 Hey mate, Luke Ford here. I'm talking to Matthew. He's a history PhD student at London School of Economics. He uses the moniker on social media of history speaks. He's on YouTube. He's on rumble. He's on Twitter and Matt talked to me about the direction of your online posting since October 7 Well before 7 October a lot of my content was devoted to debunking Holocaust denial Which is a subject that I didn't have any particular passion for Beforehand the Nazi Holocaust I just got into because I thought I'm kind of into Right-wing spheres online. I thought wow, they're really getting this wrong the far right. This is dumb meaning Holocaust denial So I kind of got obsessed with debunking it and end up getting a lot of Jewish fans, but since 7th October Although I certainly condemned from the beginning about Hamas attack. I've been advocating on behalf of Palestinians against Israeli war crimes and For a ceasefire conditional to the release of the hostages and other factors Yeah, I mean I've never seen you this passionate about current events before on your social media. Is that fair? Yeah After current events before and is there anything that you've learned because I'll admit like everything that is happening in this Israel versus a mass conflict just seems to confirm my prejudices about how the world works anything that has surprised you I Was surprised by how brutal Hamas was I I knew they were terrorists who I didn't have illusions about their willingness to kill civilians with a level of brutality it surprised me and I think subsequently the openness with which Israeli officials have engaged in in Murderous or even in some cases genocidal rhetoric has surprised me as well even though I knew they had no love for the Palestinians and Have you have you learned anything from all your interactions online? about this conflict I Have I think that a number of people Are operating on a very identity politics driven who have deprecated any politics like Gad sad Nathan copness are actually Nathan Ben Shapiro actually very much plugged into the identity politics software and have made arguments that may be emotionally understandable Given the horror of 7 October but are so Flabby and on rigorous said they'd never make it in other contexts, but for their identity concerns So it's important to you to be rigorous in addition to being passionate is that fair Yeah So I believe that and this is just from my engagement with relativists like Foucault I believe that in some sense objectivity is a is a myth But because we have biases and our biases will inform the narratives we construct But I also believe that we can care about factual accuracy, right? I think that whether our analysis will always be biased the margins Where there are politics always intruding our analysis Maybe so but we can still be committed to factual accuracy and analytical rigor in a way I think many people have have failed The last several weeks Are there any commentators historians that you admire with regard to this conflict between Israel and its neighbors? Definitely So in terms of the and this I think informs my bolsters my last point This I think both bolsters my Last point about how politics isn't always a guide To analytical rigor. I think Benny Morris is righteous victims remains The best comprehensive treatment of this crisis despite the fact that Morris is a passionate is a passionate supporter of Zionism I'm for example I also admire the work of Rashid Khalidi. I think he's kind of the I've actually been rereading his work lately and I think he He like Morris is very passionate has an ideology but unlike some other Palestinian commentators. He's able to confine He's able to have a scrupulosity about factual accuracy. So I would say those two gentlemen are Men I admire who write on the conflict Now I remember when I went to UCLA I was studying economics and during an orientation I was like holding forth with all sorts of views and the advisor said well What you're describing are normative positions and that's kind of frowned upon in the economics profession Now you parent square you have a lot of normative views on the Arab-Israeli conflict is having normative views meaning taking moral stands Is that is that in conflict with the profession of historian or is that a compliment to that profession I don't think it's either. I think it's something that you can You can do But you have to subordinate your passion to the epistemic standards of history you can't So for example, I have a bias in the Palestinian side, right? I want to vindicate the Nakhba narrative, but I can't vindicate it within the The typical framework of everybody was ethnically cleansed in 1948 There was a big plan for it because I don't believe there was there was a plan I believe that plan D or plan delet was it gave license for ethnic cleansing a permission Encourage it but didn't order it systematically So but I do justify the the narrative of ethnic cleansing based on the Systematic ethnic cleansing based on 1950 Israeli absentee property law which took all the assets of the refugees they left behind and refused them a right of return So I think you're going to be biased based on the narratives you prefer You have to be subordinate to the facts and for your overall question I think advocacy is okay as long as you are a good liberal a good westerner and are subordinating your narrative to empirical reality I would have no argument with describing the campaign that Israel launched 1948 4950 and going up to the present as ethnic cleansing I think it's fairly clear that the current government of Israel would like to ethnically cleanse Arabs from the West Bank and from the Gaza Strip if at all possible. Do you have any quibbles with that? No, I think they surely want that and I believe that for the vast majority of Israeli history there have been a couple exceptions the the government has not been interested in a two state solution but has been interested in the ideological project of greater Israel And obviously the Nanyahu government which other than one year has been in power since oh nine that is their interest Now if I were living in the Gaza Strip if I was a 17 year old boy living in the Gaza Strip I mean what exactly would I have to look forward to like what would tempt me away from a path of pursuing terror against Israel Right very little I think particularly because Israel has numerous occasions in the course of your very short life in this circumstance you're outlining launched murderous and indiscriminate attacks on civilians on your family and your friends and so on So I think that the a big cause without you know we can't justify the fruits of the hatred massacre but I think the hatred is very comprehensible and if Israel is serious about improving its security situation it will address the hate it will prioritize reducing the hatred over the greater Israel project And I think these two things clash we saw Nanyahu who's video circulating that Nanyahu says we have to support Hamas and other people on the Israeli right said that because they prioritized undermining politically the Palestinian image and therefore undermining the two state solution they prioritize that over security right Because if you want to improve your security you would not support Hamas So I think there's a clash between I think that the Israeli policy leads to this murderous hatred and the murderous hatred leads to what we saw in 7 October and will likely lead to it in the future unless the policy changes One side of your family comes from Egypt is that correct are you guys Egyptian Christians tell me more Yeah, so I have relatives in the yeah my mom is an Egyptian Christian immigrant. My, I was raised with her and my grandparents and my wife, so interesting household. I went to Coptic Church. Sometimes I went to Catholic Church. Sometimes I preferred Catholic Church is it was shorter but I have much more sentimental memories about Coptic Church I think that it was more godly and experience I think the Catholic Church has gone a bit politically correct and flabby and then it also had the pedophilia issue, which was a was a hammer blow to my belief in the But yeah, I mean I definitely look I mean Egypt is one of the worst countries in the region for for Christians like Jordan is much better Lebanon is much better, but there was a poll I think we're only 51% of Egyptians had favorable views of Christians so there's a lot of negativity, but you're going to see people who you consider by and large to be your co ethnics is you know the cops I've talked to a push comes to shove they do see whatever negative views they have toward Islam and they often do. They do see the Egyptian Muslims as their co ethnics you're going to have sympathy for them and the Palestinians for that matter very closely related people you can have simply for people like you, regardless of whatever theological or social pressures push you away from them. So that's that yeah that's part of my stance and then also I'm concerned about, I lived in the nearest for a couple years I'm concerned about Palestinian friends of mine and Jordan, and who have relatives in Gaza, and I'm also concerned about Egyptian family, potentially being drawn into regional war although I think if his below doesn't come in, that will be less likely occurrence than I had feared maybe before we could go. And what about your your friends, your friends who care about the Middle East conflict, how do they line up. Well, in my program I know I know in Israeli, who is. I believe, I don't want to characterize his views. I do know Arabs, who are being a little quieter about what they think. I think there is an environment of intimidation that affects Palestinian advocacy I think it's gotten a little easier this week, as opposed to a few weeks ago but there is some constraints and what people feel comfortable saying because I don't want to be vilified as your Hamas you support rape and murder which has been happening really glibly by, by media and by the political right ironically because they're the people supposedly who have criticized this kind of thing when it came from the left. So, there's no strong slant on the part of your friends on this conflict. Oh, I think most of my friends are much more sympathetic to the Palestinians I think a number of them have been less outspoken because of career implications not wanting to be a student you're teaching for example you know PhD students teach right now I'm a student you're teaching to be feel offended. So I think a lot of people who may be sympathetic to the Palestinians have been afraid to be too vocal about. And if you were to say live in the Middle East for a year, which countries would you most like to live in for a year. I would, I think before I think there's four I would like, I would be happy to live in Egypt because I have a lot of family. That would be number one was because of family Lebanon Beirut is a very fun city it's, you know, you can live a totally Western lifestyle there, you know most Muslims are secular. Most of the, you know, 30% or so are Christian of the population of Lebanon. You could live in Dubai quite easily it's mostly expat and I know Arabic for the natives and Jordan as well yeah those are before places I could. I could live and teach and I wouldn't mind doing that provided my income were were adequate. Okay, let's examine some some first principles because I've been doing a blog post on the principles by which I understand reality. And one of my foundational principles is that essentially nobody cares about our groups. Now, for people like you and me who speak publicly, we're not going to display, you know, complete apathy or lack of empathy for our groups. But people speaking privately generally tend to convey a lack of interest in the welfare of our groups I grew up in Australian. And there was a general feeling among my fellow Aussies that unless you're Australian, you weren't fully human you didn't really count you weren't you weren't much. And I just noticed that among all strongly identifying in groups and I would wish for everyone to enjoy the pleasures of belonging to a strongly identifying in group. There is a strong tendency to have negative views of our groups. So, there are exceptions, particularly among intellectuals. I mean, the smarter you are the more capacity you have for empathy and so the more capable you are of feeling some empathy for our groups but as a general principle, the way the world works is that most people don't care very much about foundation about how I view the world. Do you have any thoughts on this principle. Well, I think we've been I think that in group preference is very powerful. And that the behavior of the live intellectuals has reminded us of how salient that is even among intellectuals in the West and so on. You know, some of the people I mentioned earlier in regard to this conflict and how they're they're they're emotionally driven they're not engaged in rigorous commentary, even though they're quite capable of good analysis. I do, though, when I push back in part on what you're saying, you're definitely describing something very real and overwhelmingly powerful but I do think humanity has made progress over the last few centuries in cultivating a greater compassion for the other. And I think this is this spills over to the public at large not only intellectuals are highly cultivated minds I think, you know, the abolition of slavery around, you know, at least the old. Sorry about that. The abolition of slavery around the world. You know, movements against human trafficking, for example, which are obviously going to be generally affecting foreigners right. These are their strong indigenous movements against this in various countries not just the Western countries. But various institutions that exist, exhibit the fact that there's more compassion for the other for the traveler for the person who looks different than there was and I think we should keep moving in that direction nevertheless would be fools to deny. I think we often do the overwhelming power that in group preference still exercises on how people think about the world and a lot of people I think are being disingenuous by arguing that no the only the reason I stand with Israel is just expression of Western values or sober political analysis clearly they're emotionally driven and driven by identity issues. What about all my friends are Orthodox Jews who tend to be quite right wing about Israel and so I'm reminded of the Jonathan height observation that ties bind and blind. And so I am, I am blind to the Palestinian cause. I just, I just am. What do you think about this notion that ties bind and blind. Of course they do. One illustration of this I think is the fact that quite understandably, people are horrified by these images of Palestinian celebrating 7 October right which are real images in Gaza. But then they're celebrating or calling for they're not just calling for support for Israel's effort which is of course based on their historical practice and the fact that like dozens of UN employees being killed and so on. The indiscriminate killing of civilians are not just cheering that but they actually are many actually calling for genocide or war crimes, or mass murder including Israeli officials so yeah they don't. They see the savagery of the of these people in Gaza cheering a woman being murdered and with her body, you know, corpse is visible, but they are cheering for similar things and don't realize it. What do you think is of this blinding effect that you reference. Right, I'm not horrified by supporters of Palestine or critics of Israel who celebrated the mass attacks because I don't believe that overwhelmingly they were supporting the specifics of the Hamas attacks they were supporting their team. And it seems like we just evolutionarily developed to instinctively root for our team, and to make excuses for our team and to see everything through a filter that favors our team. Any thoughts. I think you're right about that. I mean I mentioned I mentioned Lebanon earlier I mean if you were to go to be root. You'd, you'd see people who you know other than looking a little different in terms of physical appearance and ethnicity and racial background. You know, mostly looking Western right. Most Muslims are secular, and then there's a bunch of Christians and Jews and so on. But among the Lebanese people. The polling indicates that the vast majority supported 7 October, including 60% of Christians, 86% of Druze and 98% of Shiite Muslims so, and this is from this is data from the consultative center for studies and documentation which is a major research group in Lebanon which the UN, you know the UN sites. So it's quite credible. You know so yeah people are lying up with their team and they're not thinking about the ethical the ethical implications are a very distant second right, whereas the first it's my team struck a blow to the other team. It's humbling to realize how little Americans for example care about the war crimes committed by Americans you have that me like massacre around 1968 in Vietnam where between 300 and 500 Vietnamese civilians were murdered in the most horrific way. And the architect, the director of that massacre, Lieutenant William Cali I believe received four years of home detention as as punishment and Americans really didn't care. And I don't think that's unique to Americans I think that is the general human tendency I don't expect Japanese to really care much about the war crimes committed by Japanese I don't expect the English to care much about the war crimes committed by the English I don't expect Germans to care about war crimes committed by Germans. I don't expect Israelis to care about war crimes committed by Israel. Can you think of some major exceptions to this where, where people in a nation are really really upset about war crimes committed by members of their own team. I think that this phenomenon of shame, which we see especially in the West tends to come more and more mainstream level after a conflict and cultural change have occurred. Whereas contemporaneously you do see so like in Germany for example you had the white rose movement that was talking about the shame of Germany you even have some of this in the, in the, in the July plot of 1944 to kill Hitler. But this wasn't a mainstream sentiment until really in the 1960s with the Eichmann trial the Auschwitz trial and then the 68 or kind of rebellion. So I think, I think you're actually right that this doesn't reach mainstream sensibilities until until cultural changes occurred. Another example is the Sabra and Shatilla massacre of was 82 83. 82. Thank you. So this was carried out by the Lebanese Christian phalange militia against Palestinian refugees. The Israeli IDF, and I absolutely believe we can talk about this but I absolutely believe, knowingly on the part of Sharon, the Minister of Defense facilitate the massacre by letting the phalange into the refugee camp guarding the exits and also shooting flares into the sky to light the skies to carry out the massacre. There were Israelis who protested after the massacre who protested the IDF in the government. But if you looked at polling, like how much of the public was actually, you know, angry with Sharon, only 4% supported the commission which called for his resignation and the majority said it was too harsh. I think, I think the general pattern is, yeah, there can be a culture of guilt, particularly in Western countries this has happened for past crimes but it's usually not contemporaneous with war with regard to Vietnam though I think that would be an exception on the basis of, there was very strong, not just fringe but bourgeois moral opposition to the war, and to things like my life which which actually did arise from our policies there because we had the free fire zones policy, where, because so much of the population, especially in rural areas was against us and would shoot us. We had curfews and if you're out past the curfew we shot you, shot anything that moved. Provide warning was given, and we ended up I think killing according to Gunter Levia, you know, in a considered work on the Vietnam where we kill I think over 200,000 civilians this way and falsely labeled them as combatants so yeah, we've done terrible things and I think that with some exceptions with I think United States and other Western countries being among them. This guilt doesn't generally accrue until after the war while you're in the heat of the war, you're going to support your tribe. There's a great book on forgiveness called forgive for good by a professor at Stanford University Fred Luskin who leads something called the Stanford forgiveness project and Fred Luskin is now in his 60s, and he won't work with groups where there's still an ongoing conflict so he'll go work with people in Northern Ireland, because there's been a political solution to that conflict but he makes the point that there's just no reason to try to engage in forgiveness while there's still an ongoing conflict, unless there's a political solution, it's not worth it and he also would make the point in daily life that if you're fighting your life in a dark alley, there's no point in having humanity and forgiveness for the person who's trying to kill you that forgiveness is something that you need safety for. So the people of Gaza and the people of Israel for varying reasons don't feel much safety right now. So it would strike me as implausible to expect either side to have a great deal of forgiveness with the other right now. Right I mean I'm sure you're right empirically that during an active conflict. The idea of forgiveness, or even, you know excessive compassion for the other is going to be marginal, generally depending on the society I think if you have a very liberal westernized society you could have that perhaps but in general I think I'm sure you're you're correct. I do think though that following these tribal impulses of vengefulness can actually be against the group's interest, paradoxically. For example, I think that the strategy the siege strategy Israel is employing right now is is a doomed strategy. The problem in Gaza is not the military potency of Hamas or the fact that it's some distinctive specialized ideology but the problem is you right now is the radicalized population a lot of whom support killing Jewish civilians right that's an underlying problem and killing and maiming Gazans and in colossal numbers it's not going to be radicalized. They've been be radicalized by being an opener prison where poverty is rife where food extreme food insecurity is rife where they score 18 points lower and IQ tests and then Palestinians in the West Bank. And where they've been subject to murderous military campaigns and war crimes for for decades. These are the material conditions that are leading to the problem and a conquest of Gaza by ground is not going to, which I by the way I think is militarily unlikely to succeed anyway, in terms of wiping out Hamas is not going to liquidate the underlying problem which is the, the hate and support for violence, many Gazans have against Israelis. Now another foundational principle I have is that they're really aren't essential people so like knowing that someone is Gaza or Palestinian or Arab or Jewish or Australian doesn't really tell you much or Christian you need to know more about them. And how, you know, Gazans operate or how English operate or Australians or Jews operate depends a great deal on context and what type of Christian what type of Jew. So, some people who watch this will have the perspective that oh, you know, Gazans or Palestinians are just inherently violent. Other people have the perspective that Jews are just inherently violent and bent on waging war. Would you agree that there's no essential nature to to the Jew or to the Palestinian or to the Muslim that their tendencies in all likelihood, you know, largely derive from the situation that they're in, and the situation that they're coming from. Yeah, I agree. I in fact agree with that. So here's what I'd say. I think for an individual with some very particular exceptions like height or intellect right that most of what we do intellect would be an exception where there's a very strong genetic influence. But I think most of what we do is largely determined by our cultural circumstance I mean and for people who are who are shocked by this I mean, if you know people who are living 300 years ago in the United States. Well, didn't exist 100 years ago, let's say 200 years ago, lived in a society where you got to slap on the wrist for raping your slave, for example, these people and I think the age of consent was like 10 to 12 or something like this. There's an interesting book about child marriage in the United States recently actually but that's not a heard there. But the point is I think our most our core values let's say like the two most the two things that people think are most repugnant slavery and, you know, a child marriage are lawful in the past right people didn't have a big moral problem with it. I think a lot of our moral intuitions are shaped by our particular cultural circumstances, but I think an exception to this would be it. There are exceptions to this word genetics I think went out like intelligence but generally speaking I think how we behave is very much determined by experiential and cultural factors rather than intrinsic properties of people. Right. Go ahead. Okay, I was just going to say from my own life, if I'm running late for an appointment. I am going to run rough shot over everything in my way. I am going to be brusque. I'm going to be lacking in empathy. I am going to put everything else aside to minimize the amount that I am late to an important appointment so you just simply. Let's say I'm late to give a speech on the importance of empathy. All right, I am going to be completely lacking in empathy. I'm just going to write rough shot over everything in my way to try to get to my important speech on empathy on time so simply being in that situation of running late for an important appointment makes me quite rude, quite brusque, completely lacking in empathy. So to I understand the behavior of Gazan's and the behavior of Israelis is going to be significantly shaped by the amount of threat that they feel that they're under anything you want to add on this theme. I agree with that, but I think we can create cultural institutions, perhaps including a greater shame, according to you for being a jerk and me and you know do the same thing right and me for being a jerk if I'm riding rough shot over people to get to class on time to teach on time or whatever. And you as well to give your speech and empathy I think we can create cultural incentives that train people to find the behavior describing repugnant. And I think we've done that to some extent right to some extent in the West and maybe not regarding your specific example but in other contexts. I think it's very difficult to do that when you're about to die a torturous death. So like Douglas Murray the other night tweeted these Gazans who are who are I think watching highlights with obviously that term is escorted by scare quotes of 7 October, you know very savage. I mean how are we going to program these people when they're, they're thinking these are the people who are about to kill me in a torturous fashion and my mother or sister or that for so. Yeah, I mean we should do it but I don't know how you do it exactly it's very difficult. There's a biologist who made an observation that in nature you don't find two subspecies in the same place that one subspecies will inevitably went out over another species and drive drive it out. Now, I don't think that's an iron law for how people have to behave because we can look around the world and even if you view different races as different subspecies. I can go to Sydney where there are all sorts of races or sorts of diversity and there's a very tiny rate of crime so obviously different subspecies can can exist together without wiping each other out. On the other hand, I do understand that there's some biological primal tension between different groups forced to live in the same place and some groups will get along better than other groups depending upon history context and incentives. But you recognize kind of the the primal competition that is reflected among people that also we see in the in the non human natural world where some species tend to go to war with each other over primacy in a particular place. Yeah, I think we have this impulse from the lower animals but I think we've not just Westerners but other peoples have overcome this to a fairly striking extent and in recent centuries I mean you know take big Palestinians a lot of them want to kill Jews and all the Jews want to kill Palestinians and civilians now right in Israel. But if you look at Jordan for example, same Palestinian population, mostly Palestinian rather not entirely Jordanian minority. And they don't want to attack Christians in fact Christians are treated very well in Jordan by by regional standards and just generally I think they're treated well I mean they don't they're economically over represented they're not attacked or discriminated against and in economic life. So, yeah I think it's quite possible I think the world is moving toward it. Nevertheless, I think we have to keep in view, these biological drives that are powerful and that become more powerful in moments of crisis, which we're seeing in the West like Nathan Coffness is very much engaged in the identity politics software right now. He doesn't think he is but it's obvious. I mean, he said an octopus is an anti-Semitic dog whistle, an octopus doll that this autistic Swedish left wing girl Greta Thunberg was displaying she he thought that was a dog whistle to Nazi propaganda. And it's it's not because he's dumb or anything it's because he's he's very much on the identity politics software right now because he sees his group as in a crisis which which they are right. So I think to give a kind of to split the baby in half. There are strong biological drives and these become more powerful in times of crisis how for in group identification however, I think that we've overcome them to a dramatic extent and not only in the west over the last few centuries especially now would you say that Nathan Coffness is more locked into the identity politics prism right now than you are. Yeah, I would actually I think I think I am sure I mean I want to debate Nathan I want you to moderate it actually because I think he's made just absurd a series of absurd arguments I don't think he I think the problem he has is he doesn't. I think I'm conscious of my bias and I don't think he is I think he thinks he's he's somehow just expressing views and he told you he doesn't think he's he's biased I think the reason is bias is allowed to run right is because he hasn't he doesn't have the self awareness to realize it and. Yeah, so I think he's he's because he's he's less conscious of it. He's the degree to which it perverts his ability to analyze the situation is as far worse as as in the octopus incident right. He also was liking a tweet that was referring to hate crime hoax right this this issue at what's the end of the Cooper Union where. You know, there was this claim that these Palestinian protesters were hunting Jews in the library turns out the vast majority of students library were not Jewish. They were had no intention to harm anyone they were just wanted to walk through the library and go to like the present university president or so on. Was their ultimate goal so yeah he's basically falling for things in terms of really shoddy reasoning hate crime hoax that he wouldn't be if he were weren't so plugged into the identity politics game and I think. Yeah, I think he's unaware of it to any another example of this is he made just a terrible. So I say for example in exchange with him decided the fact that over and over and over again. I think that Israel in its wars. Target civilians indiscriminately right I said, I said various UN reports to this effect and confidence or smile by basically saying the UN is engaged in systematic racism, because or systematic anti Semitism because of the UN General Assembly votes that are very targeted against and then not my fault was hate that doesn't make any sense. Sure, I agree that there are our states in the UN General Assembly, but our bias against Israel Arab states and that may account for why there's so many votes against Israel right. But the fact finding missions that I was setting up the Goldstone report in 2009 have nothing to do with Arab states. So this is just a flimsy argument you haven't drawn a connection between anti Semitic Arab states and these UN fact finding reports overwhelming the indiscriminate attacks on civilians, and then he just got mad at me and you know, so I'm on the serious and so on. I really want to debate on this because I think his knowledge is very superficial would you would you host it Oh, absolutely. I've reached out to him do my best to try to arrange it. I saw a comment or something like that you're a troll and you're not. That's that's not the best description for you. I mean we all have trollish aspects to ourselves. But what you're doing is not primarily trolling and remember he wanted to debate Eric striker so if the claim is I'm on serious, he'd have to believe not only that but I'm less serious and striker for that to be a consistent criteria. So, no, I again I think that would be a case to have any politics driving the, you know, driving the show for him, but I hope he changes his mind and just if you're listening to this Nathan I'd be willing to do a no ad hominem rule or obviously look would prevent interruption but I think we should debate I think our viewers would benefit from the from it. I often hear it said that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East you think that's fair and accurate. Well, Lebanon has a Lebanon has a democracy that you know they have elections people. You know vote within the confessionalist framework, there are elections so I think, I think Lebanon would constitute democracy. I mean Lebanon has a remarkably liberal system but I know does Israel and Israel, I would call democracy too. So, no, I wouldn't, I wouldn't accept that and I don't think, I don't think it matters that much. I think, I think a dictatorial society could be better than a democracy in some circumstances. For example, I like the direction. I mean he's a murderer and he's done horrible things to people but nevertheless, Mohammed ibn Salman is moving Saudi Arabia in a better direction he's marginalized radical clerics. He has given women more rights women can live on their own they can leave the country on their own. He's improved the situation still bad for foreign workers, and he's kind of opening, you know, relax the dress code the concerts and movies and, you know, he's moving the country in the right direction and he wouldn't be able to do it in a democratic system as easily right. So I think that would be a case where positive reform can be made by a dictator right. On the other hand, they're advantage to democratic system too. So the horrible things MBS does torture murder would be more difficult to get away with in a system with divided institutions, although of course, Israel committed torture systematically for many years until it became a democracy so yeah I think I think it matters Israel's democracy, which is rare in the region I think I'd call Lebanon one too but I don't think that is as powerful a talking point is one might think. Now, another foundational principle I have for understanding the world is I just don't see many examples of strong in group identity that doesn't substantially also have a strong victimhood identity it seems like in group identity depends upon victimhood identity that there's no strong Jewish identity there's no strong Christian identity to the best of my knowledge there's no strong Muslim identity to the best of my knowledge without an accompanying victimhood identity, any thoughts. That's a very interesting point I think I'm very tempted to say that you're exaggerating but I think that you've made a very interesting point that victimhood, we sometimes talk about victimhood as if it's a contemporary phenomenon that the West fetishizes victimhood but in fact, a notion of, you know the kind of heroic epic where the hero is victimized, and then rises and becomes powerful and, and smites his oppressors this is, this is broad cultural resonance, and you even have a case of like Nazi for example, right, you know, they had a victimhood narrative from Versailles, you have the Soviet Union has a victimhood narrative of the oppression of the proletariat under the hated SARS. So I think, I think a victimhood narrative is very, this is very powerful and consistent source of identity I wouldn't say it's the only source of identity though, but it does seem like groups very quickly go to that. So even, even groups that you think of as privileged, like the Gulf Arabs, for example, they will go to Islamophobia, whatever, if need be, and that will be a unifying mechanism so I think you've pointed to a very interesting group dynamic, which strengthens the group dynamic a sense that one has been victimized maybe not that one is victim now victimized now but one has been victimized and one isn't some kind of spiritual sense still a victim. Because of course if you are a victim at one point you're powerful and mighty now that makes you a hero right. Yeah. I mean, I was raised to Seventh-day Adventist Christian and there was a very strong sense of victimhood among my fellow Seventh-day Adventist. Like I was raised on books like Fox's book of martyrs, which describes tens of millions of Protestants being murdered by Catholics. And I remember my father when I was on my journey to Judaism said that what the Catholics did to the Protestants made the Holocaust look like child's play. I mean, that's a dominant ethos in Seventh-day Adventism. I heard like 20 times more negative things about Catholics growing up than I did about Jews. I checked with my siblings. We didn't once have a conversation about Jews when I was growing up in my Seventh-day Adventist theologian father's home. It was all about how Catholics had victimized us. Once you have this strong sense of victimhood, which seems to be empirically everywhere you have strong sense of in-group identity, what always accompanies that is a predisposition towards a lack of moral inhibition in overcoming that perceived victimhood. I'll give you an example. I react very strongly against Donald Trump and Republican claims that the 2020 elections were rigged by the Democrats that it was a stolen election. And one of the arguments I put forward is if you believe this, if you believe the 2020 elections were stolen, then there are no longer any moral inhibitions. Like you can do anything once you believe that the 2020 elections are stolen. And so what accompanies a strong sense of victimhood is usually a strong in-group identity, which has many beautiful parts to it. But also what accompanies a strong in-group identity and a strong sense of victimhood is a complete lack of moral inhibitions with how you redress this perceived victimhood. Any thoughts? I agree. I think that the greater the perceived level of victimization. I mean, you even see this with Black Lives Matter. So in 2020, of course, we had riots where a lot of people died in arson, for example. A lot of people were burned alive, right? And this was justified because of the sense that African Americans have been so victimized that these murderous, often murderous, not always, of course, but often murderous protests or riots were the expression of this victimization. Yeah, I think people, not just by any means, not just the African American community in America, but all kinds of communities, you know, Europe and the US and the Middle East will relieve themselves of moral inhibitions if they think that they have been oppressed enough that that justifies this kind of outrageous behavior. And I'm sure you're seeing that in Gaza. And you're also seeing that, frankly, in Israel because you're seeing people call for genocide and call for, you know, deliberately not discriminating between civilians. I mean, you even have Herzog talking about how there are no civilians in Gaza, essentially. So, yeah, I think the sense of a grouping victimized, which may be true, of course, to some extent, leads to more outrageous and murderous expressions of outgroup possibility. So Admiral Bill Halsey was a big favorite of the press and of many of his soldiers, members of the US Navy during World War Two for his attitude towards the enemy. And his war strategy was summed up in this one sentence, the way to win the war is to kill Japs, kill Japs and kill more Japs. That does seem to be a dominant attitude of people in war, particularly when they feel like they've been victimized. So Israel certainly feels victimized by October 7. Palestinians feel victimized by their living conditions over the past 70 years. And so I would kind of expect this attitude to be, to be huge among both groups, the way to win the war is to kill the enemy. Right, but you have to at some point be rational and think, sure, I mean, there's certainly some impulse there, but I think Israelis have all impregnated this to such an extent that they're not embracing the kind of military or political strategy that actually will prevent this kind of thing from happening again. I mean, as I say, the major problem in Gaza is not the brilliance or military power of Hamas. I mean, these are like a bunch of ragtag thugs. The problem is that there are tens of thousands of these Hamas fighters and why are there because they hate because the people of Gaza hate the Jewish Israelis by and large, right. And you're not going to solve that by this bloody vicious siege and indiscriminate targeting of civilians and they have a history of doing this. I mean, in 2021, you know, when they were in 2021 air strikes on Gaza, air wars found that 70% were that killed civilians 70% of the strikes that killed civilians had no killed no militants or military targets so Israel has a history of doing this. They seem to be more extreme even now. And I think it'll lead to more hatred and in the long run to a worse security condition for them. And even if they ethnically cleanse the Gazans to Egypt, you're still going to have a problem on your, on your border. I mean that's what led to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon that, you know, culminated with the sovereign Shatila massacre so they're going to. This is not going to improve the security situation. And another reason is like the victimization narrative and also you know the real suffering, of course, all the people who had relatives massacre to kidnapped path right they're not. It's not just a narrative it's a fact. This I think is blinding them to how do we actually to the likelihood of this happening in the future I mean, this was a preposterous security breach. I mean they need to fortify their border it's ridiculous that how did these people with paragliders get across the Israeli border it's just ridiculous I mean all the all the people in the security apparatus should be fired immediately. So, so in other words, I don't think that I think these impulses of victimhood, however true they are are blinding the Israelis in this case to what would actually be good policy to prevent this from happening again, because the Palestinians are going to keep engaging terrorism so long as they're treated like this and it's just going to. That's just what's going to happen now maybe this this expression of it was more brutal than we had thought but the terrorism in itself shouldn't surprise anyone that's that's what they're going to keep doing. So I heard one comment that the news media in the United Kingdom has become even more pro Israel than the news media in the United States do you have any sense about this. I have noticed that like publication such as the Guardian which is like, you know, left kind of woke, not far left not left like left liberal has become more pro Israel they even fired a cartoonist. They even fired a cartoonist for character in a way I don't think it was anti Semitic at all. Yeah, yeah. So they sat a cartoonist to work there for decades because he caricature that you know who so yeah I think I think the British establishment including the mainstream media like BBC and, and the Guardian have become much more pro Israel. I do think though that there is a lot of this is top down in the United States and in Britain now. I think most of the public would support Israel right now but I also believe that there's a lot more more descent than is being indicated by the media and by public officials right. I think that is that will continue to grow as people learn more about Israel and also see the radically indiscriminate targeting of civilians I mean we talked about Vietnam earlier and yeah Vietnam, you know we killed, we killed hundreds of thousands of Americans as I say the free fighter zones but we have evolved though beyond, since Vietnam, beyond this kind of indiscriminate targeting of civilians like in Iraq for example, I get the exact figures. Iraq by count. I'm looking at what we did on this. Yeah, there are various numbers, 10s of thousands to a million died as a result of the 2003. So million is probably a lot but many hundreds of thousands died but the coalition, but the one thing that's not talked about this connection is that the coalition between 2003 and 2010. According to rack body count so we're not talking like a shill pro American source killed 13,007 civilians total. Total civilian death was way higher but most of that was caused by the people we were fighting wasn't caused by us that's just a fact I mean it left us often say we killed a million people in Iraq killed. No, we killed, you know, between 2003 and 2010 there's a little more data there from the end but 13 about a little under 14,000 civilians Israel's going to pass that in like some little strip of land the size of Chicago, probably by the end of the year so we do not target civilians nearly as indiscriminately as Israel, as Israel does. They're really completely out of the western mainstream and what I mean and cast lead for example in 2008 2009. The United Nations found 90% of deadly attacks on civilians had no articulable military justification whatever I mean they do this. All the time and this is a big reason why they're hated indiscriminately killing so I'm not saying indiscriminately killing civilians is the same as what Hamas did but we're getting in the neighborhood of murder here, you know, and no the United States in the past we did but we don't target civilians so indiscriminately anymore as Israel does that's part of why I'm buying is having cold feet and I remember there's a senator who's a part of Israel who's starting to have cold feet to I mean they've killed like dozens of you and aid workers they're not they bombed a refugee camp or an eight whatever you call it neighborhood residential people are mad about that term but doesn't really matter much. And I think, again, this is going to lead to more hatred. And I think this is part of the problem they have that by indiscriminately killing civilians, you know people are going to hate you right. And so, which nations say we're doing a war for what they regard as their own survival. Would you regard their conduct as more exemplary than Israel's. Well, I mean, the key qualifier you put in there is waging for own survival. So that would that would open a can of worms that may be why they're more. Look. Okay, so that could be the reason why they're more indiscriminate. But if we're just raw if we're just comparing Rawley like the United States in Iraq to Israel, the US and Iraq is much less indiscriminately killing. You know, like they killed, you know, many more far more about twice as many more militants as civilians Israel's killing kills far more civilians and militants in these in these in these exchanges, like in cast lead and like 40% of cases where civilians were killed. There were no explanations. The United Nations found for for why this happened. Like not we're not talking about a good one or a bad one or disproportionate like zero. So this is like a long term practice of Israel's. Now, you may have have highlighted the motive that they feel existentially threatened in a way America doesn't. First, I'd say they're wrong that Hamas did massacre all these people but Hamas Hamas is not a military threat to Israel Hamas Hamas is a terrorist at Israel. It's the idea that these people could defeat Israel militarily and defeat the state of Israel is a joke. They could do is murder innocent Israelis and torture innocent Israelis as they did. The current tactic being used against them is not going to disincentivize them from doing that it's going to incentivize them to do it. So, what I would say to your question is yeah you may have identified the cause of why they're there, they're so much more indiscriminate than Western nations like America but first of all it's not true. They're wrong to think that they're existentially threatened threatened by terrorism. And second of all, it's making the problem worse this perception and this practice. So, Israelis would say that this Hamas attack has rendered life in southern Israel next to Gaza impossible and so 10s of 1000s of Israelis have had to be evacuated and so that is their perspective on the existential threat that a significant portion of their country is now uninhabitable due to this attack. What do you think of that reaction? No, I don't think it is. I would do the same if I were Israeli. I'm not trying to diminish their sense of facing a security risk. What I'm saying is Hamas doesn't pose an existential threat to the existence of the state of Israel. It's just way too weak. Israel's way too strong. What it does pose is a threat of terrorism and people on the border after a massacre are going to be horrified of that and very understandably. I'm not saying they're acting irrationally. Yeah, I mean I think we both agree that if for some unthinkable reason Mexico made life unsafe for people in the southwestern part of the United States. So California, Arizona, Texas, no longer New Mexico, no longer liveable and 10s of millions of Americans had to move out of those states. Americans would regard that threat as an existential threat. Is that fair? Yeah, I mean if there were a massacre of, you know, 1000 American civilians and a few hundred soldiers died, whatever the figures are. Oh, I don't know what the figures are. Over 1000 civilians, let's say we'll know we'll know the numbers. I'm sure after the fact and as this is investigated with more precision, but yeah, I would be totally rational and human to move away from the border. Completely. I'm not deprecating that. What I'm saying is it wouldn't be rational to think that the existence of America is threatened by, let's say, some gang that commits a massacre, right? Right, but if California became unlivable, just California. If California became unlivable, that would be experienced by Americans, even though it's only California. But if California, one state in the Union became unlivable, that would be experienced by Americans as an existential threat to its existence. Yeah, sure, but it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be, well, if it became unlivable because there's a terrorism threat and like the woke people won't enforce the law, people murder or rape or is that the hypothetical? Just transferring what happened to southern Israel to the southern United States, but we're just limited to one state. California becomes unlivable because there's such a powerful terror group in northern Mexico. And so 40 million Californians move out of the state because the United States for whatever reason lacks confidence that it can defend its citizens in California. Even though it's only one state out of 50, that would still be experienced by Americans as an existential threat, even if there is absolutely no chance that this powerful terror group in Mexico is going to be able to overcome the United States as a total militarily. Sure. Again, I'm not, I'm not deprecating the reaction of Israelis in the South. I, I, but I do the same thing if I were Israeli. What I am saying is that for people engaged in political or military analysis. It is very important to understand what exactly the threat is, and the threat is one of terrorism, not of some military power, akin to Nazi Germany that we need to liquidate, right, to defeat it in the terrorism arises from a radicalized population, they're going to keep, they're going to keep supporting terrorism against Israelis until they, until they're live their open air prison until they have a state they're going to be continual uprisings terrorism, out rages, murders. So it's just the wrong approach to conceive of it as militarily doesn't mean that and you can see with it is this existential military threat rather than a terrorist problem doesn't mean it's not a big deal or that people are irrational to be afraid and move away and outrage. So I often hear the description of Gaza as an open air prison, and I, my, my view is that that's moderately hyperbolic but that it touches on important truths. However, I think if we were to survey people living in a actual high security prison and say you can continue living in a high security prison or you can live in Gaza. So I would regard Gaza as an open air prison just moderately hyperbolic. Would you, would you say, yeah, it's, it's clearly literally true because most people in a high security prison in the United States would not, you know, take the opportunity to live in Gaza instead of being in a high security prison. Talk to me more about that description of Gaza as an open air prison. Well, I think I would prefer to live in assuming I knew I'm not going to get assaulted, you know, he was a euphemism. There are prisons in America I think I prefer to live in then, then Gaza, given the risk of death in Gaza, not just right now but over the years, given the lack of clean drinking water given the extreme poverty and food insecurity. If they can't leave. There is this blockade preventing them from engaging in an open in open commerce of course the cutting off of waterways and blockades this is like considered under international law cause of war. That should be noted isn't the cause of massacre of course but it's a, it's considered a just cause for war. I think it's hyperbolic. I mean right now it's kind of like. I don't I mean, the one of the more striking pieces of data which Richard Lynn has found is that Gaussian children are 18 points lower and IQ tests and West Bank children that shows a level of, and Lynn is no politically correct actor he believes this is a, a very mental explanation which which makes sense because they're the same people like the Gazans are mostly not from Gaza they're ethnically cleansed elsewhere in the neck but ended up there and their descendants. So I think I think the material conditions is as evidenced by poverty rates by food insecurity rates by rates of anemia among children and pregnant women and lack of clean water. That's the periodic killings and maimings of these people at very high levels. No, I think I think if I knew that I'm not going to be like sexually assaulted. I think I'd prefer an American person and also like I know I'm not being falsely accused of some crime like I'm not being told I'm a murderer right. But if I just have like some just really living conditions. You could you can have you can make love you can you can do all sorts of things in Gaza that you can't do in prison you can make love to a woman in Gaza I think it'd be a lot harder in prison. Sure, but there's also, you know, it's a lot easier to die a torturous death in Gaza, as we're seeing right now I mean, and have your family die torturous death. You know, a lot of a lot of, I think it would depend on the prison if you're in a Swedish prison that's better than Gaza. I mean yes sex would be one thing that you can do in Gaza that you couldn't that's that's an important difference but I don't think open air prison is is hyperbolic really. There also can be conjugal visits in prison. But yeah, I think I don't think hyperbolic because they can't leave I mean they're they can't I mean David Cameron called it open the prison. You know, conservative British Prime Minister pro Israel he's he's called it that it's. I think it's a reasonable analogy I mean, and you can even say it's worse than the prison in the sense that the people are all stopped in prison there's due process and so on and you're convicted of a crime and you're there. Usually a pretty serious crime if you're a first time offender and you get something bad but not horrible. You're usually not going to the prison. But these people are all. There's many innocent people have done nothing wrong who are just in this prison because of their dint of birth so you could argue it's much worse than its internment camp I think would be would be an appropriate even concentration camp although concentration is it has the extermination camp connotation which is not well maybe accurate in the future but isn't accurate has not been accurate in the past but the kind of is a concentration camp or internment camp in the historical sense of those terms. Right. If you look at like for example how that what the British did to the Germans during World War two does look a lot like that. There were camps where in India British India where I've stayed where there were families who could live together so you could you could if you're not seeing and you had a family and kids you could see your kids and have sex with your wife in the internment camp it was still an internment camp or concentration camp right in India. Right but you didn't get to vote for your political overseers I would assume in the internment camps but the Gazans did have an opportunity to vote in 2006 they voted for Hamas apparently how much of the misery in Gaza is the responsibility of Gazans. I think very little because I think it depends on what you're talking about. So I think the people avoid for Hamas to have a responsibility but I would say the overall responsibility is little because of the fact that the vast majority in Gaza didn't they either weren't born or old enough or didn't vote for Hamas which just went up a plurality. So I think not I don't think very little would be a little too strong but I think it would be pretty modest the level of responsibility Yeah by the way remember that the the big kind of propaganda line use to vilify the Palestinian causes that the the that in 2005 Israel removed all the settlements and was making a serious gesture for peace remember who the Israeli leader was at the time was Ariel Sharon who in 1953 in Libya committed a massacre literally committed a massacre and people don't know this but literally committed a massacre I'm not talking about severance deal I'm talking about a massacre which he which is why one carried out of Palestinian so he this guy is massacre he's a massacre man he's massacre Palestinians in 1982 he is compelling evidence shows which we could talk about if you wish. He knew about and facilitated the severance to kill a massacre that I'm not saying you know that scale or all the details we knew in general terms that they were murdering people. And this man was always against a two state solution. The idea that he just changed at the end is implausible this was obviously a propagandistic game he was playing to try to create the talking points. First of all he thought Gaza was not worth the security risk. But the second thing is he he believed that this would be a good talking point. I mean a lot of the settlers that he kicked out of Gaza were then moved to the West Bank. It wasn't as if he had given up the greater Israel project. But in terms of your question no I think the for the large majority of the citizens of Gaza there isn't responsibility because they simply didn't vote for Hamas. They didn't. They weren't alive. They have done so in just a state of total ignorance where they didn't know the much about the program and so on. People in Hamas who carried out a massacre. Yeah they have they have responsibility or people are corrupt and swindling the public there. Yeah they have they definitely have responsibility for I think most don't look when you're totally controlled by by another powers Gaza is I mean they're they're blockaded Israel controls everything that goes in they just control the economy essentially if you control all imports in the modern world there's not. Autarchy and autarchy is not a viable model for Gaza so Israel basically controls the economy controls the society then yeah Israel has the primary responsibility for what's going on there and if they don't want that and they should. Support a Palestinian state if they don't want to take that responsibility then support a Palestinian state it's not that difficult if you're going to be the the colonizer controller of an area you need to take responsibility for it if you don't want to do that and give them independence. So there's no controversy that Hamas rules Gaza I don't see anyone disputing that to what extent a dozens responsible for Hamas ruling Gaza way. Why are they so weak or ineffectual that they can't overthrow a regime that is inimical to their own welfare. I mean if you look at polling Hamas is pretty unpopular in Gaza even most of the poll by the Washington which is pro Israel by the way showed a majority were against breaking the ceasefire to so the inference that most of them supported the massacre I think is wrong although I think they're clearly we've seen the expressions of support so they exist right I'm not saying they're not popular support I think that I mean sure they could have a coup d'etat overthrow the Hamas. It's very difficult to do that when you have access to weapons. You know, as a society because of the blockade obviously is I'm not saying Israel should allow weapons in there even I wouldn't write number pro Palestine. But, you know, the Hamas have the weapons right and regular people do not. And there are tens of thousands of fighters so. I mean you have a you have a much more salient enemy in Israel so I just don't think there's going to be a strong popular movement to fight Hamas I think that's an unrealistic expectation and you know generally in history when you have authoritarian regimes they're not successful coup d'etats overthrow them. And those that do arise are generally fairly special circumstances with foreign help, and so on. So, no, I don't I don't hold them deeply responsible for not overthrowing Hamas. So, we have to support Hamas because they, they undermine the optics of the national Palestinian movement. We can't support the PA because the PA, since the second intifada has denounced violence, and the West would be willing to negotiate with them so we can't make them more powerful we have to make Hamas more powerful. So, there's a responsibility on the Israeli government too because they want to empower this group and undermine their security in the process for the sake of destroying the Palestinian cause and preventing a two state solution and pursuing the greater Israel project so I think Israel has a lot of responsibility to not not Israelis, but the government officials who supported Hamas. So, since COVID I've become increasingly discouraged by the low intellectual quality of most right wing discourse. And one example is the widespread contempt on the right for virtue signaling. I just simply read a paper by a philosopher making the argument virtue signaling is virtuous. Yeah, of course, like signaling plays a huge role in nature, like animals are constantly signaling to each other. Why would not people signal to each other. And is it not better for people to signal something virtuous than something, you know, non virtuous. And so virtue signaling, I just suddenly became convinced is a good thing. Now, it's complicated in this war with Israel in Gaza, because it strikes me that a large part of the conflict between say Israel and Hamas is about signaling. Israel must signal to its enemies that this kind of destruction is what awaits you if you hurt us if you attack us we're going to be, you know, brutal to you, just as we are in Gaza right now. Also Israel was able to obtain peace treaties with various other Arab Middle Eastern nations over the past three years because it essentially signaled that we are here to stay that we have the most powerful military in the Middle East. And so if Israel is as incompetent as it appeared on October 7, then Arab states are strongly not incentivized to make treaties with Israel because it doesn't look like Israel is going to last. If it is indeed as incompetent as it was on October 7. The same time Hamas must signal that it's fighting for the cause of the Palestinian people that it's not a paper tiger. So it seems to me that a large part of this Israel versus Hamas conflict is a matter of signaling. And that is what's driving much perhaps most of the brutality on both sides. Any thoughts. So can you repeat the question in a little more concise. So you're talking about is signaling. Yeah, okay. Yeah, signaling. It's not so much virtue signaling. It's maybe it's the opposite. It's power signaling. Israel needs to signal that it's here forever and that anyone who attacks it will be will bear the brunt of its fury. And this is driving the fury of the Israel response because it needs to signal. And what drove Hamas's attack on October 7 in large part was a need to signal something that it's not a paper tiger that Israel is not here forever that Israel is vulnerable that Israel can be defeated that Muslims and Arabs can unite to drive out the Zionist occupier. And so they're both engaged in signaling and that's a significant part of the brutality. Of course signaling is politically very relevant. I would never deny that. The problem is when you're signaling gets in the way of sound policy and core issues like security. I think, as I say, I don't think the Israeli military effort is going to succeed and destroying Hamas and I don't think even destroying Hamas would really accomplish that much because another group is going to take up the same kind of ideological banner and violent and sport violent extremism and murder of Israelis because of the fact that you're going to have a population full of maimed people and widows and orphans and, you know, the sense of hatred will be far stronger. The problem is the radicalized population and yeah I think definitely there's a signaling process going on then yahoo wants to say and frankly the political such situation Israel is such that if somebody said let's, as I proposed the other day, if Hamas agrees to give up every hostage will have a ceasefire. If you were to say that in Israel you get lynched you have to say no we were totally destroying Hamas no matter what right. So, I think that you're right about the role of signaling and politics and in human psychology but it isn't a good thing right now it's a bad thing in the context of Israel. Actually Hamas, as brutal and cruel as they are may have had a better strategy, because maybe their strategy was with by being as brutal as possible and medieval as possible to provoke Israeli war crimes and killings of civilians and killings of aid workers and so on, at a level we haven't seen for a long time, and therefore to get more Arab support for Israel, pardon me for the Palestinian cause and even frankly Western support for the Palestinian cause so it could be that Hamas is acting strategically while Israel is signaling. Now when I started live streaming almost every day in early 2018, I found a strategy which I'd already arrived at through my blogging but it really served me well in