The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Douglas Murray WON the debate with Dave Smith and Joe Rogan - Why You May Not Have Realized It.

Episode Date: April 25, 2025

A discussion of the Murray/Smith debate on the Joe Rogan show. Our call: A Murray victory that was somewhat obscured by Dave Smith's talented and agile performance.

This is Live from the Table, the official podcast of the world-famous Comedy Cellar. And we are available wherever you get your podcasts. We are available on demand on SiriusXM, available on YouTube, where you get to see, as well as hear, all the fun. This is Dan Natterman, Comedy Cellar comedian, here with Noam Dorman, Comedy Cellar owner, back from Costa Rica on a family vacay. And the fun never stops at the Dorman household. I wish I was born into one of his kids.

That sounds like a fun time. Perrielle is with us. Hello. Perrielle is our producer. She's an on-air personality. She's a comedian. She's a writer. She does it all. And we don't have a guest for this show because we are going to discuss in some detail the debate on the Joe Rogan show between Mr. Dave Smith and Douglas Murray,

which has set the social media world abuzz and even beyond the social media world. So it's been a hot topic of conversation and we're going to discuss it here. Can we discuss a little podcast business? Okay, go ahead. Dan said he wanted to discuss the Rogan podcast. That's right. And I said, sure.

But you guys send me your time codes Of particular points In the podcast you want to discuss And So I can have them prepared And everything I never got that email I got the email

How did you get it without Pariel getting it? I don't know I never got that email 100% You got it, it doesn't matter No, no, no, it does matter Not that you need to get the email to know To be prepared for a discussion like this I know precisely the points that I wish to discuss

Okay, so let's start out by saying I've been agitating on this show now for a year and a half For this very day That we could get this conversation into the mainstream about how the right has been slowly but surely overtaken with conspiracy theories. But before we get into it, I just want to make the point, because anytime I tweet about this now, I'm buried in anti-Semitic tweets and answers, which is kind of jarring. You know, you don't know how to really put that in perspective. I know that if like 30 people show up to a white supremacy rally in Charlottesville or

something, people consider, or even 300 or, you know, some small number, people consider that highly significant. So what does it mean when, you know, millions of Twitterati, what do you call them? Twitter users? I don't know. I would call them users.

Or accounts, I would call them Twitter accounts. Because, of course, you could have one person with many accounts. Yeah, or following anti-Semites, and thousands of, at least thousands, tens of thousands are engaging in vile anti-Semitic tweets. But anyway, we really don't know how to gauge all that. But I just want to say that this was an issue of mine before October 7th, before Israel was front and center, when Tucker Carlson began to say crazy things about Ukraine and about, you know, how the vaccine was crippling people and all sorts of 9-11 conspiracy theories. This was all creeping more and more into the kind of mainstream of the right. And it was getting a warm reception on the Rogan show, which I felt was dangerous because Rogan was giving it all a kind of air of respectability because he's so highly regarded and because he has so many very credible guests on at the same time.

And then these people socialize with each other. And anyway, so I'm very happy to be having this discussion. I'm very happy the discussion has gone into the mainstream, and it does, after all, now at this point, have a lot to do with Israel as well, but it has to do with

the entire standard of proof that an enormous percentage of the country is now requiring of itself before it believes things. That's really what it is. Like I made the point on a podcast last week. It used to be you had the serious part of the store where you had the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and Time magazine. And then you had the supermarket checkout aisle that had the weekly world news that had headlines like aliens living under the sea,

disciples of Satan and testicle tanning and bin Laden really a Mossad operative. And, you know, you name the crazy conspiracy that Tucker Carlson is into, Pentagon studying alien cadavers for weapons systems. Right. But now it's all mixed together. The same Tucker Carlson that's saying the very things that you would be certain would be like fringe headlines in a you can't even really call it a legitimate newspaper. He's also interviewing heads of state, important scientists, Trump's mini-negotiator. So it all gets mixed together. negotiator and, you know, important philosophers and authors, that when he says something like 9-11 was an inside job or that the Pentagon is studying alien cadavers or that he was mauled by demons, I mean, it just boggles the mind. So this is where we're at. That's kind of a long introduction. I'm trying to inoculate myself against the charge That this is all about Israel

And all about the Jews So go ahead Dan What are your feelings about it? Well the first point is I thought you would have probably done a better job Than Douglas Murray did No Douglas Murray he came off as arrogant

Which Well he did. To you, to you. Well, I think to a lot of people. I think he made too much of Dave Smith never having been to the region. No, there was not starvation in Gaza after 2005. No, there was no deficit of goods coming in. I've been plenty of times.

There was no deficit? No. No goods were kept out. Have you been to the crossing points now? When were you last there at all I've never been You've never been Well am I not allowed to talk about it now? I've never been to have you ever been to Nazi Germany are you allowed to have feelings about them you can't time travel But you're right, but you can travel, okay?

But so what so what's the point like no? I say that I find that people have been there and agree with me and lots of people have been there and agree with you So I don't know what the end a year and a half talking about about a place You should at least do the courtesy of visiting it all right. I just think this is a non-argument. You don't Know I think it's a non-argument if you're next but you have to go and touch the ground No, I think you have to see I think it's a good idea toument. But if you're an expert... Would you have to go and touch the ground? No, I think it's a good idea to see stuff, particularly if you spend a career talking about something. Yes.

And I think he probably was not shocked when Dave said he had never been there. I think Douglas Murray would have just better off had... He should have just said, well, you know, I would recommend that you go since it's a topic that is so near and dear to your heart. And now let's discuss the heart of the matter rather than kind of very dramatically saying, well, you should at least have the courtesy to have gone. And I thought that Dave scored a point when Dave said, well, you know, basically just we can discuss things without having gone there.

It may be preferable to go there, and maybe a serious scholar would have gone there, but I don't think it was necessary to belabor that point. I think Murray could have just said, well, I recommend that you go, and my personal policy is always to go to places, if I can, wherever practical. I thought a lot about this point. And by the way, I want to just preface it by saying after watching it three times, I've come to the conclusion that Murray wiped the floor with Dave and Rogan in the debate, but it was very easy to miss it. Do you know why?

It was easy to miss it because on all the most important points, different interpretations of Daryl Cooper notwithstanding, Rogan and Smith conceded. They actually conceded every main point about how dangerous it is that this stuff is spreading on the right. And I think this is very, very interesting and also very dangerous because we live in an era now that the right has got some mojo back in America. We saw years of crazy left overreach where they tried to make us all say the craziest

things. And completely predictably, there are now figures on the right playing with really dark and ugly stuff on their side. I agree with that. And they are mainstreaming this. I don't think Daryl's doing that. And I think it's partly being mainstreamed

by the two people I just described. And both of you have kept speaking to these people. How this is dark and ugly stuff, how there is a subculture that's growing. There are movements now on the right in America, subcultures including people who follow both of you, who are very interested in playing with this absolute beyond the pale thing. Why somebody like Jake Shields wants to play around with Holocaust denial? Why? I can't answer for

Jake Shields. I don't know. Why do you think? I have no idea. I think a lot of people get captured by this, by audience capture. Captured by their audience. Yeah, I think that's the thing. You get a lot of positive reinforcement from a bunch of twisted people. They kind of conceded even the point about Daryl Cooper by trying to pretend that he was just kidding. It was just hyperbole. He really wasn't saying that Hitler, that Churchill was the villain of World War II. But as I'll show you... They also conceded, Dave Smith also conceded, that Hamas is dangerous and that eliminating them is a worthy goal. So on the and as we'll show, although they conceded these points,

their actual behavior does not indicate that they live by these points and that is really the heart of the matter, but now Dave is very agile, I have to say, and that's a compliment and it's not a backhanded compliment.

So he was, by conceding these points and choosing not to engage on the playing field where he was at a disadvantage, he kind of left Douglas without anywhere to go because he can't just keep pounding him over the head with it. And then unfortunately, Douglas is not a fanatical, you know, aficionado of what's going on in this crazy world. So he didn't have the knowledge to start really interrogating Dave. Well, if you say that, why'd you do this? Why'd you do that?

Why'd you do that? Well, that's why I felt you would have been actually probably better. But let's get to the point about having, actually being in a place. So, yes, of course, it's true that we all comment and have opinions on places

we haven't been. And at first, although Douglass had a very clever retort, well, yes, you can't time travel. Dave Smith said, well,, yes, you can't time travel. Dave Smith said, well, does that mean you can't have an opinion about Nazi Germany because you weren't there? And he says, well, you can't time travel, but you can travel.

But let's just imagine that there was some Chinese guy in China, actually in China. And he was known in China all over for commenting on the American black experience. It could be other things, you know, health care in America, but let's say the American black experience. And he really didn't know, never been to America, didn't know black people. Or if he did meet some black people along the way, it was black people who were kind of in his circle of politics. Right. He informed us all by reading NPR and The New York Times. And and he became an expert on black people.

First of all, we'd all say, well, you know, how well could this Chinese guy really understand black America? Like, you know, you're a Chinese guy. You don't speak the language. You don't know the people. Like, you're going to consider yourself, without humility, an expert on this subject? And then say to the Chinese guy, well, listen, have you visited America? No. I'm tempted to do a Chinese accent, but I won't.

No. No, no, no. No, I'm not going to do't no I'll happily do a British accent that's okay no no I have no interest in no I'm good I'm going to make it I'm going to continue basically my career

or a big portion of my career commenting on the black American experience and championing their cause but I don't really think I need to go and meet more black people or start, you know, learn the language or to be able to read, you know, Glenn Lowry or Coleman Hughes or go speak to them. Like, I don't need that. We would say, okay, are you a serious person here? Now, that's not to say that he might come to a conclusion we agree with or disagree with. But it is, I think, we could be fairly certain that the conclusion, even if it turned out to be one we agreed with, was shallowly, shallowly derived. Now imagine this guy starts having a conversation

with some black guy or somebody who's spent their lives, you know, seeing this. And he says, what are you talking about? Have you ever, like, what coming out of your mouth? Like the stuff you're saying makes no sense to me. This is like a, you know, a cartoonish version of what the truth is. And this is what Douglas Murray was saying, because he's been to Gaza.

I presume he'd been there before the war as well. He'd seen the shopping malls. He'd seen the middle class life, the wealthy life, and I'm sure the very horrible life of poverty. He'd seen the stores. He'd seen the shopping. He'd seen the shopping. He'd seen the tunnels. He'd seen to what extent the quality of life goes up and down in relationship to a recent attack, a rocket launch.

He's seen it all, and it's all in him. And then he hears Dave talking about these kind of glib slogans. It's a concentration camp. It's an open-air prison. Now, these are bumper stickers. And it was a natural reaction for Dave to say, for Douglas to say, based on his actual deep knowledge of the experience, what's the matter with you? You're kind of a fraud here.

Have you ever been there? No. Why not? Don't you have the humility to say to yourself, maybe I should go see this for myself? Or put it another way, if I said, Dave, do you actually believe that if you went to visit Israel and Gaza, that your experience would not deepen

your understanding of the issue in any way? You really don't think, like, you're, just as a matter of like, I could compare it to music. Like, my father used to yell at me when we were playing music together. It has to be right.

I said, well, there's no audience. It doesn't matter. If you're going to do it, you do it right. That's just as a thing. Like, okay, it doesn't matter if you can get away with it. It doesn't matter what the excuse is. Just as a matter of personal integrity, if you're going to sign on the dotted line about the subject of Israel and Gaza, and you're going to be influential.

In front of millions of people. Don't you have the personal humility to say to yourself, you know what, maybe I should go check this out for myself. And intellectual curiosity. I'm absolutely able to do it. I'm absolutely able to do it. I'm absolutely able to do it. And I find myself, I didn't count on it, this wasn't the career I set for myself, but you know what? I'm a world

figure here on this now. The most important shows invite me on. You know what? I've never even fucking been there. And I'm telling people it's this and it's that. Maybe I ought to take my get your ass to Mars. Maybe I ought to get my ass to Israel. Speak to some people.

Now, you know, and by the way, I've talked a long time, but one of the reasons I felt confident in certain opinions is because, first of all, and Peril knows this too, I know Israelis like the back of my hand, right? I know exactly how they think, how they don't think, except for the far-right crazies. So I can't say I understand them. And I also know a lot of Arabic people.

I know Palestinian people. And I've commented on this show that actually they're much more reasonable about, in my experience, about this stuff than the Dave Smiths are. And I've said on this show because they actually understand it in a way that Dave Smith doesn't. When we took a trip to Israel, you know, with some journalists and stuff, many of them went to early to get a tour of the West Bank with Bet Selem, which is kind of like an activist pro-Palestinian group in Israel. And I wasn't able to go, but I wanted to go.

Why did I want to go? Why did I want to go? Was it stupid of me to want to go? I wanted to go because I said, well, this is something I should see. And if you notice, I don't actually give strong opinions about what goes on in the West Bank. Because I know I'm not going to get it by reading the particular newspaper that represents the point of view of the people who feel a particular way about the West Bank. Reading Haaretz, whatever it is.

And I can't read the Hebrew language papers. And I don't know people who live there. So I kind of tread very lightly on that subject. But Dave Smith doesn't. So this is why I would defend Douglas Murray on that. Okay, what's your next subject? Can we talk about the expertise subject? Okay, or also his accusation, which he started the debate, accusing Rogan of being one-sided,

even though Rogan has had on some pro-Israel voices, namely Coleman Hughes. He's had on Murray before. And so is he being, with regard to Israel, one-sided as Murray had? I think Rogan admitted to being wading his show towards the side of people who feel that what Israel is doing is barbaric. I think that was

his exact term. Do you think you've tilted one way? Me personally? No, no, no, just with the the guests. Yes. Yeah, probably more tilted towards the idea that Perhaps the way they've done it is barbaric But why do you think that is just out of interest? I just cuz it could insert interest in your selection of guests because you're like the world's number one podcast. Yeah, it's not I don't I

Don't think about it that way. I just think I'd like to talk to this person. Coleman went on, but Coleman didn't go on, was not invited on to speak about Israel. As a matter of fact, Coleman had to shoehorn his comment on Israel in, and Coleman's never been invited back on the show, by the way. I don't know that any notable pro-Israel, I don't watch the show that often. I know that Gad Saad has spoken in behalf of Israel.

I saw some clip going around today of somebody who spoke up for Israel. Obviously, it's not zero people who've gone in Israel. I don't, personally, I don't think Israel is, um, Israel is not the main issue to me. I'm much more concerned about the normalizing

of conspiratorial anti-Semites than I am the fact that Rogan has on an expert who wants to criticize Israel. As a matter of fact, it doesn't bother me at all that Rogan has on an expert or a responsible person who wants to make the case against Israel. I never complained that Rogan had on Dave Smith. But what responsible people has he had on?

That criticize Israel? I don't know. I don't follow. I'm just saying that the whole topic of Israel is not... That was a large part of the debate, and that's what kind of went viral, was, number one, two things really went viral. Number one, this notion you had to have been somewhere, and this notion of expertise, and this notion of the elite versus the blue-collar regular Joe that

Dave Smith represents. So what Murray spoke about at the beginning was about Daryl Cooper. Now, Daryl Cooper and about Churchill. There was a whole long, and it was a recurring conversation that kept coming back around again about what it was about Daryl Cooper and World War II revisionism and Churchill and was Daryl Cooper an expert. And I actually have some clips here of it. So now a lot of these clips are edited together into collages. I really would like to make them longer, but there's just no way to do it and get through them. So I encourage everybody to go to the actual podcast

and listen to the whole thing. Be sure I'm not taking anything out of them. So I encourage everybody to go to the actual podcast and listen to the whole thing. Be sure I'm not taking anything out of context. So this is just some general things that were said in the argument about whether Daryl Cooper, Martyr Made, as he's known online, was qualified to be talking about World War II. Now, I'll call your attention to what you're going to see here already, is that, in my opinion, they speak out of both sides of their mouths. Every time that they say he's an expert, every time Douglas Murray says that Cooper is an expert, Rogan and Smith will go, no, no, he's not an expert. He's just a history nerd. Ask him. He'll tell you he's not an expert. But then they'll flip when Murray wants to criticize his knowledge about it. They'll say,

no, no, he's quite knowledgeable about this stuff. He does long history podcasts, 30 hours. He's doing a whole World War II series. So, of course, we all just have to ask ourselves, well, what does it mean to be an expert? If you're not an expert, why would you presume that you should be doing 20, 30 hours of history podcasts? And, if you're not an expert, why are Rogan

and Smith so enamored with listening to his opinions on things? Now, I happen to think he is an expert. I'm going to talk about expertise in a second. But let's just watch this video here. It's a bottom, you know. but do you have any I mean? There's been a tilt in the conversation in both conversations in the last couple of years and it's largely to do with People who have appointed themselves expert. I mean like Ian. I don't think he points himself an expert in anything

Who's that other dude who thinks he's an expert on Churchill? Oh, Daryl Cooper does not think he's an expert. In fact, I think it's everybody else is always calling him an expert, and he's like, I'm just a history nerd. Have you ever? Daryl is incredibly knowledgeable. He's not. He's not.

He's wildly. Daryl Cooper is currently, I believe, almost finished, or he's working on a big World War II series. He does long-form podcasts. My point is, this is not a serious historian. No, no, no. He's not a historian. He never claims to be.

He's been doing these long-form podcasts on these subjects for over a decade. All right. So do you see the contradiction there? Yeah, I do see it. So what do you mean? He never claimed to be an expert. He's very, very knowledgeable. He's been doing these long-form things on his team. Right, that's a contradiction. He would never say he's an expert. So what game are they playing there? Now, this is why I'm saying Douglas won the debate, because what they don't say is, no, no, he's an expert and he's right.

They don't say that. That would be the thing. They are collapsing. And then they go on. Now there's this question about Churchill. And every time Murray wants to take them to task for the fact that Daryl hates Churchill and tries to make Churchill into the villain, play Daryl Cooper just kidding on Churchill? I've decided that Churchill is the bad guy in World Warl Cooper just kidding on Churchill? I've decided that Churchill is the bad guy in World War II. That's not what he said.

What he said was he jokes with his friend Jocko, who's an Anglo-Saxon. He jokes with him. Just joking. I think that Churchill was the secret villain of World War II. He literally says he's joking.

Yes, he said in the comment, he goes, listen, I'm being hyperbolic. And then he once again disclaimed, he goes, and I'm not claiming Churchill committed the most atrocities or was the worst part, but in many ways, I do view him as the chief villain, as my hyperbolic, provocative statement there. You're just taking this one statement

and then this, where he's trying to joke around with his buddy, this Churchill statement. And this is the basis of this. He and these other guys are all doing the anti-Churchill stuff. Now pause here for a second. I pause here because after saying, he's just joking, he's just joking, he's just joking, it's almost as if they can't help themselves.

Then right at the end here, then Rogan adds on, but he was involved in this conspiracy. Churchill was. Play it. I'm doing an anti-Churchill stuff. Churchill was the author of this whole Operation Unthinkable, right? Where they wanted to use the Nazis

to invade Russia. Wasn't that Churchill? Watch Douglas Murray's face. Is that not true? So, Rogan, after saying, you'rean after saying you're just kidding who would say such things about Churchill that's the implication if you keep saying when somebody says something and you don't want to defend it

it's now saying he was just kidding I was just kidding I didn't mean it but then Rogan at the tail end puts in but he was involved in Operation Unthinkable which was actually a drawing board idea of having at the end of the war, as I understand it, having defeated Nazis help in the fight against the Soviet Union. ideas, something that was in some CIA report or some Mossad report or, you know, these things that actually never come to fruition, but were considered or bandied about by nutty people. This is one of the main nutrients of conspiracy theories.

You'll see this. They'll always talk about these plans that actually never happened. Not that they're irrelevant, but let me just continue. So right after the Tucker interview when Martin May had gotten hot water, and he did say, being kind of hyperbolic, that Churchill is the chief villain.

Chief villain, I believe, was his exact phrase. He tweets out a couple days later, 7.7 million views. Time for a Churchill thread. Time for a Churchill thread. Let's do this. And then he writes, why I think Churchill was a chief villain of World War II. He switches it from the chief villain to a chief villain. This is because he was just kidding, right? Now it's not a joke anymore. And then he writes, I know that sounds like hyperbole.

Churchill didn't order the most deaths, oversee the most atrocities, or commit the worst crimes. But most of those crimes could not have been committed if the war had not happened. And Churchill was the leader most intent on making it happen. Well, maybe he was being hyperbolic when he said, I know that sounds like hyperbole. So that's Martyr Made, you know, responsive thing. Now, Rogan and Smith are 100 percent aware of the stuff that Darrell said right after that Tucker interview. Rogan told Darrell that he followed very closely the reaction to the interview. Now, why are they I mean, it has to be,

it's extremely sloppy if it's not disingenuous. Why are they hiding behind the fact that he was just kidding? But again, Douglas didn't bring this stuff. All right, okay, Dan. Don't worry, debriefing the debate, I think it's important to say where Douglas fell short, where Murray fell short. All right.

This is how Daryl explained Churchill to Rogan on his show. Go ahead. And so that's why we're here. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah. You know, I mean, the Tucker interview was I could have been clearer in what I was saying. I'm not going to like explain what you said because you were talking about what you say to Jocko, right?

Yeah, that's how it originally came up because Jocko's wife's English, right? so Churchill's like a sacred figure in their pantheon and And so I said that you know, I maybe I'm being a little provocative here I like to provoke Jocko with my Churchill takes or whatever, but that's only part of it I'm very critical of okay Churchill's role in my opinion in turning I'm very critical of Churchill's role, in my opinion, in turning the German invasion of Poland into the Second World War, basically. So that's how Rogan had it explained to him. That doesn't sound like Daryl was even saying that he was kidding, right?

And then if you look at the next one, it's Daryl Cooper on Churchill to Tucker. This is where you get to the real heart of the matter because what is being lost here is that it's not simply that Daryl said that Churchill was the chief villain of World War II. It's that he said that Churchill was installed by Zionist financiers to pursue

Jewish interests. That is the more important thing that Daryl said, and he was not joking. And this comes, and again, Dave Smith knows this, this comes directly from David Irving. David Irving is the most famous Holocaust denier there is. Can you play that one? The reason I resent Churchill so much for it is that he kept this war going when he had no way, he had no way to go back and fight this war. All he had were bombers. He was literally by 1940

sending firebomb fleets, sending bomber fleets to go firebomb the Black Forest just to burn down sections of the Black Forest. Just rank terrorism. It's the greatest scale of terrorist attacks we've ever seen in world history. Why would he do that? What was the motive? What was the motive? Smiles.

Well, you know, Churchill's got a long, complicated history. I mean, he's somebody who... That was the wriest smile I think I've ever seen. Yeah. Well, look, I think on one level, there was a sense that Churchill was sort of humiliated by his performance in the first world war. But then you get into, you know, why was, why was Winston Churchill such a, such a dedicated booster of Zionism from early on in

his life, right? And there's ideological reasons. But then as time goes on, you know, you read stories about Churchill going bankrupt and needing money, getting bailed out by people who shared his interests, you know, in terms of Zionism, but also his hostility. Just just. You know, I think his hostility to put it this way, I think his hostility to Germany was real. I don't think that he necessarily had to be bribed to have that feeling. But, you know, I think he was to an extent put in place by by people, the financiers, by a media complex that wanted to make sure that he was the guy who, you know, who was who was representing Britain in that conflict for the for a reason. All right. So where's the joke? Sound like he's just kidding to you.

So let's get to the subject of expertise. Can we just very briefly mention that he did disclaim that on a subsequent tweet? Disclaimed what? He said that, well, actually, I don't know if Churchill was installed by Zionists. I think he was responding to you, perhaps. I don't know that he disclaimed that, but I'll look for it. He might have. He didn't disclaim it. I did a podcast with him. He didn't know that he disclaimed that, but I'll look for it. He might have... I did a podcast with him.

He didn't disclaim it. On the podcast that I did with him, he said he got the argument from David Irving. Okay, but I think there was a later tweet where he said, well, I don't know that he was installed by Zionists. Can you find it? Well, I'll have to look for it, but you'll have to excuse me while I use my phone.

So there's a lot of arguments about who's an expert, who's not an expert, who has a right to be talking about this and who doesn't, things like this. Now, I don't know how you feel about it. Obviously, in hard sciences, it's very clear what expertise is, and there's not much debate about it. So none of us want to go into a building that was not designed by a trained architect or be diagnosed by someone who's not trained as a doctor or well actually i might question the latter example there are plenty of people that think doctors don't know shit as we saw um you want to go over a bridge that was designed by someone who's you know taught himself how to design suspension bridges we have many professions that require certifications before you can do them and um while there might be some ridiculous examples like hairdresser quite often we believe yes you should

you should have to go to five years of school and be tested before you can do this or that but what we learned um more recently is that even the things we thought were not susceptible to that kind of erosion are susceptible to political pressures. So we did see even medical doctors and research scientists bending to political correctness and really just bastardizing the notion bastardizing their, their, the notion that they were experts in anything. And this did real damage to the notion of trust in experts. And perhaps we saw some of this on COVID too, not perhaps we saw some of it, but I also think some of that's

exaggerated, but you, but you know, when virologists were saying that to, to suspect lab leak was racist, they, they really made a mockery of their own expertise. But that's all scientific. Then you have social sciences. Now, of course, I think people like psychologists, I actually think they know less, they have negative knowledge quite often because I think in certain, I'm probably wrong, but in certain subjects, I find the expertise almost to be off-putting. But in things like history and politics, first of all, being an expert doesn't mean, as opposed to physics, that you will come to the same conclusion as the next guy.

As a matter of fact, you take five different Israeli historians, and you'll have five different opinions about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Although if you would take five different Arabic historians, you probably will have unanimity, which says something about which culture do you think is a more healthy culture, the one that has unanimity or the one that has dissent. So, you know, they are experts in that they know all the facts, but certainly laymen can learn enough of the bullet points and teach themselves enough without certification to weigh in on political subjects in a way that we regard as credible. I mean, the whole notion of democracy is based on a certain wisdom of people to be able to decide issues.

So there's a tension there. So I'm going to say that Darrell is an expert. But there's another issue which is very important, which is fair-mindedness, as I said before, humility, integrity, and fastidiousness with accuracy. And on these matters, I think Dave gets a very low grade. I think he's very sloppy. I'll put it as sloppy. And I think that the Rogan show, in general, doesn't endeavor to even determine

whether or not the people that it has on, like the doctor who says that polio isn't real, meet these kinds of standards. I'm sure she's an expert. She went to medical school. But what else is going on there that she's saying such ridiculous things? I'll give you just a couple examples with Dave, just in my experience with him, because I think they're very telling. So, for instance, on Ukraine. There's stuff in Israel, too, but I want to stick to Ukraine so they don't call me a Zionist pig. Well, they'll call you that in any case.

Okay. So, one of the arguments that we hear all the time vis-a-vis Ukraine is is that James Baker assured Gorbachev, well, I'll let Dave say it. This is one of the reasons that Dave says, and one of his go-to reasons, and you hear this repeated, I think even Perry Elmight be familiar with this, one of the go-to reasons that people say

that Putin was provoked and Putin has legitimate beef behind his invasion of Ukraine. Hit it. I mean, you know me, Joe. I'm the most anti-war fucking person there is, and there's no excuse for that. Like tens of thousands of people have died. It's horrible.

And a lot of them are soldiers, but a lot of them are civilians. But to say he was unprovoked is like insane. It's like the promise when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, like verbally promised and put in writing, was that NATO would not expand one inch to the east. Pause. And NATO at that point, the line there. 1991 promised verbally and in writing. Continue.

Germany, right? Like the western half of Germany was in the West and the Eastern half was with the Soviet union. And they were like, we'll let all of these nations, you know, secede and the Soviet union will collapse. And we're giving up on communism. Pause. One of the greatest things that ever happened.

We'll let, so we'll let the nation secede and we're giving up on communism. This is in return for the promise of not one inch. Go ahead. And the deal was, okay, you do that. Then we won't move NATO. We won't move our military alliance into your area that used to be your realm of influence. And every single president since then has moved NATO east. Okay. So this is absolutely untrue. So I put it into chat GPT. This is my prompt. When did Baker make the not one inch statement to Gorbachev and was the end of the Soviet Union contemplated at the time?

Answer. James Baker made the not one inch eastward statement to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990, February of 1990, not later, as Smith said, and very beginning of 1990 during discussions on German reunification, not the end of the Soviet Union. The context was NATO's jurisdiction not expanding eastward into East German territory if the Soviets accepted reunification under NATO. At the time, and this is bald-faced by ChatGPT, the end of the Soviet Union was not being actively contemplated by the U.S. or Western officials. While the USSR was under internal strain, the dominant assumption in early 1990 was that Gorbachev would remain in power and the Soviet Union would persist,

possibly in a looser federation. The full collapse came unexpectedly in late 1991. Now, Dave knows this. So do you have to be an expert? No, this is any heist. My daughter could have looked this up and talked about it. But he's being sloppy. I mean, I don't know if you want to go worse than that. He's being extremely sloppy. Now show the Emmy Surratt not one inch. Now there's a woman, Emmy Surratt. Now she is the real expert. She's a historian who wrote the whole book called Not One Inch. So they asked her in an interview, what explains your book's title?

There are two meanings. First, Jane Baker used it with Gorbachev in early 1990, initially proposing that if the USSR allowed German reunification, NATO would not move one inch eastward. But the White House opted instead, in the words of the then Deputy National Security Advisor Bob Gates, for bribing the Soviets out. Gorbachev keeps trying to get back to the initial proposal of NATO non-enlargement, but he's unable to do so after the White House drops the offer.

Now, this is the key point. Now, what kind of honest person will leave this out? What's coming up now? The final settlement on German unification makes clear the opposite, that Article 5 of NATO will move eastward beyond the alliance's Cold War border. Moscow signs and ratifies this agreement. Dave Smith said the other one was in writing. No, the expert, I guess it matters to be an expert, Moscow signs and ratifies this agreement. That's the opposite of what Putin says. He twists and cherry picks historical documents to make contrary claims.

But they are inconsistent with later evidence. Okay, so that's one knock on Dave Smith. Now bring up... I guess we could question the veracity of this particular statement. Now bring up Smith wrong on Nuland call. I mean, I assume it's not incorrect, but you're trusting this expert. Several years ago... No, I'm trusting ChatGPT, who...

The dates... Do you think they're both wrong about 1990, February 1990? Is that what you're saying? No, I'm saying we should, I mean, if you're saying you're trusting this expert and not that expert. We lived through it, Dan. We know that in February 1990, the Soviet Union didn't collapse. The Soviet Union collapsed a year and a half. I just want clarification why we're trusting this source and not that source.

The answer may be obvious, but I just think it's worth addressing. Now, Smith on Nuland call. Go ahead. Now, this is another thing. This is this idea that the U.S. or the West, no, the U.S. orchestrated a coup in Ukraine. Now, there's always, you know,

elements of truth. We were involved in supporting the protests. We did give money to NGOs. There were moderate people who were saying that this is a bad idea, that we're poking the bear, that this could lead to a bad result. It's not like the whole

thing is made up. There's significant other sides to the story, but what is not forgivable is putting spin on facts, on saying things that are just simply not true. So here's Rogan on, I'm sorry, here's Smith telling Rogan,

explaining to Rogan, and he's Rogan's guru, Svengali, whatever, on this issue. Go ahead. This is what he tells. Go ahead. Several years ago, Toria Newland of the State Department, the woman who's driving our war against Russia, was caught on tape admitting that she had engineered a coup in Ukraine.

Unless they believed they could do what they did in Ukraine. Well, what, to overthrow the government and put a government in that's more friendly to them? Yeah, I mean, they've tried to do this before. That was the other thing that you were talking about, that recording, where they were openly discussing the various individuals. Yeah, the Victoria Nuland phone call. And it's right around, I think it was leaked, like, it was right around when, right when Yanukovych fled and the new government took over and was immediately recognized by the U.S. And she's, it starts with her and Jeffrey Pyatt, who's an ambassador. And they're like, we're in play. OK, like it's happening.

And then they're all like she's talking about who should be in the new government and who should be out of the new government. And then they're talking about how we're going to make this thing stick. Oh, this guy doesn't have the experience. Yats has to be in. Klitschko has to be out, like going through all the people and all the players who should be in the new government and who shouldn't. Anybody could have read The New York Times and known what he's saying is not true. This was during the protest. I'm not an expert on this, but during the protests, there was an offer. Yanukovych offered a power sharing agreement in lieu of leaving office.

And that's what the Newland call was about. They were discussing who would be in the power sharing agreement. It was not discussing a coup. It was not discussing who would take over the government. And as I said, this is, anybody can look it up in the New York Times. But I went further. Robert Wright, who is a pretty good expert on foreign policy, interviewed one of Scott Horton's experts. I'm going to play it for you now. And then I confronted Scott Horton with it, who is Dave Smith. And Scott Horton said, yeah, Dave's wrong about that. Play it. You'll see.

And you mentioned Victoria Nuland, and of course, something that has gotten some attention. Yes, I think it's important. I also research this issue, and I think it's very like it was recorded and leaked by russian intelligence specifically to kind of implicate the united states but also it was often misrepresented because according to this uh uh frontal they were discussing not enough i don't think they were discussing ukrainian government rupture over soviet coverage they were talking about basically proposal by yanukovych at the time, a few weeks before the Maidan massacre, to basically offer positions in his government to Maidan opposition leaders.

Pause, pause. And lo and behold, on the Tucker Carlson show, the Russian foreign minister, Lavrov, references the same thing. Go ahead, play it. And had the deal which was reached the day before, between the then president and the opposition implemented, Ukraine would have stayed one piece by now with Crimea in it.

It's absolutely clear. They did not deliver on the deal. Instead, they staged the coup. The deal, by the way, provided for creation of a government of national unity in February 2014 and holding early elections, which the then president would have lost. Now I'm going to talk to Scott Horton about it. Watch. I no longer trust them to not be spinning. And a little spin goes a long way. That's really all. Dave is my fault because Dave got that from me when I was maybe oversimplifying it earlier. So he gets off the hook there.

OK, so even Scott Horton, is that a good source for you, Dan? Even Scott Horton says that Dave was wrong about that. And now, finally, in the most recent interview, this is what he says to Rogan. In the 90s, in the late 90s, during the first round of NATO expansion, there was a lively debate amongst this. I don't mean a debate amongst outsiders or non-expert experts or whatever. I mean, within the real deal experts, the wisest graybears in the national security apparatus, there was a real debate with at least three secretaries of defense who warned against this. Robert Gates, Robert McNamara, William Perry, the secretary of defense at the time, almost resigned, said his biggest regret in life is that he didn't resign over it. Okay, so that's William Perry. And I thought to myself, I never heard that Clinton's secretary of defense said it was his biggest regret in life to resign over this. So I just look it up. So I download the guy's book,

and he writes, in the strength of my convictions, I considered resigning, but I concluded that my resignation would be misinterpreted as opposition to NATO membership for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic membership that I greatly favored,

just not right away. In the end, I decided not to resign, hoping that my continued involvement would help to mitigate the growing mistrust. President Clinton had given me just what I'd requested, an opportunity to state my case, and unfortunately, I had not been persuasive enough. When I look back on this critical decision, I regret that I didn't fight more effectively. Okay, so point being that the guy didn't say it was his greatest regret in life to not have resigned. As a matter of fact, he even supported Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.

He supported the expansion of NATO, only just not in the way that we went about it. He felt that we were too aggressive about it. Actually, if I read his last sentence here, he says, I could have written a paper carefully laying out my case and asked the president to make this paper available to all members before the meeting, or I could have followed up on my consideration to resign. It is possible that a rupture in relations with Russia would have occurred anyway, but I am not willing to concede that. So what he's saying is that, yeah, it might have happened anyway. I think we should have gone slower. I'm not ready to concede that it would have happened anyway.

So this is a nuanced position that the guy has. Yes, he's critical of American policy, but do you think that Dave Smith represented this guy accurately? Either of you? You can defend him. Obviously, he did not. He didn't. Can you take that down, Tiana?

That's three dings in a row. Those are just in my experience with the guy. There's many other things on Israel that are just as upsetting. I'm just not going to go into them. So...

Why not? And then... It's going to get boring. So then you have... And he's the most credible of the guys. So Joe leads with Dave Smith as his guy.

And my critique is not that he's not an expert. I think he knows about this stuff way better than I do. My critique is that he's not fair-minded and he's sloppy. I mean, you know, there is a circumstantial case he's being dishonest, right? But he doesn't strike me as dishonest. But maybe if you're only sampling the books and stuff, like for instance, he made another mistake. He kept saying that

even Churchill himself said World War II was an unnecessary war. He even says in his book, The Gathering Storm, that it was an unnecessary war. But you only have to read the first page of Churchill's book to understand that Churchill meant it was unnecessary because they should have been stronger against Germany earlier. Bonus clip, here's Dave Smith's take on Churchill's phrase, unnecessary war, followed by the world's leading Churchill historian, Andrew Roberts.

I really highly recommend, if you're interested in this topic, read Pat Buchanan's book on it. It's called Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War. And the unnecessary war is a Winston Churchill quote. It's how he described the war after the war. He was looking back at it and going, man, okay, yeah, we really shouldn't have done that. That turned out to be a huge mistake because Because, of course, Britain got totally, like, destroyed. What did Churchill mean by the unnecessary war? I've heard three times already from three different of the revisionist types that this is kind of Churchill's admission that World War II was a mistake. Oh, the ignorance is just astonishing.

I mean, just pick up the book and read the actual context. It's not the most difficult thing in the world. He wrote his history of the Second World War from 1948 onwards. It sold literally millions of copies. You can get them copies for pennies nowadays. Just please get it. It's a wonderful book, by the way, also. Pick it up and he explains precisely it is an unnecessary war because if the West had listened to his warnings warnings and had armed sufficiently and at the times that Adolf Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland in 1936 and took Austria by Anschluss in 1938 and then the Sudetenland in the October

of 1938 and then took the rest of the rump of Czechoslovakia in the March of 1939. If at any stage along that long Via Dolorosa for Europe and the world Hitler had been stood up to by a strong West, then the war would not have taken place. That is why he calls it the unnecessary war. It's not some kind of an omission that he recognized that Hitler didn't need to be stalled. It's extraordinary that people, it's extraordinary that he wanted to make this kind of thing. I have it on Reliable Sources that Sir Andrew Roberts is ready and available to be a guest

on the Joe Rogan Show at any time. So what's going on there? To me, it's that Dave is getting this information from secondary sources. He's repeating something he picked up from someone else who said that. And as opposed to something I advise everyone to always do, and I always do it myself, and I'll tell you why I learned this, is that you need

to check the original sources. Do not put your reputation behind any fact that someone told you. You have to check it for yourself. And it's funny because this comes back to years ago, if I was even 30 years old, when Pat Buchanan had a book called Republic by an Empire or something. I know Dave Smith read that book.

And in that book, he said something about Churchill. It's funny, it's such a coincidence, about Churchill thinking that Hitler at one time thought that Hitler was okay. Even Hitler thought that... Churchill. I'm sorry, I do that all the time. Even Churchill thought that Hitler was an okay guy or something like that.

And he had a footnote. I'm trying to remember. Winston Churchill, Great Contemporaries, or some book like that. And so I went, I said, this is weird. Churchill said that Hitler was okay? And I went and bought the book. In those days, you couldn't get it on the internet.

I found it, like, at a used bookstore or something. And sure enough, Buchanan took the quote totally out of context. You know, I don't remember all the details. I would have said, ah, I'm never going to make this mistake again. So I always check everything out. This is why Khalidi, Rashid Khalidi, infuriates me because you can't check his footnotes on anything. So I think Dave is doing this. Okay, so that's Dave Smith.

We went through Martyr Maid, who's just repeating David Irving stuff. But then he has on Ian Carroll. Now, he claims that Rogan says that he only had on Ian Carroll because he wanted to discuss how people get into conspiracy theories. But that's not the way it seems if you watch the interview. So where is that video? Ian Carroll is a rank conspiracy theorist. And Rogan has him on. And he does not push back on this guy at all.

Now remember, they've already agreed that this stuff is dangerous, that marginalized people act on this stuff, that there needs to be kind of a hygiene of ideas. I've never claimed to be an expert on anything. This is the problem, Joe. I've never claimed to be an expert on anything This is the problem Joe. I mean if Somebody says you have to claim to be an expert on something to have an opinion You don't have to be you don't have to be so what is like I'm not a historian, but I'm pumping out history

But what do I know next but I'm talking all the time about but you're not even talking about specifically on what he just said No, I'm saying this is my point about this. You say, I'm not an expert. So what's the solution? To not talk about it? No, it's to have more experts around. Well, the expert class hasn't done a great job. I know. This is follow the science.

Absolutely. I agree with that. I just said to you, I agree with that. But one of the problems is... During all of COVID, I will put my track record against any of the expert class on COVID. I'm glad to do that. So should I have just shut up? Should I have shut up by opposing lockdowns and opposing vaccine mandates? No, no.

That was the argument at the time. You realize that, right? That's the entire argument that you're making. Let the experts handle this. No, no, no. You're not an expert. You're right. I was just a comedian.

You're wildly not listening to what I'm not. You're not an expert. You're wildly not listening to what I'm saying. I think you have to take, I think we should agree perhaps on the following, that one major thing can break down in front of your eyes, or many major things, and it does not mean that every single one of the sewer gates should be lifted. Okay? Yeah, I get that point. But who's saying it should be lifted. Okay? Yeah, I get that point. But who's saying it should be? I'm saying this is a

chatter on what is part of our side at the moment, is that a lot of the sewer gates are being lifted, sometimes by people who know that they're doing it, sometimes by people who don't, sometimes by people who say, I don't know, I'm just throwing it out there.

But at the very least, there's some damn hygiene that should be required, isn't there? Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but sure. Just that. Let's have a bit of hygiene on our own side, not lift every sewer gate. And when you say our own side, you mean the right wing, broadly speaking? Broadly speaking. You see, they admit that there should be good hygiene, but then to make the case that they've exercised it, they have to then retreat to the notion that Daryl Cooper was just kidding and that Ian Carroll was brought on the show just to talk about how people get into conspiracy theories rather than to present conspiracy theories. Neither of them have pushed back on this at all. So the question is, do they operate the way they, they agreeing one ought

to operate? So play this good. If you're going to interview historians of the conflict or historians in general, why would you get somebody like Ian Carroll or? Yeah, but Ian Carroll, I didn't bring him on for that purpose. I brought him on because I want to find out like, how's one get involved in the whole conspiracy theory business? Because his whole thing is just conspiracies. Welcome. Dude, very nice to meet you. Yeah, good to be here, man. So, let's take, first of all,

why do we love conspiracies so much? Because I fucking love them. Dude. I love them. I love finding out the dirty little tactics and secrets and how the government does things and what the fuck's really going on. Why is it so exciting? It's a knowledge.

It's a thirst for knowledge because some of them are total bullshit. But some of them are clearly, there's something there. Clearly. Right? And I'm not saying that October 7th is a good thing.

Okay, stop there for a second. Literally the next day. Now, I have to say, in a certain context, like, toying with conspiracy theories can be fun. You know, now, Rogan obviously believes in the

moon landing, JFK, whatever, did the mafia do it? But what's happening here is that the current crop of conspiracy theories is finding that Israel is responsible for everything, and the Jews are responsible for everything. I don't know if it's in this clip I'm going to play or not, but for instance, Ian Carroll

says that Israel was responsible for 9-11. Now now that's a tall order considering bin laden took responsibility for 9-11 so presumably bin laden is a massad agent so now you're going to hear here a whole long thing that he does about jews and conspiracies and then you you watch Rogan and he says right, right, and he doesn't and even at some point where Regan talks where Carol talks about it being a stain on the Jewish people

there's no pushback now he doesn't have to push back but we have a right to, I would push back you couldn't, you know, I would push back, you've seen me push back, so go ahead. Entire internet was ablaze about Israel and Palestine, and everyone was talking

about it. And suddenly, it was like, oh, alright, let's fucking dig this thing open, because unfortunately, it is, I mean, I think fortunately, I think that the state of the Israeli influence that sustained them for so long, that was essential to them surviving this long,

I think that it has grown cancerous to the Jewish faith in general because Jeffrey Epstein is the perfect example of this. Jeffrey Epstein was the world's most prolific and evil sex trafficker that we know of so far, ever. And he very clearly was a Jewish organization of Jewish people working on behalf of Israel and other groups. Very clearly. So that's a dark stain on Israel and on the Jewish people if you own it. Like if you try to defend that, that's not good.

You don't want to have to defend that. Right. You want to be free of that kind of shit because the Jewish people don't believe in that. That's not what Jews are. Whoever tries to defend. Jews are regular people. It's the deep state of the intelligence exactly season in israel and the thing about israel is that jewish people have every incentive to need to defend israel

right right because if i'm a jew it's like of course you have to defend israel like that's very understandable it's your people and you don't want another holocaust like you don't want another jews have been in conflict with other people for ages because they are outsiders and because they are so different and because they group up and lots of reasons but you don't like as a Jewish person you're now faced with this choice do I stand by Israel always forever for everything and defend everything they do or do I get labeled as a self-hating Jew like Dave Smith gets labeled like like Glenn Greenwald gets labeled do I stand against all of my culture and do I get ostracized by my family and by my community?

But the problem is that if you have to defend everything that Israel does you're forced to defend this fucking deep state That is in bed with these organized crime figures. Well, the thing is Israel is connected to one race of people Yeah, it's correct Whereas the United States which also is involved in a lot of really fucked up things all over the world When people think about the United States, they don't think about it as one... Bingo. Yeah. And so it just puts us all in this impossible situation.

And it's an impossible conversation that we all... And I'm glad for it because it's a maturing process. And I think we need to do it very delicately and very carefully and thoughtfully. Because Jewish people are people and they're not evil. But there are evil Jewish people and there are evil American people and there are evil are people, and they're not evil. Right. But there are evil Jewish people, and there are evil American people, and there are evil Saudi people, and that's the way it is. Well said. All right, this drives me crazy.

First of all, get to know how these people operate. And he's a Holocaust doubter as well. They'll always say, yes, something happened. It's terrible what happened to the Jewish people. There's many, many good Jewish people. I'm not talking about all Jewish people. And then they will go on and never change the subject from matters that have to do with Jewish people. This is how they play the game. So here's some recent Ian Carroll. How does one hygienically, as it were, present a guy like this on this show without so much as a challenge?

And that's not the point. The point is not that all Jewish people are in on this thing. The point is that Jewish people are susceptible to being approached by this organization. And we need to support the Jewish people that reject it. We need to encourage them to be on our side. So these people that are, oh, Jews bad, they're a big problem. Because we need to bring Jews to our side,

not push them away. We need to heal. We don't need to create more divides. Because the last thing we need is to create another Holocaust of sorts, whatever that was. We don't need to, and I don't mean that flippantly. And so the Holocaust is a good example of one where it's like, I don't think that the Holocaust did not happen. So to be clear, what I don't mean that flippantly. And so like the Holocaust is a good example of one where it's like, I don't think, I don't think that the Holocaust did not happen.

So to be clear, what I'm saying is something happened for sure. But I know that the narratives around the Holocaust that I was taught in school, they were forged in the era of controlled information. But in reality, like Nazi Germany came out of the post-World War I German era, right? And that post-World War I Germany was specifically created by the international banking cartel when they had, like, so after World War I, the Treaty of Versailles, I believe it was called, is when they basically determined what Germany was going to owe, like, trillions of marks. And they're going to have to repay all this debt. They basically turned Germany into a economic slave state and the whole world had business relationships. Everyone else all around the world was funding them. And those death camps, like those camps in Germany, a lot of, they were slave labor camps and all of the companies, just like our prison labor system in America right now, where McDonald's and Starbucks

and Verizon are using prisoners to do like labor for seven cents an hour or whatever it is. That's what was happening in Germany in that pre-World War, like pre and during World War II is all of our American and European and British, all these other corporations, these multinational corporations were building the camps for the work that they were using to produce the products that they were selling. And it was not just a German operation. There is not evidence that Jeffrey Epstein was working for the Mossad. If you listen to the whole podcast or that the Israeli criminal gangs have been running America since, you know, whatever year. Obviously, if Jeffrey Epstein, if there was such good evidence, Ian Carroll would not be the only one who had that evidence. There would be some intrepid New York Times reporter who is connected or some Haaretz reporter who's well connected to the Mossad. I mean, they find out

everything in Israel about their own government, but somehow they missed this. Also, you know, it's kind of noteworthy that Ghislaine Maxwell is still in prison, that she hasn't been killed, that she hasn't threatened, you know, hasn't released information. Any Hollywood movie about a blackmail scheme, you always see somebody says, listen, I put a folder in a safe deposit box my daughter has. If anything should happen to me, she knows where all the information. Jeffrey Epstein was an international mastermind criminal, but he never thought, you know what? I should probably have a plan B of releasing this information

in case anybody decides to murder me. Never occurred to him, right? Never mind that it was an autopsy. Never mind that Bill Barr watched the videos himself and said that he's 100% convinced that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. Ian Carroll has got it figured out. So he tells Joe Rogan, and Joe Rogan says,

yeah, it's kind of like our deep state in Israel, right? Like just totally credulous. And then he goes on to explain to us why Jewish people are almost, we don't want another Holocaust. Because, you know, Jewish people, they group up. They're outsiders.

What was the other thing? The third thing that he said. Well, he said they're very different. They're different. Yeah, we group up. Why do we group up? He doesn't mention, well, they were blamed for killing Christ for a couple thousand years. He doesn't mention they weren't allowed to do this, weren't allowed to do that.

Jewish people are always in peril because of the things about them that put them in peril. And we should want what's best for Jews. And this is a stain on the Jewish people. So isn't it good that this is finally coming out? Because after all, if we can just get the Jews to stop defending Jeffrey Epstein,

because you know if they defend Jeffrey Epstein, they'll be called a self-hating Jew. This is so fucking dark and insidious. No Jew defended Jeffrey Epstein. No, of course not. It's all, but you see, I mean, and he's so, he's so evil, this dude. But this guy can go on the Joe Rogan show. He doesn't need a minder. He doesn't need somebody there to say, well, you're not sure about this, you're not

sure about that. Everything is just taken as fact. And then Joe will say, no, I just had him on there to see how do you get into conspiracy theories. I watched that whole friggin' interview again today to see if I could find the part where they discuss how do you get into conspiracy theories.

So this is why I think that... Like you never see Deborah Lipstadt sitting there, right? When you have these... Alright. I mean, we could go on and on, but this is what bothers me. And now, so then

they talk about how this far-right stuff is dark and how they both agree that this new level of anti-Semitism is worrisome. But then, can you play Candace hitting third rails? Then when they discuss Candace Owens, who's actually first let's play Candace Frankists, just to remind everybody the kind of stuff that Candace Owens, who's actually first let's first let's play Candace Frankists just to remind everybody the kind of stuff that Candace Owens has been saying. Many moons ago, before they decided to establish Israel as a country, I know you've read like the short version in the classroom and it was like, oh, the Holocaust happened. And then we realized that Israel needs to think. No, that's not how it went down. That's not how it went down at the F-all, okay? Catholics and Christians were going missing on Passover, and then they would find bodies, okay, across Europe, and they were able to trace them back to Jews. Blood libel, there weren't Jews, okay? These were Frankists.

And so just like Leo Frank killed Mary Fagan on Passover back in 1913 or 1914. I can't remember the exact date. He did it during Passover for a reason. This Frankish cult, which is masquerading behind Jews, still participates in this shit to this day, okay? Now, I can play you stuff like this from Alex Jones, who's been on The Rogan Show. The more you attack Israel, the stronger it gets because the cult that runs it manipulates and controls the white supremacists and all the groups that then come in.

Not all of them. So there's a bigger dialectic here. And there's good people in Israel, too. So here's another sort of bonus clip. This is Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson discussing, first of all, the arguments that weren't made when Douglas Murray was there, essentially saying why it's okay and good to talk to even the most sketchy people and discussing Alex Jones, of course, not defending his blatant anti-Semitism, but only obliquely saying that, you know, he's under a lot of mental strain because he's right about so many things. And of course, by the way, he did not predict 9-11. He only referred to the earlier 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Alex Jones did not predict 9-11. He only referred to the earlier 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Alex Jones did not predict 9-11. Well, and he's also channeling some stuff.

You can't call 9-11 in detail because you're super informed. Before the fact. He called it. How'd that happen? Right. How did he do that? No, he's channeling something. You think so? Yeah, of course.

There's like no other... I mean, tell me how he did it otherwise. I've asked him about it. How did you do that? At length. He had dinner in my barn recently. We were talking about this. How'd you do that? I don't know. It just came to me. And that's real. That is real. The supernatural is real.

There are people called prophets. And there are people who were prophets who weren't called prophets, but there are people who have information or parts of information, bits of information, visions of information come to them, and then they relay it. It's not from them. They received it. You know, this idea of, like, platforming people is a big one today. Why would you platform that person? First of all, platform. Oh, you mean letting an adult human being talk? Right.

I think that's not only allowed. I think that's the law. Not only that, I think it's important for us. It's even important to talk to people that are completely different than you, that don't agree with you at all. Well, it's especially important. Yeah. you that don't agree with you at all well it's especially important yeah and i have to say your willingness to platform or to have a conversation with alex jones i think was a revolutionary act actually not that everything alex jones says is right it's not not everything i say is right alex has gone through some real issues and one of the reasons why he's

gone through some issues is because that guy is uncovering real shit that's terrifying every fucking day and then of course they all they all buddy together so jake shields has not been on the rogan show since he's gone full anti-semite but dave smith goes on the jake shields show and dave dave smith will big up candace on twitter and big up jake shields who will big up Dan Bilzerian. Six million of them were killed in World War II by a genocidal monster. Yeah, I mean, that figure has been revised. But, you know, I believe that Jewish supremacy is the greatest threat to America. And I think it's the greatest threat to the world today.

I truly believe that. So, you know, now, if you're aware that she's saying something like this, you'd think, maybe it's just me, you would think something would switch inside of you and say, you know what, this is not fun and games anymore. This woman is really, there is such a thing. I understand we were anti-woke. I understand we got tired of everybody screaming racism and anti-Semitism and everything. But I never meant to say there's no such thing as anti-Semitism.

I never meant to say there's no such thing as anti-Semitism. I never meant to say there's no such thing as racism. And this is about as pure, concentrated anti-Semitism as you're ever going to find in the mainstream. I mean, you used to have to go into some weird Reddit chat room

or something, or whatever that site, Gab? Was that where the guy who shot up the Pittsburgh synagogue? Whatever it was, you didn't even be able to find this stuff. And now it's all over Twitter. So you think, you know what? Let me not have anybody have any false notions about me. Let me keep this woman at an arm's distance.

If only, as Daryl Cooper said, Hitler didn't like Kristallnacht because it was bad PR for him, made him look bad. If only because it makes you look bad. Have the sense of Hitler. Okay, play Candace hitting third rails. This is how they discuss Candace Owens.

The Candace Owens show that's on YouTube. Yeah, that's right. And it's doing better numbers than any of the shows on cable news. It's phenomenal. It's like they created a monster with her. When they fired her from the Daily Wire, they created a monster. Yeah, they sure did. She can't be stopped.

Yeah. Oh, no, no, no. There's no stopping Candace Owens at this point. Because she's hitting all the fucking third rails that no one wants to touch. All right. Now, and, you know, they were referring there to Richard McCrone being a man. But that's obviously not the third rails that she's touching. And I don't know.

It seems to me you just don't yuck it up in such a lighthearted way about a very prominent public figure saying such things about Jewish people or any group. I remember how, what a villain George Wallace was in the late 60s and early 70s because he was a racist or a KKK guy or anybody who spoke this way about black people was not fit for for polite company they were they were considered disgusting or maybe people were just pretending but you would

forgive dave if he kept a warm relationship with candace as long as he challenged her on some of these outrageous notions you know well it's his business if he keeps a woman relationship with her i would not pry into his private life and say how dare you have a warm relationship with this woman because i don't know their relationship i mean if my mother became a a vicious racist i don't know how I'd react to that. It would put a strain on our relationship, but I don't know if I would necessarily end my relationship with my mother.

I don't expect people to cut people off in a one-dimensional way because relationships are complex. But I don't think I could maintain a warm relationship with a friend who was saying things like that about any group. And why is it so funny? Like, why are they laughing about it? Like, why is it so jolly? Because they're happy, it would seem to me, about Candace's success.

They're laughing that she's one-upped all the more mainstream and the Daily Wire. And would they be saying that if she was saying that about anybody other than the Jews? That's a good question. I don't know. I mean, Dave has been not... He might.

When he came on our show, he said he didn't think the Civil Rights Act was necessary. I don't know. I don't want to police anybody. And this is a mistake everybody's making. I'm not in the slightest thinking that Joe Rogan needs to even stop doing this.

He can do what he wants. And I don't think he should be taken down. I don't think Spotify should buckle. I would defend them if they did. What I've been encouraging people to do is to take part in the marketplace of ideas, which means he wants to say this stuff fine and we should be shouting out

why it's awful and dangerous and ultimately bad for the moral fiber of America. Can you play Rogan embraces the marketplace of ideas? There's just no question that this stuff is being normalized. And again, the reason Murray won the debate is because they never said it's okay to normalize it. They all agree, yeah, this is dangerous.

None of them pushed back on Murray about that. You know, it's certainly never my intention when I talk to someone to try to get more views. It sounds crazy, but I'm only talking to people that I'm interested in talking to. And in Daryl's case, it's because I've been a listener of his podcast for years. That's it. This is like genuinely how I pursue things. That's why you're here like genuinely how I pursue things. That's why you're here.

I'm genuinely interested in your views as well. Even though you completely disagree with him. That's, I mean, this is the marketplace of ideas in real time. I agree. That sounds great, right? But then a few days later. Have you been there? Right, that's a good point.

Have you even... You haven't been? By the way, how is he in all these wars? Can I just go to wars? By the way, how are you... Are you allowed to just go to wars? You haven't... Can you just go to wars? Can you just go to...

Courtesy of going there. Can I just go to wars? I don't know. I have... You know, I don't mock people. Even people I had terrible fights with on this show, I don't mock them after they leave. It calls into question whether he

really did appreciate the conversation as he claimed. I mean, you could think he didn't like the debate, but I don't know. That's super shitty. I'm sorry to do that. After you've had somebody like Murray on, like,

it's just, it really undermines a serious conversation. I mean, comedians do trash talk each other. That's fine. But Murray's not a comedian. Number one. No,

no, but I'm saying comedians can't resist that stuff. Sometimes that's the only, that's the only thing that gives me pause. That's fine. That's fine. You can make jokes all you want. That doesn't read to me like that. That reads to me like you're really undermining a conversation that was meant to be serious.

Well, you know, I mean, I don't know. Is there more to that? Is there more to it? Or is he just, you know, I mean, I guess don't know is there more to that is there more to or if he's just you know i mean i guess you could argue he was just making fun of the guy's accent or was he making fun of the whole notion that you have to go somewhere i'm trying to give joe the benefit of the doubt oh they're making fun of his argument by by mocking his accent i i'm torn on this because although to be fair we have done that to Finkelstein. Well, we have made fun of his accent. Yeah, so I don't want to be a total hypocrite. No, I only did it to Finkelstein.

First of all, I don't think I did, but we only did it to Finkelstein. No, you didn't. The only reason we did, and I still discourage it, the only reason that happened is because he attacked us and called us Nazis and sacks of shits and called Coleman a Shabbos Goy. A black Shabbos Goy. All without provocation.

And then we, you know, I allowed... Oh, you had Michael Moynihan, who does a very, very good, oddly enough, you would think I would do a good Finkelstein, being closer to him, you know, and culturally and genetically. But Moynihan actually did quite a fabulous impression. That is true. Can you play the Ian? Just put up that image, Ian Carroll, JFK. It's just amazing because it's very important

to understand how all these guys, all they talk about is the Jews. Now, we went our whole lives. JFK was killed in 63? 62 or 63? I'm thinking, I think 62 at the end of the year. We went our whole lives thinking it was either the mafia or the CIA or Lyndon Johnson.

Israel was never even on the radar, right? Now the Jews killed JFK. And here's this tweet from Ian Carroll. This is when Trump finally released all the documents. Now all the rational people said the documents were a total non-story, just a total fizzle. There was nothing there. Ian Carroll writes,

from what I'm seeing at this point, it's way too early to pretend anyone has solved the JFK murder in any concrete way. But we definitely, can you read it down? He was killed, by the way, at the end of 63. Can you read it down? But we've definitely seen enough in the documents to indicate that Israel was involved in some way

and that there were efforts by the CIA over the decades to cover that up. It's unbelievable. Very interesting to see which influences, particularly on the right, are completely avoiding this fact or trying to pretend like that it is not what the documents say. Watch closely. You can learn a lot about the information space by watching how people respond to this type of sensitive information. And again, I'm not—do I get my driver's license, by the way?

And again, I'm not of the belief that Israel was the primary player, and I'm not saying we know for sure what happened. I'm just saying that sometimes silence speaks volumes. Silence, when they're not saying it, that you can read... Particularly when every American should be entirely dedicated to full disclosure of the facts. All that is not to mention that Israel has resumed bombing innocent civilians in a huge way this week

The modern state of Israel Particularly the deep state of Israel Is the elephant in the room right now And it's many decades past time Wow, we don't miss a fucking beat, huh? And finally, let me call Final bullshit on This is not to do with the Rogan Project

But this is part of the fair Actually, let me add to the fair-minded argument. One of the things that's bothered me very much about Dave Smith and his school of thought is what appears to me to be an irreconcilable conflict between their position on Israel and their position on Ukraine. So on Ukraine, their position is that Russia, Putin was somehow provoked. He was provoked because we promised not one inch, because we're constantly talking about NATO expansion, because Ukraine was trying to be sucked into an economic union with the West,

whatever is going on in the Donbass. We disrespected Russia, whatever it is. And so provoked was Putin that he should be able to keep 20 percent of Ukraine. Yes, of course, he wasn't right for doing it. Nobody should say it was OK to invade. But in the end, he should be able to keep 20% of Ukraine. Now, we have a conflict in Israel now, which is based apparently on the 1967 war, right? This is how the territories became occupied. Now, what was the provocation there?

Well, Egypt amassed 100,000 troops on the border of Israel. It evicted the UN peacekeepers. It blockaded the Straits of Tehran. It started engaging in genocidal

rhetoric. And it entered in, I think in May, it entered into a mutual defense pact with Jordan and Syria, obviously, you know, in apparent preparation for military conflict. Now, just 100,000 troops alone, you know, is far more provocation than anything Russia ever suffered, let alone the fact that Israel was a tiny little country and Russia is not exactly threatened existentially by Ukraine. And this, they do not see, that's not a provocation. So not provoked was Israel that they should not be able

to keep one square inch of the West Bank. Russia should be able to keep 20% of Ukraine because it was provoked and we need peace. But Israel, not a square centimeter. Now, they'll make the argument. And by the way, this is always bullshit when you hear this argument. Yes, but our tax dollars. When every time it says that the reason they care about something is because of American tax dollars, I call bullshit. Nobody really cares about our tax dollars. When every time it says that the reason they care about something is because of American tax dollars, I call bullshit.

Nobody really cares about the tax dollars. Those kids protesting in universities, they don't even know whether our tax dollars go to Israel, Hamas, Palestine. They don't even know. They don't care. But think about this irony here. What happens if you believe that argument, what happens, the outcome of that is then our allies get the shit end of the stick. Russia is not our ally. Ukraine is. Therefore, who are we to tell Russia what to do, what not to do? So they can keep 20% of Ukraine.

Israel is our ally. So even if they were provoked, our hands must be perfectly clean. So Israel should not be able to keep any little bit of the West Bank, even though they were attacked by Jordan. In the end, they were attacked. The West Bank was not part of Egypt. The West Bank was part of Jordan, and Jordan attacked Israel. Even after being warned, don't enter the war, our beef is not with you, they were warned twice. Jordan attacked Israel and was beaten back, even though Jordan, after the war, refused to negotiate a settlement. The three no's, even though they walked out of Camp David and they walked out with Abbas and they walked out with Obama, they should not be able to keep one century because our tax dollars should not be going to a cause like that. Our tax dollars should not be going to defend Israel

taking away Palestinian land. And by the way, I do think the Palestinians should have 100% of the West Bank and land swaps. That's almost precisely what they were offered. And this is the ultimate lie. And they know this. They know that the pressure point of the whole argument is that the Palestinians don't want peace.

Hamas says they're sworn to the destruction of Israel. So what will they say? Well, no, actually, if you see an interview here or an interview there, and maybe there was some document, Hamas has said they would accept a Palestinian state on the 67 borders. Aha. But what they won't accept, this is what they always Aha. But what they won't accept, this is what they always leave out, what they won't accept is Israel, meaning they'll accept

a Palestinian state on 67 borders, but they will not recognize Israel, they will not say an end to the conflict, it will not be demilitarized. If Israel would be so kind as to unilaterally withdraw to the 67 borders, they'll take it. That's all they say.

Now, what could be more dishonest than this? Now, Dave knows this. He knows this. I do have some... I know it makes a pair of habits. I will play it. It's so fucking dishonest. We know...

Talk about drawing board plans. Have you seen the drawing board plans? He's worried about Operation Unthinkable. Have you read the drawing board plans that Hamas had for Operation Unthinkable. Have you read the drawing board plans that Hamas had for Israel, divvying it up into bantustans and these people can stay, these people will be requisitioned as servants of the state,

these people will be killed. They had it all planned out of what they were going to do to Israel. They have constant rhetoric. Could you imagine if we had access to Arab archives the way we had access to Arab archives the way we have access to Western government minutes? Can you imagine the

stuff that they're saying? To say nothing of the fact that they say that at any given opportunity they'll commit another October 7th and another October 7th and another October 7th. So they were drawn, Hamas is, they'll withdraw to the 60s, they'll take a state on the 67 borders and they'll militarize it

and then the rockets will not only be in Gaza, they'll be right over Jerusalem. Can you play Hamas leader on two-state solution? When will this document be coming out? Very soon. And will it blame the Jews for communism, World War I and World War II? Ask me after this document is declared. In this interview, Osama Hamdan, you seem to be trying to imply that there are shifts going on in Hamas.

It seems like you're almost hinting about a two-state solution, about peace process, about changing the Hamas charter. It feels like you want to say more than you can. Let me just finish by trying to get some clarity with you. If I were to say, look, I interviewed Osama Hamdan, looks like Hamas now supports a two-state solution. Would I be wrong to say that? Is that inaccurate? Well, it will be inaccurate, in fact. I want to say clearly, I'm not in charge of saying yes or no for what you are concluding of my words, but I'm clear Hamas is clear about everything we have supported the Palestinian state on the lines of 4th of June 67 including the rights of

the right of return and Jerusalem is a capital that's a two-state solution no it's not it's well you can consider it whatever you want but this is what we have except nothing more than this you want, but this is what we have accepted. Nothing more than this, nothing less than this. This is clear. Isn't it clear? Yes, it's clear that you would support a Palestinian state on 1967 lines that would live side by side with Israel if Israel left you alone. Well, you have said that. That last point you have added from your side.

No, you said if Israel were to leave us alone we would accept a truth negotiations we would accept a state you said that at the start of this interview I'm just trying to clarify before we finish okay okay okay this is the point which I want to say now that means Hamas is talking politics while everyone is not trying to listen they have to listen. They have to listen well. They have to understand well. They have to act according to this. Not to act according to some stereotype ideas sent to them every day, every time by the Israelis against the Palestinians, against the resistance, against Hamas. All right. Isn't that hilarious?

No, it's not fucking hilarious at all. It's enraging. And it reminds me of, I've got to find this for you guys. And I'll play you one other thing, too. It reminds me of this, my girlfriend in college sent me this, why is it? Sent me this Peanuts cartoon with Lucy and Schroeder. Remember Lucy and Schroeder. Remember Lucy at the piano? Lucy says, Schroeder, if you were on

a concert tour in far-off places, would you call me every day? And Schroeder says, no, I'd never call you. She says, but you'd probably write, though, wouldn't you? He says, he doesn't even look up from the piano. He says, no, I'd never write to you. But you'd probably send me cute little postcards that would show where you were staying and sites you had seen.

No, I would never send you a postcard. But if you happened to meet someone in a hotel lobby whom we both knew, you'd probably tell him to say hello to me when we got back home, wouldn't you? And Shrota says, who knows, I might. And she goes, I knew you'd miss me. It's like he's trying to say, but if Israel were to do this, I knew you'd support a two-state solution. It's so pathetic. And then just two weeks ago, this guy, Dr. Moussa Abu Marzouk, who's a senior Hamas spokesman, there was a trial of some kind in the UK about whether Hamas is a terrorist group.

We will never recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist entity or its right to exist. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances, and the pressure, no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative

to the full and complete liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea. A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian state on the entire national Palestinian soil. So this is the thing. If you're Dave Smith and you want to make the case that Israel is doing X, Y, and Z wrong or being too brutal or whatever it is. I'm all ears. But if you're going to avoid this issue altogether or worse, be deceptive about it and point to some obscure admission by some Hamas guy that, yes, we take a 67 state, but play along with the totally false pretense that they're actually admitting to wanting a two-state solution, then you're not a credible person.

You're sloppy. It brings up something in the interview that I think is worth discussing, and it was on Piers Morgan, is that Dave Smith admitted Hamas is bad, Hamas should go ideally, and the hostages obviously should be released, but he doesn't feel that the price, that it's worth all the civilian casualties. And then him and Murray got into a whole argument about whether Israel is intentionally killing civilians. And having this argument over the meaning of the word intentional, which really to me doesn't seem very fruitful an argument. But listen, I mean, I don't know if you want to address that. I mean, Dave said, yeah, Hamas sucks, but there's so many civilian deaths that it's not worth it.

I'll address it this way. While I think I can be relatively well-informed about the historical points, about the political points, and about the current event progress, I'm not a friggin' expert in war. I don't know if there's a way to achieve security for the Jewish state, which they are certainly entitled to, and kill fewer civilians. If there is, I hope and pray Israel does it that way.

I've read certain experts who have either said there is no way or they avoid the question. We had Ken Roth on the show. He refused to answer the questions, famously. I think John Spencer thinks that they're doing as much as they can do. Yeah, many people think they're doing as much as they can do. But that is a question which Dave Smith is not entitled really to an opinion on. I mean, he can have an opinion on it,

but I don't believe he has any expertise he can bring to bear. I think what Dave Smith is really saying is that Israel should just live with this. That Israel should live with the rockets coming in. Israel should just continue to send their children to fight and die.

And that he... He might also say that Israel should just be disbanded. I wouldn't be... No, I don't think he'd say that, but I don't know. Maybe he would. And I would just answer to him that as opposed to the American model, the most elite people in Israel, the actual decision makers, they send their children to war. Gadi Eisenkot, who was in the war cabinet,

who was involved in this unnecessary action that Dave Smith did, his son died. When the decision makers in a Western free country are sending their own children to die, as opposed to the armchair warriors that we criticize in America, it speaks loudly to me. This guy's a military expert.

He knows what's at stake. He certainly loves his son. But he thought this is what was necessary, and his son died. So whatever answer Dave Smith wants to give me on that, he has to account for that thought. Is the guy an idiot? He wanted his son to die in the name of sadism. Is he misinformed?

What's going on there? And he's not unique. This is the thing. He's not unique. I mean, Netanyahu's brother died. And this is a common story. Well, it's everybody's story. Well, you would think Americans might suspect that, well, if you become influential, like in America,

you get bone spurs. You get this. You get that. That's not the way it is in Israel. They go and they fight and they die. And they do reserve duty as well. But reserve duty may or may not be dangerous. No, no. It 100% is dangerous.

So this speaks loudly and it But reserve duty may or may not be dangerous. No, no, 100% is dangerous. Okay. So this speaks loudly, and it demands respect. I'm sorry, but it does. I know Israelis. I know Israelis can be arrogant. I know that anybody in a position of power becomes sadistic. I'm sure there are Israelis who have murdered Palestinians. I'm sure there were decisions I would disagree with.

I'm sure there have been war crimes. We know that somebody was just dismissed for lying about the aid worker thing, the hospital, the ambulance. I'd also say that friendly fire, friendly fire, not accidental killing

of the enemy people who were clearly identified. It is extremely common. I think 10, 20, 30 percent of deaths are friendly fire in wars. Israel killed its own hostages. These things happen all the time. It's not a policy. There can be sadists, but to think that this is,

to imagine that there could be a war with the most moral armor you could imagine, that there wouldn't be tragedies of this nature, is utterly naive. Again, you don't need to be an expert. You need to be fair-minded. You have to have some soul to try to understand the people on

both sides of the story. And in this regard, I don't begrudge Daryl Cooper his attempt to try to understand and research World War II from behind the eyes of German people. I would like to understand that myself.

The problem is, I fear he does that with an agenda, because he clearly has at least indicated a sympathy for fascism, a sympathy for the Nazis, an antipathy for Zionism. So one wonders if he's doing this in the service of deeper understanding, or if he's doing it in the furtherance of a kind of an agenda. I mean, he's tweeted, you know, that tyranny is the answer. So the jury is out on Daryl Cooper. But to his credit, I should have said this earlier, he wrote a whole long piece saying he's finally going to separate himself from all the violent anti-Semites online. He did. The way I read it is, this is how I read it, is that Daryl has sympathy for their views,

but doesn't think that being obsessed with Jews is healthy or Christian or productive. But he didn't seem to me to be disgusted by them so much as to be like, yeah, I get it. The Jews are difficult, but, you know, that's how I interpret it. All right. We've got to wrap it up. Well, one more thing, whether you want to address it or not. At the end of the interview, or at the end of the discussion of Israel, Dave Smith mentioned Wolfowitz. He mentioned that he was talking to Wesley Clark in person.

Wesley Clark mentioned Wolfowitz and Richard Perl. Is that Richard Perl? The Jews, yeah. Yeah, mentioned those two names as being behind this strategy to take over several countries or to change several governments. And Douglas Murray just kind of laughed at the mere mention of Wolfowitz and Pearl. Was that fair? Dave was simply relating what he had been told by General Clark. Well, I don't know.

I don't know if it's fair. It could have been fair. It could have been not. If Murray was laughing, it's because he knows that whenever anybody discussed the neocons and their malign influence on U.S. government, they pick the Jewish names, right? They don't talk about Cheney or, I mean, there's any number of non-Jewish people from the president on down

who were very, very pro-war, pro-Afghanistan war and pro-Iraq war. But they always want to pick the Jews. Well, Dave was saying he simply was quoting what Clark had told him. If he's simply quoting it, then I suppose it's fair. What do you think? Yeah, I thought that Dave was right, that if he's just quoting. Now, of course, there might have been a lot of quotes, and Dave chose that one.

Listen, the Israel stuff, as I said earlier in the show, is very important. People should not take from this debate that, at least reasonable people believe, that Rogan should not be able to discuss Israel or be opposed to the war in Israel. Glenn Lowry is opposed to the war in Israel. Glenn Lowry is opposed to the war in Gaza. This is, this to me is within the realm of what needs to be respected as important and proper debate in this society. So, on the other

hand, once Joe Rogan wakes up and finds himself to have the biggest podcast in the world, it would be nice if he would try to present a balanced group of experts on the subject. But we don't require him to. The New York Times editorial page

has often not been balanced at all. And there's nothing more powerful than that. My problem is and has been the stuff that nobody can defend. The stuff that everybody knows is disgusting, vile, dangerous, dark, anti-Semitic, conspiratorial. It hasn't jumped towards anti-black racism, although Tucker Carlson delves in ugly stuff about immigrants, calls them dirty and, you know, compares them to animals or whatever he's done. I'm not 100% sure he compared to animals. He definitely called them dirty, but that's his tone.

And that, to me, all decent people should agree on because we all claim to agree on the basic principles. We all claim to say we despise racism. We all claim to say we despise anti-Semitism. We all claim to believe that people should have facts to back up what they say. As for Daryl, we all claim to believe that historians should show their sources. If you're going to quote from David Irving, you should identify that you're quoting for David Irving. You should leave breadcrumbs.

Everybody should be able to trace your research back to a source for anything that you want to claim. There's no disagreement about these things. So your behavior should comport with it. We don't all claim to be pro-Israel, right? Nobody says we all have to be pro-Israel. So sure, have on people who don't support Israel. But why are you having on people who stand for the things, stand against the things that

you claim to believe in? Even there, you say, have them on, sure, just as Donnie, you used to have on the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. Yeah, if you're going to challenge him, absolutely. You can have on Ian Carroll and say, when Ian Carroll says, Epstein is a deep state of Israel, you'd think somebody would say,

how do you know that? Where'd you get that from? It's like, nothing. Oh, Ian Carroll says it I guess it's true, Candace is awesome she's touching the third rails yes, I agree, it's a dark force as Dave says, or whatever the words were

but I'll still yuck it up with Candace and I'll still go on Jake Shields' show and I'll still tell you, Nick Fuentes I don't think you're an anti-Semite there's no limit there's no fucking limit Shields' show, and I'll still tell you, Nick Fuentes, I don't think you're an anti-Semite, and I'll still, you know, I mean, there's no limit. There's no fucking limit. And again, as far as Dave going on Jake Shields' show, you would have

been okay with it had he challenged Dave, had he not been so buddy-buddy with him. Yeah, of course. I'm going to cut this down to a... No, I guess that's it. You think it was boring? No, I don't think it was boring no i don't think it was boring at all i think it's as good a good an analysis uh of the debate as i've heard yeah i think it was excellent all right well everybody write your uh uh uh don't don't press stop yet uh write your um emails to podcast.com.

Good night, everybody. Wait, wait. Tiana? Can you just take... Everybody, just look at me like I'm talking. Okay? Just like Dan. Don't nod.

Don't be... I just need like 10 seconds of Dan and 10 seconds of Perry. I'll just looking at me like I'm talking so that I can edit and have something to pivot off on the editing. And then when you got 10 seconds of each of them, then you're going to get 10 seconds of me frowning at Perrielle. I'm going to start with Perrielle. Okay. So just keep looking at me, Perrielle. Get close up, Perrielle.

Don't make, just look like. Figure out how to get videos up that don't come up with the navigation bar that can play, that can be paused with the space bar. It's a matter of clicking in between programs. That's why there's a. Whatever it's a matter of, I need you to figure it out because you should be able to just bring it up and not have the navigation bar there. You should be able to pause it with the space bar. I think

it does pause with the space bar, doesn't it? It does, but if you immediately speak, I can't hit pause because I'm waiting to cut back to you. I'm in a different program, which means I'm clicking between windows. I see other podcasts shot here.

They don't have this problem. So we've got to figure it out. Ask one of the guys who knows how it can be done. Maybe ask Mike. If we need another keyboard. Maybe we need two monitors. Yeah, I'll ask him. All right.