he basically went all in after he got elected. Why is another as a matter for another story? Could it be a fair yes, even a femoral he'd be better than Obama. Even a femoral, even if he changes his tune right now. This idea that oh, don't get in with Trump it's so terrible. What's he what's do move to do move move the embassy again what's it going to like israeli aid. He doesn't have the He wouldn't do it anyway. That's my point, like we had eight years the worst president to deal with Israel in in our lifetimes. The worst guy comes in he does some good stuff and now we're supposed to look at him as though he is an anti semite. That's crazy

and I was willing to think that he might be terrible. That's my point now I'm I'm acknowledging, and I think what you said. No, I knowledge that you cannot divorce the Trump movement from this advance of violent, Anti Semitism inside the United States, since two thousand and sixteen you can't because it didn't before and now it's happening. And it's weird and it's very upsetting and this is this- is by the Charlottesville moment. Was such a crucial one both at the time and remains, I think, a crucial moment that Trump really handled poorly, and that was that that was the They were responding, that the the people who scurry out from under the rock were marching with tiki torches,

saying anti semitic things and waving anti semitic signs and he did not. He did not condemn them the way he have and that I think for a lot people on the right and the last became symbolic of the dangers of the transactional thing. I mean we've had this debate about Trump. Since he was elected about you know, we'll hook it will give us the judges. We wonder who give us this or that I think, if, if we are agree that there is this. This rising and dangerous anti Semitism. That's out there. Right now, then I think he has to be held to a higher standard, not just because he's the president, but because we don't want anyone is no was saying to be held, to standards that in two one slash two years are become the new normal, because this can't become the new normal. A logic that eight that is, I mean everything is relative right now thing relates to everything else, so you can always thinking in those terms, especially when we get down to the general election in

becomes a binary choice and everybody is going to impose on the binary choice and we here- oh you know, Donald Trump better than the alternative. Of course. That is true. That doesn't mean that we should sacrifice, our desire to see that we shouldn't you know that we sacrificer ideological desire to see the President behave better, even if he's relatively good relative to his binary choice you know there there's no reason to say that we shouldn't desire to see the president change for the better and it doesn't seem like he's capable of it. So it's probably probably a pipe dream, but to stifle that for fear of perhaps advancing the prospects of a unpalatable alternatives to me is, is ideologically dishonest and corruption. Well, I think we, I think that goes without saying.

It doesn't cut without saying you have to say it, unfortunately, just about every other day. No, I thought she was related to general election campaign when it becomes the the binary choice in your on one side to the other. The whole point of the binary choice argument: the only reason the people advance the body, Ok. Ok, it's a binary choice. You gotta pick one or the other is precisely that the choice is unpalatable. You don't have to put it that way if you can unconditionally- or you know, a beat I have no problem with your choice. I would have called everything. Is it's illogical not to think in relativistic terms, but it's also. A sacrifice of of form of a sort of intellectual honesty. We would be intellectually dishonest to say that the president shouldn't think and stereotypes and thank yous, think monolith you yeah, but Jews. Thing, do something fun clean. That's what I'm saying every I think everybody should think monolithically. I don't think people should. I think individuals should think

the visuals and missing my point, and what I mean is you believe things right in with what we do here for a living? Is that we try to? Can we try to? make arguments for the things that we believe in and if we didn't think that, then we we didn't think. Everybody should think the way we think we wouldn't other doing it for a living so In that sense, I mean, of course, we all pay lip service to the notion that we have. You know intellectually ideological plurality in the United States 'cause, it's true and that's what life is like, but that doesn't mean that you don't think that you're right and that everybody should think. Like you, I don't sit around thinking that you know that somebody, by dint of the fact that they You know that they live in inner city. Baltimore shouldn't support capital gains tax. So I think they should cast support capital gains. Tax cuts could because that's better for the economy and will help them in the long run, but just because we're

all the days that that doesn't help them and therefore they shouldn't think that I mean this is what I think about all the policies for support. I I'm I'm only being Sort of obviously that this to say that when I say what goes without saying is to say that Trump has taken, Trump is Nobody knows how to deal with the question of whether or not he is an expression of the change in. Inside your whether he is changing american society or whether it's obviously a combination of both right? so but when I say that he's the new normal, I mean that there is something lunatic about walk, write every day, saying president. Say this. The president shouldn't say that a president shouldn't say the other thing, because you are he. He also is free to say whatever the hell. It is that he wants to say that's the weird part and speaking of which can we switch topics here for a minute and talk about the comedy of the story in the New York Times

how Arthur Schwarz the republican consultant is gathering the tweets and public statements of journalists saying back ten years to throw it back in their face when they, when they you know, go back and study the tweets and writings and statements of of politicians and political figures. That they don't like. What can we just note that I read that story very carefully note how it is framed it at every opportunity it makes it sound as if this is coming directly from the White House and a nixonian sort of paranoid way, but it's not right. These are, these are external groups, you know and that that the White House says that we have nothing to do with this, that we can believe them or not, but I thought that the way that that story was written was to try to convey as often as possible that kind of conspiracy there. As okay, we should introduce your times as a story yesterday today to a story about how republican consultant named Arthur Schwartz is working on a project and

which he is gathering. You know whatever his public, that jerk Let's reporters and pundits have said about Trump there. Doing research on their tweets and facebook posts and things that they've written, like investigative journalists an when they dig up stuff, as they did about this one editor on the politics that the New York Times, who apparently ten or twelve years ago, said Anti semitic and anti asian things, and so it's been released. That he said these rights. So it's all those all public record by the way teenager who is growing up in Egypt to set something inappropriate. Who became a photojournalist for CNN and was right and fired for this tweet City Rick, when when is that right? Well, first so this is what a abuses me here. Okay, so this is the story and the New York Times has gone totally. Bananas AG cells burger the of the of the publisher, has really something saying we will not be intimidated and you will

launch silence us with your investigative, politically motivated that'd edit edit. Ok, I, if you think Media matters for America, David, Brooks Organization, started this. This was the game, the David there they sit around, they tape Radio talk shows he story. Can that yeah? It says that but the whole idea is that this is their what's on torn about this is yeah. Is that insinuation that this is being directed by the? house, because Arthur Schwartz was a New York seldom has some relationship with with Donald Trump. Junior. This is how it gets to everything else. Um I'm writing. I am all for all past statements being now avoid. Let me just say for the sake of argument: uh there was a

in nineteen. Eighty five, when I realized having just having been writing in the public prints, for Rightmove Reviews, but writing in Washington. For about a year and a half that I realized that it was never going to get confirmed for public office at the age of twenty four, because his stuff that I'd published in Washington Times already. Okay, there was no way that I was going to get confirmed. It would never happen, and so I've been I've dealt with this reality, since I. Very young, but you were wrong because you didn't anticipate Trump yeah. Well, no, no, don't feel nothing well, but I won't maybe right okay, so This is great. Let the New York Times now stop investigating. You know uh Please let Jay Mayer stop going around trying to find, Kavanaugh's an article from the Yale Daily NEWS about breast have

has opinions in nineteen. Eighty seven fine stop do and then nobody couldn't nobody will do it about you. Shall we have that trade? Can we do that? So I don't think that was the epiphany here on the on the Times part and I'm reading about this later it sort of wind. These things are on covered. It's it's there, the the got. The put the effort on the part of of this consultant is not to appeal to the to the times. Standards and you know, demand they apply these standards universally. It is to appeal to mob sentiment, to whip up a frenzy and to use that crushing tide of public opinion to and to force them to act in ways they otherwise wouldn't on, and that's the time to pick any is. Is that well, okay? Well, maybe that's actually bad and if that's the conclusion that we all come to that these outrage mobs, consisting of statistically insignificant numbers of people on Twitter, but feel really intense and the mom

you're engaged in them that those actually don't matter and shouldn't matter, then that's a great thing. Okay, you know what this reminds me of you remember how so again, let's go back to fifteen in the fifteen in the anti semitic onslaught right, so who gets it? Who gets it at the beginning? I will Ben Shapiro does Bethany men. L does Seth. Mandel does jewish right wingers get it from those weird alt right accounts that Add the oysters are then again this view: no okay, no god I'm fat, but first getting outside. Okay, that we should just got seven. Okay, read about this, this horrible silly book that talks about like Jim ten laundry. Being a religious ethos yeah. Well, let's go on that now. So here's what here's! What I was saying so like two thousand and fifteen it was conservative Jews who were getting it from these all right accounts with these weird central european national.

List names attached to them right and it was horrifying. Ben got. I don't know one hundred times more than I did and I was staying up all night. You know like stupidly battling these. You know evil accounts and all that- and this goes on once in months and months and months and then Julia of of the Atlantic or not even then of the Atlantic. Somewhere else gets one. What New Republic New Republic gets one or two and then the Anti Defamation league goes. Oh, my god. This is terrible right. So this is exactly the same sort and it's like it's. Okay, twitter outrage mobs to go out after you right wingers and try to cut their throats, but let this up until one Gerret let

having to one person at the New York Times and suddenly, oh my god. This is such an unjust way to handle peoples careers. Here's the thing, though, if we're hoping, as as I am as we, I think we all are hoping for the sort of the logic of a mutually assured destruction to kick in. You know to say there for. Okay will double stop this. This is crazy. This explain that, because that's a very good point, what do you mean? What do you mean by that looks like in third during the cold war? You know if, if you could, if, if Russia could destroy the US with the news in the US could destroy Russia with nukes, and there was this the the logic of mutually assured destruction. It's for your own plight that that there would be no no first right right right, so that was so the booth we apply that to the this the idea of digging up people's old tweets and statements to ruin them. Now that both sides are playing the game, they would stop. The reason I don't think that will hold is because of the nature of the internet and social.

It today. It's not two sides. Anyone can go, dig up this stuff and then people will retweet it right. So there's! No you don't. There's no agreement with main parties well so Abe last night, you found this abs holy chilling twitter thread where this woman out a boy, a man who had she said been her bully in middle school, her in middle school. Names him in the and says I hope, his children are suffering or you know, I hope, he's worried about his children, and I hope people see this and his name when they look up his name. His name is in the tweet. So, we have no idea whether any of this is true. We don't know that he was a bully or if he wasn't a bully and if he was a bully that it's twenty five years later and she

is trying using Twitter to try to destroy. But these life decades after whatever incident may have happened, they were children. This This is not an invalid date. This one thing the does not invalidate the entire medium morally spiritually and reveal what kind of all? We have descended into that, become a major form of them of communication in the United States that aim founded. He doesn't even know the doesn't know any of the parties uhm. You know every two months or month. We get one and we get an aspect of this. You know, and- and it is like chilling it I mean it's beyond chilling- you know at least we're public you we at least if you're a writer, so you are, submitting yourself for public review, an inquiry. I don't know who this guy

this is probably like a middle manager at some, you know in some software company or something like that and now I have to go into hiding uhm. I don't even know why Starr, Rhett and all the beautiful sure destruction, because anyone on playing there's no yeah, there's there's no curation and there's and there aren't. There aren't two super powers right. It's right, not only they're, not two superpowers. A bunch of relative nobody's who can go and do this so they're, risking nothing by destroying someone else, Well, it's also used in battle internally, right, so, if you're, a moderate Democrat, you're good, it's going to be used by the more progressive left to keep you in line with what they think you should be saying and doing in the same thing occurs on the right: it's used to police within the bounds of the right and the left as well. So I think that's another way it can become extremely toxic. The idea of ghetto did mutual disarmament. You know

again not to analogize sort of like just generally to one's bugbears, but it's like that fight between Harry Reid and Mitch, Mcconnell over the elimination of the judicial filibuster In twenty thirteen, when Mitch Mcconnell basically said this, these rules are in place precisely to force some kind of a regulation over time of the partisanship of the Senate, and, if you guys one to do this, so you can have a short term political gain. You Democrats to get some people onto the court you are going and he what How to spell said. You will regret yes, and sooner than you realize, and look where We are now five years later so now there astonishing number of judges have been confirmed under this under this rule that Mcconnell defended

in twenty thirteen 'cause Harry. We got rid of it and that that means okay, you know what there are now boundaries anymore? So it's not like we're going to put him up unilateral e if no one is going to accept them, we're going to take advantage of it. That's why he said this was too seductive. Don't do it don't do it 'cause I'll use it I'll be in power and I'll use it and he uses it. And so this is the point where this is where you say what note this goes back to know is point that we need to establish and keep reminding people that what's going on is not normal, but it is normal. 'cause we're not! This is not going back. I don't know if that's necessary true, I hope you're, hopefully, outrage drive mobs people are beginning to realize, by people. I mean institutions are beginning to realize that these outrage moments these iterations seventy two hours

what have you that they don't really have a lasting effect. They don't have a lasting effect on the bottom line. The Wall Street Journal did an investigation of a couple of these things and basically came to the conclusion that the outrage is temporary and the companies that don't do anything in response to them have less of an effect on their bottom lines in the companies that acknowledge them in apologize for whatever offense that they claim. You have individuals like governor, Ralph Northam, who essentially outlasted his his harrowing on social media and he's not the only person who's been able to do that. The more people realize that this as a seventy two hour window of efficacy- and you cannot live it and survive it and emerge on the other side relatively unscathed. We might all come to a Joe conclusion that this whole thing has been bad for everyone and that we need to limit its a fax. I think it takes extreme sung, Fwaa and real self

control to be able to do what Ralph Northam did. It is not that everybody in the Virginia government did it no turn it would like to each other people, just in sync and whoever the AG was yeah Fairfax, but I think it takes real real. And ability to say I'm just going to play possum for forty eight hours as the alternative, defending yourself against attack, which only encourages more attack. That is, that is a counter intuitive thing. It's not what people feel that they should do when they feel that they have been now. It was a logical conclusion on his part from the reporting that we understand, who is part, is belief as if I were to resign now I will I will be acknowledging the

I think he never. I think he was. That is a real mark of how you should handle it, but the five percent of people in that circumstance would be able to pull that off because it is so against. You know it's so counter intuitive that I don't think that you can look at that and say that's going to be the model going forward for this guy who gets outed as a as a bully. Thirty years later and like is going to end up, you know at has an enemy of his company who's going to A based on those tweets, I don't feel safer now it matters for institutions, the governor is an institution and to himself if the New York Times, but leaves itself as an institution to be to know law or be responsive to these outrage mobs, because it's bad for the bottom line. First of all, they should get everybody to stop tweeting, but if they

to do that and say we have an institutional policy to no longer going to sacrifice you to the wolves. Then it might not be the last institution to do as much there Christine. You have, I think, never tweet it is that that's right! You never tweet it and you're not on Facebook, nope she's literate, your get your lurking there, I'm a big one, that's yeah! And that's what I that's what I I I took myself off Facebook off of off Twitter four months ago now. I think something like that. I will never go back even though, like last night, I was thinking you know, it's really terrible like I don't even tweet out my own stuff, and I should do that, like this blog post, that I wrote, that's that I just feel summarized and I'm like. No because that's like taking just one puff of a cigarette after with it you I like what like to, I don't know I can handle it now,

just have one drink. You know, that's where I mean I like shout out to know who always nicely tweets out what I write for the website. I mean I, I rely on a kind of herd immunity to get stuff out there yeah do it myself, yeah, ok, but so might might my point is like as many who did not swim in the, never the never be no became up your lifeguard in the in the twitter cesspool, Do you see any way out of this? only if there's no, as suggested the all the institutions stop playing now. They already are not succumb into the call culture when it comes to someone they want to higher rating in the times, is hired plenty of people who've written terrible things. Very you know there is Sarah Young who wrote.

All those sort of anti white, male and anti white women tweets fairly recent ones. This wasn't when she was just you know at green teenager, so They kept us recognize those as bad until they were told they were exactly so there. Obviously, I think one of the interesting things that has come out as a result of this times. Article is people saying, wait, a minute you're expecting. Haven't you done due diligence on the people you hire yourself. Why should any of this be a shock shouldn't? You already know this about them, so in some sense it under my, if it could be undermined further. At this point, people's credibility in the mainstream media right. They think these guys are inventing their own people so now someone else is doing it, but I think it's not likely to de escalate for quite some time I mean the other interesting article that came out within the last few days. Was this Wall Street Journal poll that showed that you know in the last twenty years. Can

religion and family and patriotism. These are values that are on the decline in our country and, what's replacing that the tribalism, the polarization so polymerization I'm not optimistic! To be honest, I think if the institutions start to see this as being kind of bullied by small scale, mobs they might pull back, but they'll have to do that in an ideological only consistent way. If it's going to stick, we should we should like do the entire next podcast on that Wall Street Journal Poll, because if you want to look at the Potential end of american civilization that add the sixteen thousand project hundred and nineteen projects in a couple of other things, and you have a pretty solid ideological argument that we are just you know this is you know given we are, we are we need we, we could be given right now. No, you wanted to talk about this you're of the onslaught

against you this weekend. I'm not it's stupid, okay, but it's bad really sold it. I only smile on Nova. I mean these that let okay, I mean it's just a group of sexually repressed young man expressing their frustration and social media outlets and recognizing them as such and laughing in their faces and dot biz rather cathartic, and also demonstrate the extent to which they have no authority. You have to be a willing participant in your own persecution. In order for any of this to have an effect, if you simply decline and your institution backs you, they have no effect yeah, but your institution doesn't back you. Does it look at Kevin? Well, it's up to you. You're the institution, Well now he your institutions, if you want once Mazal Tov to you that that back to you and you know one of the reasons that this insertion back suit 'cause. We like Israel, I don't know how that

so we'll just returning to where we began. I was in Israel last week actually- and I have three word for all of you, it's a miracle so for no Rossman a Greenwald and Christine Rosen and John Podhoretz keep the camel bird.