together a list of if you just do these five things we can live in peace. We're just asking you stop abusing us in these five ways. Nobody's ever done that.

Here's why I think they don't do it. If a Palestinian leader put together a list of five things that you needed to do in order to have peace and none of those five things said get all Jews out of Israel the leader of the Palestinians would be executed by his own people. He would be dead for putting together a list that would give them peace without their primary objective of getting control of Israel. So in my opinion the Palestinians' clear strategy of not asking for the other stuff and making that like the entire package of claims seems to be a preference. Maybe it's not a conscious preference but in terms of the whole it operates as a preference. And the preference is if we can't get this one thing which is all the Jews out of Israel if we can't get that we don't even need to talk about four through five. It's like we need that first. That's the opening bid. There's nothing to talk about under those conditions.

Under those conditions Israel has a free pass. I hate to say it. I don't mean on a moral or ethical basis but they have a free pass because their situation would not get worse if they were nicer or would not get better if they were nicer. So that kind of limits their options as well.

Anyway I don't have a hard opinion about what should happen over there. What I have is an observation that there aren't any good guys that are organized enough to deal with them. So Israel always says we would negotiate peace if you told us who to negotiate with. Have you heard that before? Who are we going to talk to? There's nobody to talk to. How do you do a peace deal when you literally can't even get a meeting with anybody who's in charge who would even be a little bit interested in it? So that's a good point too.

Anyway so Mike Benz continues to be a national treasure here as he's helping us understand how much influence the security state, the intelligence agencies, have on our daily life because you don't realize how much control they have over various entities and groups and the media etc. And so Mike Benz on the X platform is always calling that out.

Now he points out that Business Insider, a publication which seems to be very opinionated about some political stuff, was bought a few years ago by what Mike calls a major CIA media conduit. So some I think a German entity or something but the publishing company that bought it apparently is well understood as a CIA cutout. And we're not guessing. And apparently we know there's this thing called the Integrity Initiative. This is also from Mike Benz. Something called the Integrity Initiative was this big umbrella group that would be the sort of mothership for all these different cutouts that look like they're independent people but they're really just sent by the mothership. So a lot of the people from one go to the other. There's a lot of cross-pollination of the people.

Now if you didn't know that you would read Business Insider and you'd say hey there's news. But if you know it you know that the only news that would be in Business Insider if I'll just say if this CIA influence is still working through the buyer all the way down to the stories, don't know. But if that's the case then you'd have to read their coverage with one eyebrow up. It's like I don't know. Maybe yes maybe no. So don't believe anything about that.

There is an interesting story about the Trump lawyers. I saw one opinion that well I'll tell you what that was. His lawyers have asked for all information regarding government informants on January 6. So you think to yourself aha Trump's defense is going to be that there were so many feds that they were the reason for the violence. Aha that's what you say right? But apparently the lawyers are explaining in their request for this information they're saying it's not because he thought the feds instigated the problem but rather, wait for it, because it would indicate whether the feds did enough to prevent it. In other words they're going to argue there weren't enough agents there.

Now here's what I think. This is just my speculation. I think this is just the cleverest way to find out how many agents were there. Because if you said tell us how many agents are there couldn't the government say we can't tell you that and then that's the end of it? But suppose they say we're trying to prove that they didn't have enough there. Would that put a different kind of pressure on them to say we did a good job because we had enough people there? This might be way more clever than you think it is.

But it was described by one observer as basically giving up on the idea that there were so many feds there that the feds caused the problem. Like he's giving up on that. I don't see that. I don't think they're giving up on that at all. I think if they have the number of agents, if it's a low, here's what I think. If they get a number which is iffy, if they get a number and it's like a low number then they can claim well that's the problem. You knew there was going to be a problem. Why did you have so few people there? How is that my fault that everybody knew this was coming because they did. Everybody knew the protest was coming and you understaffed. So you understaffed but I got impeached because you understaffed. Is that what you're telling me? So that would be one argument.

Now suppose against all odds they give a number it's like a crazy big number. Suppose they come out there like 80 or 100 undercover people. If you heard there were 100 of them and I'm just making up that number no reason to believe it, wouldn't you say to yourself well they must have caused it? Yeah because 100 could have stopped it. That's what your brain would say. That's not necessarily true but your brain would say man if they had 100 people they could have stopped it but they must have been there to start it right? So your brain would play tricks on you if it's a big number and it would play a different trick on you if it's a sma