To be frank, this entire interview occurred in the middle of a rather intense fever dream, which is probably the only reason it went as well as it did. Nevertheless, I thought it should be shared.
JBN: The first thing, honestly, is that I would like to thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. The boys on the editorial team were betting against it, and were astonished when you accepted. They don’t have a very high view of Zionist sell outs . . .
DJW: Neither do I. And since we have that in common, I am happy to talk with you.
JBN: Are you aware of our recent reporting coming out of Gaza . . .?
DJW: No, sorry. I am not familiar with your publication at all, and therefore I am a little behindhand on the nature of your reporting. Sorry, not trying to be rude. It is just that I have never heard of you guys.
JBN: Have you ever heard of Gaza?
DJW: Yes, certainly. After Eglon, Hebron, and Debir, Joshua smote all the people in the hill country, all the way down to Gaza. That’s in Joshua 10.
JBN: I see. Are you going to be this difficult the entire time?
DJW: Not sure yet. Let’s go ahead and see.
JBN: So let’s go straight to the matter of your credibility. I know that our readers would want us to get this question out of the way right at the top. Are you a Mossad asset? Have you ever received any monies from the Israeli government?
DJW: I am not, and I have not. But to be perfectly frank with your readers, it should be noted that if I really were compromised in the way you suggest, my answers would be exactly the same. So there’s that.
[It was at this point that it began fully to dawn on me what kind of interview I had gotten myself in for, and I made a mental note to tighten up our vetting procedures again. And perhaps to loosen up a bit in my responses.]
JBN: Allow me to be more specific. There is much chatter online about this. A lot of people are talking about it. Have you ever received 7,000 shekels from the Israeli government in exchange for using your platform to promote Israeli talking points?
DJW: A lot of people, eh? And online too? Wow. Do you really think my platform is worth 7,000 shekels? Golly.
JBN: You didn’t answer the question.
DJW: What? Oh, right. No, I have never at any time . . . oh, what’s the use? Thank you for giving me this opportunity to come clean. Yes, they showed me a small bag full of shekels, and they were all so bright and shiny . . . they promised to deliver the rest by the first of the month, which of course they didn’t do. You know how Jews are.
JBN: Are you pulling my leg?
DJW: Yes. But to be fair, you were asking for it.
JBN: Um . . . what would you say if it could be conclusively shown the Ashkenazi Jews were actually a Turkic people called the Khazars, who lived in the region of the Caucasus, and who converted to Judaism in the 8th or 9th century A.D., doing so for political reasons? What would you say to that?
DJW: Well, for starters, I don’t think that is the case . . . but I can work with you here. Let’s treat this like a helpful thought experiment. If such were conclusively shown to be the case, then that would mean the majority of the world’s Jews had absolutely nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. So the one upside of such a demonstration would be that it would set aside the “Christ-killers” charge once and for all.
JBN: That’s cute, but a lot of our readers would say that this is one of your usual moves, just a little more word trickery from you.
DJW: Yeah, I get that a lot. Word salad tosser, etc.
JBN: So if you get that a lot, why do you do it? How do you answer it?
DJW: I don’t need to answer people who argue that Smith is a very bad man, but who then argue that Smith is actually a man named Murphy, not related to Smith at all. But then they still want to hang Murphy for what Smith did. And who then earnestly argue, when I point out what it is they are doing, that I need to stop being so slippery with words. They don’t like tricksy. Yeah, but I am not the tricksy one.
JBN: So you claim to be a Christian minister, is that correct?
DJW: No, I don’t claim to be one. I am one.
JBN: Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist?
DJW: Well, let me ask you this. Since 1948, how many wars has Israel been in?
JBH: Well, it kind of depends on what you count as a war . . . but about six or seven?
DJW: And how many of them has Israel lost?
JBN: Okay, none of them.
DJW: Well then, they have a right to exist.
JBN: So you are accepting the de facto argument? A nation like Israel has a right to exist only so long as it can defend itself successfully? If not, then not?
DJW: I accept the de facto historical realities. The Confederate States of America don’t have a right to exist anymore. But they did have a right to defend themselves. Israel has the right to defend herself, and so long as she is successful, that should be honored. But let me make this point. Those who are currently saying that Israel has “no right to exist” would be playing fair if they were also willing to say that America has no right to exist, or that white people don’t have a right to exist. But they don’t do that. Arguing that Israel doesn’t have the right to exist in the abstract is actually their code for saying they don’t really have the right to defend themselves. Which is quite a different thing. But while we are here in this territory, can I ask you a question?
JBN: Okay, sure . . . a little unusual, but okay.
DJW: What do you make of the slogan “from the river to sea?”
JBN: I know what you are getting at. Yes, if that were to happen, there would be a significant human cost—but there are times when we should be willing to bear such costs for the sake of a higher cause, a higher sense of justice. So we do support pushing Israel out, yes. From the river to the sea.
DJW: Israel? I was talking about Gaza. From the river to the sea. Significant human cost, higher cause . . .
JBN stares coldly for a moment.
JBN: All right, back on track. I want to get personal for a minute. There is an infamous quote of yours circulating online, where you said that you would be more personally engaged by a military conflict in Israel than you would be by a conflict in Vermont. How would you answer those who regard that kind of attitude as simply treasonous?
DJW: I was only describing personal connections. If I had relatives living in Florida in the path of a hurricane, I would be more concerned about the kinfolk I knew there than I would be concerned about a hurricane hitting a place where I had no connections. It would not be the case that I would be apathetic about the second case. It is just that all of us are more concerned when a crisis involves people you know. And the question reveals the hypocritical nature of many of those who argue in this way.
JBN: How do you mean?
DJW: They say in their teaching that you need to “love your people.” And then when I do, they say, “how dare you? Not those people.” I would argue that love of kin really is a good thing, truly a natural good, but it should never be confused with despising other people’s kin.
JBN: So what is your heritage then? Who are your people?
DJW: Overwhelmingly Scottish and Scots/Irish. I am whiter than the pope’s knee caps. But I do share descendants with Jews, both Christian and not.
JBN: So what’s your point?
DJW: That I do a better job loving my kin than kinists do. Kinists are people who think that they are loving their wives just so long as they are calling other people’s wives ugly. Pretty low bar, if you ask me. More is involved than that.
JBN: We are almost out of time, but I wanted to ask you about your recent controversial comments about the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967. Why do you think the sailors on the U.S.S. Liberty were the evildoers in that situation?
DJW: I don’t think that. I believe they had the right and the responsibility to fight back. And I think the U.S. Navy had the right and responsibility to fight back. The attack lasted for hours, and we had planes ready to be dispatched as reinforcements, planes that would have arrived in time to fight back. Those planes were required to stand down by Washington. So I believe that as politicians go, LBJ was the original dirty bird, and it would not surprise me at all if it were to be discovered that our intel community was playing both sides in the 67 war. The one thing that does surprise me is how many on the hard right today, claiming to be so suspicious of the deep state, simultaneously believe that the intel community in the late sixties was clean and pure, full of sunshine and uplift. But my brain can’t bend that far.
JBN: Last thing, last item. Why are you so resistant to those who are simply “noticing” the immense influence that Jews have in our modern world?
DJW: There are many reasons for my resistance, but for the sake of time let me mention just one. These people want to “notice” the proposition concerning outsized Jewish influence in the world, while reserving to themselves the right to entirely ignore a necessary corollary of that proposition.
JBN: What would that corollary be?
DJW: That white Gentile Christians are the champion chumps of history—all-time morons. It is claimed that the Jews, who are less than one percent of the world’s population, have nevertheless been able, over the course of centuries, to snooker and beguile us again and again and again. You name the era, and the Jews are there, pulling our shirts over our heads, and rolling our socks down. They are behind everything it seems, and we, like Lucy and the football, fall for it over and over. If this is true, there is only one possible conclusion, and that is that white people are idiots. Name one vile Jewish plot that gullible white people didn’t swallow down entire—from porn to rap, from rap to central banking, from central banking to communism, from communism to capitalism, from capitalism to terrorist attacks, from terrorist attacks to revolutions, and from revolutions right back to Snoop Dog. I am sorry, and I might be accused of racism for saying this, but I can’t accept that white people are as stupid as all that.
[Getting up to go] JBN: Well, it is customary for an interviewer to conclude by thanking the person being interviewed, but I am not sure I am up to that. I have had about enough of this.
DJW: Me too. Let’s call it a day.