The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - The Sam Harris Joe Rogan Dust-up, with Ami Kozak

Episode Date: April 11, 2025

Taped the day before the Rogan-Murray-Smith debate, are bigots and quacks being normalized on the biggest shows in the world? And, what are the consequences? Ami Kozak: https://www.youtube.com/@amikozak_official

Welcome to Live from the Table, the official podcast for the world-famous Comedy Cellar. I am here with Noam Dwarman, the owner of the Comedy Cellar. Hello, hello. We have a very special, I'm Perrielle, and we are here with a very special guest today, Ami Kozak, musician, comedian, impressionist. His podcast is called Ami's House. He has a band called Distant Cousins. First of all, thanks for having me. It's great to be here.

Yes, go ahead. I'm very happy to have you here. I just want to say that I just asked ChatGPT during Peril's introduction, what do you call a vocal inflection which goes up at the end of a sentence? Anything that's as possible. ChatGPT actually

made an anti-Semitic comment that I'm not going to repeat, but then it said it's called a rising intonation, more specifically when it's used in statements. It's often referred to as up-talk or up-speak. Oh, that's a good title for something.

I mean, seeing all these gurus around giving coaching on how to like, you know, be assertive and make sure your words land and are affirmative and are assertive, that they land down instead of up, if you want to be super agreeable, or strong and assertive. Absolutely. But you know what?

Any masculine person knows that without being taught. I actually believe that. Do you want me to be more masculine? No, for a woman, it's okay. When a man does it, I... Like Ezra Klein. Yes. I mean, we all know this, right?

And this is what's interesting, right? Everything is up. And with Democrats, what they're really seriously good at is policy, but it gets too caught in the technicals of policy. You're totally right. Now listen, with the policy of Ezra Klein, I don't think he has a lisp. No, there's something there.

But he has vocal fry. Can you do the fry? I didn't mean to put you through your paces. A little bit there. It's this... If you can get an Ezra Klein imitation together, and God bless the guy, he's actually a force for good right now in politics because he's kind of pouring cold water and giving the Democrats a slap across the guy. He's actually a force for good right now in politics because he's kind of pouring cold water

and giving the Democrats a slap across the face. The thanks I needed, that skin bracer. But I can't listen to him. I can't listen to more than five minutes of the guy. Don't say that. Because? Don't say that. If he's saying good things, then...

It's my shortcoming. It's a pet peeve. If the intonation goes up, it's just, he's triggered. It is a visceral reaction I have. To my voice? To the sounds of my voice? No, to a...

Well, actually, when I hear Ezra Klein, I just picture you. No, and I know this is wrong, and I know people, this is actually, this is probably the most bigoted thing you've ever heard me say on this podcast. I know it's wrong. And I know people, this is actually, this is probably the most bigoted thing you've ever heard me say on this podcast.

I know it's wrong. I know that it's wrong. I'm actually confessing to a shortcoming. I'm confessing to a foible. But I'm saying that I do have that reaction. I don't know where it comes from. This is the problem with modern day masculinity. Don't listen, because that sounds like you're making fun of gays.

No, no. I'm not making fun of gays. There's an impediment, a wide tongue thing happening where what's the problem is that what republican establishment has reinforced in a lot of modern men is an aversion to a voice that goes up at the end and it's a problem now i i don't but but to go deeper with it because i do believe in you know um just like in the animal kingdom, there's the mating dance and there's just certain things that no matter what you want to say, the opposite sex responds to. And one of the things obviously they have to respond to is masculinity. They have to. There's just no way that women don't naturally respond to masculinity.

And they've got this generation of beta or gamma males. And Pariel, as a woman with a libido, don't you find it weird when a man takes on a metrosexual, whatever you want to call it? I mean, I think that- You want a man to be a man, don't you? I think that different people are attracted to different things.

Me personally, I like a pretty masculine guy. Me personally, but I'm also not. Who doesn't? A lot of people. I'm also not like a super delicate woman either. I'm a little bit like trashy. Masculine. There's always

though the exception is like the Prince, Michael Jackson effeminate, confident, suave sort of thing that women go crazy for. No. No. Explain it. Michael Jackson, women did not go crazy for. Children.

Prince. Vice versa. But Prince, yes, but Prince was not actually what we're describing here. He's androgynous. Prince was androgynous, but Prince had a seething sexuality about him. He was also, I mean, you can't, that's not a good example. Because he was like a genius

musician and a celebrity of like... But Prince was like a porn movie. Prince exuded sex. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Ezra Klein is a close second. I think that people... I'm sorry. Purple Rain? I didn't even know that. I think that people... I'm sorry. Purple Rain?

I didn't even know that. Purple Rain? We have friends in common. I'm sorry. I feel terrible. Purple Rain? By the way, I saw your Douglas Murray imitation. It was so good.

Was Douglas Murray ordering breakfast or something like that? Yes. Well, no. I was very hungry. You know, you do enough podcasts and you get on Lex Fridman and you talk about the fall of the West and you talk about democracies and death cults, it works up quite an appetite.

I'm not so public about my food choices and preferences, but when you're hungry and you've got nothing but a diner in the middle of Austin, Texas, you order what you can. So, yes, well, you do. He's got a little bit of Robert Shaw telling the story in Jaws. Shark's eyes. Yeah, the shark's eyes.

He could do it. He could do a Jaws remake, right? When you're looking at the eyes of the sharks and many different men went into the water and they realized the sharks were part of ISIS. Anyway. Radical great whites. And that's a problem. They're no longer whites. They're from a different

part of the world. Yeah, thank you. Very good. I'm not even sure. How do we know you? From Twitter? The world of the internet's an interesting place. You have what they call IRL in real life and then there's so much cross-section now where everybody's familiar even with people they don't actually meet

or know in person so i think you know we've both you know crossed paths with different figures uh in this uh space in the last 18 months you know talking about israel anti-semitism and just i've uh i've changed my mind in israel by the way yeah i'm anti oh okay good good let's start there. I mean, I debated Candace Owens. I'm the comedian who debated Candace Owens, the famous Muslim quarters clip. That's maybe where you first saw me.

That one got around a bit. So when I'm walking through Jerusalem and you see, and they say these are the Muslim quarters, this is where the Muslims are allowed to live, that doesn't feel like a bastion of freedom to me. So I guess... Oh, I don't think it's where they're allowed to live in jerusalem i think it's that there are there's an armenian quarter it's not saying the armenians can only live here

it's that there are communities just like there's a jewish community in in jersey here and there's a muslim community in here i don't think you know to my understanding it's not restrictions within israel proper i think it is where they have i think it is where they have i mean at least that's the rabbi who was taking me around he said these are the muslim quarters think it is where they have, I mean, at least that's what the rabbi who was taking me around, he said, these are the Muslim quarters. So this is where the Muslims. Or she called it the Muslim quarters,

not the Muslim court. And she thought, she thought it meant like it was like a living quarters, a holding pen. So it was a revealing moment in a lot of ways. And we can talk about that. Um, I'll tell you what I do want to talk about. Yeah.

Are you, uh, following the latest, uh, dust up between Sam Harris and Joe Rogan? Yes, I am. That and Dave Smith making the rounds and all that kind of stuff, I find is an interesting place where it's sort of like now we're at a point where,

post-October 7th, we're looking at where the chips have fallen with these competing narratives, and there's sort of this, like, you know, there's the far left, the far right, and the movable middle. And we're all kind of competing for that if we're talking about messaging and getting the word out of what the truth of the matter is. There's a movable middle, and I think people confuse casting aspersions on what they mean. Aspersions means like a detriment. What they mean for the extremities of these movements versus the movable middle. Sometimes they use the wrong aspersions and cast them at the movable middle, which is self-defeating.

And there's a lot to discuss in the woke left, the ascendant woke right that I've been concerned about. And I think we've crossed paths in discussing some of those things. Okay, let's talk about this. By the way, just, Tiana, take down that thing until we're ready to show it. I want to give away the prize. It's called Bury the

Lead. L-E-D-E. I know how to spell it. There was a guy, Nathan Robinson, you know, this far left guy. And I, of course we all make these mistakes. I just remember cause he's so, he's so arrogant and nasty and he accused somebody of burying the lead and he spelled it L E A D. And I was like, Oh, you know, and I, and I, and I didn't correct them because I know, I know that's such a,

if you do that, it's bad karma. Someone's going to catch you doing the same dumb mistake. But you'd think he would have known. Anyway, but the worst time to misspell bury the lead is when you're accusing somebody of burying the lead. So anyway, so the – yeah, the Ascended – listen, you may not read it right now, but I've been in a very, very dark place the last 48 hours about this. I actually spent a lot of the night last night watching Ian Carroll videos,

and it was, I couldn't wait to go watch Ezra Klein after this. It really made me feel sick to my stomach. This was because I was watching it because of the Sam Harris thing. Do you think you can give a good encapsulation for the viewers what's going on, what Sam Harris said? Yes.

Well, you basically have a... Most recently, you're seeing the elements of what we call the woke right, this sort of new ascendant, some of it very unapologetically anti-Semitic commentary happening on Twitter. Now, who coined that term? Was it Constantine Kisison? I think it was Lindsay.

James Lindsay? James Lindsay, who did coin the term, and then people like Constantine also popularized it. Some people thought it was just some trollish slander, trollish insult to use on people who hate the woke left but are now emerging at these as these america first woke right people and figures jake shields jackson hinkle candace owens is kind of in that category too where it really is positioned as very similar to woke left in the sense that while woke left has very simple diagnoses for all the world's problems they blame

the patriarchy or radical feminism zionism, capitalism. The woke right does the same thing, same animating principles, but they just are more explicit about the antisemitic part where they blame the Jews and by extension, everything the Jews control. Capitalism, they brought in radical feminism, every bad leftist idea is suddenly Jewish. So it all kind of is rooted in a lot of antisemitism, but it's not animated by values and virtue and principles it's tribal it's the same and and so i i don't that's that's why it's woke and it's just now on the right and it's really troubling what's been going on now is that some of these ideas for a long time i thought to myself they can be ignored you know if candace wants to descend into the deep dark corners of the internet internet, let her do it. And as long as it's

in these Twitter spaces with some of the world's worst, vicious anti-Semites, where they can shoot the shit and kibitz about how much Jews are to blame for everything, fine, let them do it. That's a Twitter spaces. We can ignore it. But once it starts to reach these mainstream platforms, and you see Candace now on Theo Vaughn, or Carroll on Rogan and even the Daryl Cooper episode, which I think is a little bit different, which we can talk about. But you start to see these things becoming a little more mainstream. You know, you go between these two different corners where we want to be able to discuss difficult ideas, even offensive ideas. But also Jordan Peterson says, things get bad one small step at a time. Gradually, all of a sudden you find yourself in a space where think about the things you can say about Jews now

that you couldn't say five years ago, not because of cancel culture, but because of basic decency. All of a sudden you find yourself in this place where the Overton window has moved so much. It's so desensitized. Kanye West is just wearing swastikas with very little consequence. And that was very concerning. Now there's different ways to react to this. There's the overreactions that you saw pre-October 7th from, I think, Jews on the progressive left, where they threw the term at everything to the point where it loses its-

Threw what term? Anti-Semitism. At everybody who misspoke, everybody who was ignorant, everybody who was curious. It's like anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism, one size fits all. And when all you have is a hammer, everything who was curious. It's like anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism, one size fits all. And when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.

Nail, yeah. And that was the tool. And then it loses all its cultural power. And that's the overreaction. And then there's the, what I see now is the underreaction, the lack of reaction, the apologetics, pretending it's not there. That's wrong too. To be discerning, you should react.

I'm reacting to it. Not over, not under, but actually reacting. And in order to have credibility and integrity in this space, you have to react to what you're seeing in front of you. The way Sam Harris is approaching it, I think is misguided because for years, Sam Harris used to go off on Glenn Greenwald and all these people who misrepresented his views on Islam, the way Ben Affleck would portray him on Bill Maher about Islam, completely misrepresenting him or using ad hominem attacks. But then he's using those very same tactics on people who are having conversations he's not comfortable with.

I don't think he's doing that, but I'll let you. But when he says Joe Rogan can have two journalists there with him at all times and pay them each a million dollars, I'm like, Joe, he could you could on your and not you uh sam you could have it on your podcast too you don't do that you don't feel you need to do that it just pot to me it rings as like when you're met with ideas you disagree with or conversations you don't like to be to insult and call people names or to dismiss it and say it's beneath and say it's just causing harm rather than tackle the idea. I'm surprised to hear you say that stuff.

Well, then I think I'm for Gad Saad's response to Sam Harris, where he came out and he said, you know, like, I've been an advocate for all the same causes that I've been an advocate for, and very pro-Jewish, very pro-Israel. But he said, you know, if there's things on Twitter I don't like and there are people coming at me,

I don't, my instinct is not to go to Elon Musk and complain. I ignore these people. I don't engage with them. But I don't call for them to be arrested or canceled or things like that. So I get the argument on free speech apollotism that Gad Saad is talking about, but just that Sam Harris is very consequentialist about it, that we can have free speech as long as it doesn't lead to this or this or this. He didn't – well, I don't think he said that at all and i think in his response he said he said from my understanding he just said that the conversations joe rogan's had joe rogan is having is irresponsible it's leading to real bad consequences in our society and what therefore i don't know like he shouldn't have

them or he should have journalists on to regulate his conversations. No, he said, I think he meant you should have a staff. So let me tell you where I come from. So I just thought, whatever you think about his position, to the general public, it looks wildly hypocritical and inconsistent. Well, the general public,

it thinks it's hypocritical because it's being spun that way. And I think he could do a better job actually combating what's being said. And that's more effective to the movable middle than calling dave a misinformation artist and i don't think dave should respond by calling him a fucking clown either i get i think both are defeat or self-defeating well this is hard for me because you know obviously this is this is surrounds the comedy community and i don't i don't want to make enemies. So I guess we should start by saying, I don't know Joe Rogan,

but everybody who knows him likes him. And even Sam Harris was very clear about not wanting to call him an anti-Semite, or Sam kind of accusedive of unwittingly participating in this deleterious process. Yeah. So, to the extent that it's possible to talk about this without, you know, being read as accusing him of being anti-Semitic, I would like to try to do that, because I'd be shocked if he were anti-Semitic. I think with him, you know, the Occam's razor is

if you have a guy who just a couple weeks ago was trying to explain why the moon landing was probably fake, you have a guy who believes, well, I think what most people consider is like the really far end of the curve of conspiracy theories, the most outlandish conspiracies there are. He's open to them at least if he doesn't.

So why wouldn't he believe five different conspiracies about the Jews, right? So you don't have to be an anti-Semite if you're that. But unfortunately conspiracy theorists always find themselves, in the end, embracing anti-Semitic ideas. But the first time this came to my attention was way back when there was a conversation with that woman, Crystal Ball, was that her name? Yeah. Was on the Rogan Show,

and they were discussing Ilhan Omar, who had said, well, she said a couple things. She had said about how the Jews are hypnotizing the world, but I think the particular comment they were discussing was that it's all about the Benjamin. Now, Omar had meant that Israel was controlling the government with money. And Sam and Crystal Ball, you know, was defending Ilhan Omar, and Sam Harris said, and got attention,

he says, come on, that's not anti-Semitic. Everybody knows Jews are into money like our Italians are into pizza. You mean Joe Rogan said this, not Sam Harris. Yeah, everybody knows that, Joe Rogan said, everybody knows that Jews are into money like Italians are into pizza. And I was like, hmm.

You know, first of all, Ilhan Omar's remark wasn't about Jews being into money. She was about Jews using money, buying influence, which is not the stereotype of the Jews, you know, the money-grubbing Jews. And then, he's just kidding, he's just kidding. And it's true. In the comedy world, me,

we make jokes like that all the time. Of course. But if you gave me sodium pentothal, I would have had to say at the time, yes. But he wasn't really making a joke. He was making a point. Yeah. Like he could have said, everybody knows Jews are into money like priests are into little boys. You know, the point is that, I mean, humor can be humor and humor can also be a tool to make a very serious point that you mean 100% and I felt at the time I said

does he actually mean that but you know what alright whatever somebody thinks Jews are into money you know I could but I think yeah so that was it and then you know it and then you know it

it um and then actually um uh um uh Eric Weinstein I think actually did

tweak Joe a little bit about that on the show I think he did I'm not 100% sure but you know that was

that was certainly nothing to base an opinion on but then as you just as as you were I became alarmed But, you know, that was certainly nothing to base an opinion on. But then as you, just as you were, I became alarmed in the last, you know, well, and then actually during the vaccine stuff, and this is where it gets to where Sam Harris point. During the vaccine time, Rogan was bringing on people who were saying that the vaccine didn't work. Now, that's where Sam Harris is saying, this is irresponsible, because unless you're 100% sure this vaccine is not going to save lives, X number of people are going to take your word for this, they're not going to get vaccinated, and they're going to die. And actually, we do know that in states where they had less vaccine uptake,

they had higher rates of death. I don't think there's anybody serious who doesn't understand that the vaccine does save lives if you're in a certain cohort of people who are vulnerable to COVID. Yes, they might've been right that healthy 25-year-old peoples didn't need to be taking it.

But anyway, so that- I'm not sure if history right now favors that Sam Harris position, though, right? I mean... I think, no, this is the problem. I don't think there is even 0.1% argument by anybody credible that a 60-year-old should not be taking the vaccine.

Right. But that wasn't the argument being made then. The argument being made then was everyone should take the vaccine, and if you had questions of discernment, you were a skeptic. No, that was one of the arguments being made. In culture? The culture was very... No, was everyone should take the vaccine. And if you had questions of discernment, you were a skeptic. No, that was one of the arguments being made. In the culture?

The culture was very... No, but one of the other arguments that Rogan just said a couple weeks ago, to take a totally ineffective experimental vaccine. And then he had on Dr. Malone, who was a quack, who said at the time, I know, that part of the reason we don't know what's going on with the vaccine is because Israel made a deal with Pfizer to suppress any information of bad vaccine outcomes. And he called it Fizreal. I said, oh, that's, you know, that's, I just, I noted it, you know. And then the deluge came with Candace Owens and Jake Shields and Dan Bilzerian.

He also had Sanjay Gupta on to try to make the point, and he just botched it. Who? Gupta botched it. Yeah, yeah. He had Gupta on. He said, let's make your case. Rogan was good. And all Gupta said was, take a vaccine, Joe.

Please. I'm here to get you to take a vaccine. Gupta was terrible. And he was terrible. So I just, just in defense of that whole conversation, but you're saying what was troubling was that moment when he brought up Fisrael? No, I think bringing Gupta on is exactly what Sam Harris was calling for. And he did.

But it's notable because you can remember it so clearly. It's not the normal process, right? And then so then, this is just like, you know, biting at Joe's heels around the edges, little kind of criticisms I had of what was going on. It wasn't like any huge matter, and I would forget about it shortly.

But then what's happened now is, as you said, you have people like Candace Owens saying things like, every year at Passover, Christian babies disappear, their bodies are found, the Jews are doing this. Frankists. Frankists, this Jewish... Very clever. Frank is called hiding behind Jews, going to this very day. But in Israel, which was established as a haven for...

Israel, she pronounces it. Israel. So, now, and then you have this guy like Ian Carroll saying things about the Talmud allows rape, and that

Jewish mobsters control the country, and Epstein is a stain on the Jews because Jewish billionaires control everything. 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. And so that's a dark stain on Israel and on the Jewish people, if you own it. And I don't know what else, Jews did 9-11, which of course, you know, not every conspiracy is

easily debunked, but we all should remember that it wasn't that long ago that bin Laden's letter went viral, where bin Laden took responsibility for 9-11. So you gotta, you know, work that out. Of course, Ian Carroll says, I'm not saying all Jewish people, but you have to own, Epstein, all Jewish people in the same sentence. Well, they all say something like, not all Jewish people, my Jewish friends. I'm only doing this for the Jews. The Jews would be so much better. I want what's best for the Jews.

It's a total tick. Yes. And at that point, you would think that Rogan would cordon himself off from people that are what I would have thought were indefensible. Just like when there was a famous comedian years ago who got caught on tape, you know, saying horrible anti-black things. I removed that person from my orbit. I didn't want to go on his network anymore. I just, you know, you have to have limits. So, and then also, and Sam kind of, of you know mixed the two issues also you have just last wrote last last week rogan had on the air um a doctor who said that polio is not real

now again and i think that's what what what sam is saying is like listen if you're gonna go on super spreading the idea that polio is not real. You need to have some people on staff to say, yes, Joe, we checked this out. You're on strong ground here. Now, Sam Harris may feel that he's capable of doing that himself on scientific matters, or he may actually, I'm sure he does, actually consult people. But he also doesn't have a steady diet of bringing on,

for lack of a better word, fringe opinions about medicine and things like this. So that's where we're at. And I don't think Sam at all meant to say that you shouldn't be having these conversations with people. He's saying if you're going to be a super spreader of very, very radioactive ideas, unless you're sure,

in other words, there's two ways to look at it. You can say, well, Joe, I assume you believe this. You're standing behind it. Or if you're saying you're just having a conversation, well, okay, then check out some of this stuff before you say, well, let me just limit it to this one thing. What do you think about having a doctor on?

You're the biggest show in the world. And without any challenge, let the doctor display or promulgate her view that nobody has to be afraid of polio. It's not a real disease.

How would you criticize that without without the and you know the the crazy right-wing people say you don't believe in free speech you're asking me yeah like how would you criticize that person would you criticize someone for bringing out a doctor in the biggest show in the world that says polio is fake well here's the thing i just think it's a little bit of a strange position to take to say here's what you should do joe rather than i have a big podcast too i'll have somebody on we'll unpack that and this will be my contribution or i'll go on the show and confront why i had issues with those things because unless someone's i think if someone's not in good faith if someone's hateful if someone's bigoted and anti-Semitic proudly, like, I'm discerning to say that person's not engageable and worth platforming or engaging with, and to do so and not push back is pretty irresponsible. I'm shocked to hear you say that.

Why is that? Because people are going to die if they think polio's not real, and it's not true. Right. Well, let's just rewind a little bit because i mean every human is responsible to take into account the the the predictable outcomes of their behavior i think we're a little too preoccupied on trying to prove like who's hateful or harmful versus anything about hate no or versus who is right or wrong or what's true right let's prove what's true versus what's hateful and a lot lot of the times, in terms of Joe and noticing a pattern or whatever,

to me, it's kind of absurd to think that Joe Rogan is in any way anti-Semitic. Oh, we're talking about the polio. No, no, but in all those cases where he mentioned the joke and all that kind of stuff, I think it's like... Yeah, but let's stick to the polio case because I think let's get past that. Right.

And then we can get to the anti-Semitic cases, which are harder. Okay. Well, I think in terms of we're attributing where things stand right now, like the medical establishment in general, in terms of post-COVID, does have a lot to account for with the lack of trust in the medical apparatus post-COVID. When they told everyone, you have to stay home or you're going to kill grandma, and then the BLM riots go out and everyone's out and about and they don't say anything about it. You have to own the fact that in that time, people lost a lot of trust and faith in the medical establishment that got it wrong. I spoke about that on my show for two years, before anyone was talking about it. So for Joe now to be curious, as he's always been

about alternative ideas, which has always been the nature of his show to be curious about different kinds of opinions opinions that go against the grain right or wrong his ability to engage in those conversations like what do you want to say i'm not saying it should be without scrutiny or pushback i would if i were sam harris rather than just saying he's just doing a lot of damage like if he has what to say go on joe and explain it have a guest on encounter it he's got a platform too so i don't know like like what are you saying restrict the speech and not say he like i'm just saying what's the alternative to to bad ideas i'm saying that if you're going to that's funny i always felt this way i mean mike huckabee was hawking some i don't remember what it was i'm like how dare you listen i mean we always have looked And it's funny, I always felt this way. I mean, Mike Huckabee was hawking some,

I don't remember what it was. And I'm like, how dare you? Listen, I mean, we always have looked down our noses at anybody hawking bullshit supplements. What did the people in the carts that used to go around from town to town, the hucksters that would sell elixirs, did we not think that people selling elixirs were engaged in some sort of morally questionable behavior?

This is a cousin to selling elixirs, unless, in good faith, you say, no, I looked into this. No, I think this is legit, in which case you could be wrong. But if you're just going to say, this is kind of titillating. Polio's not real, and the vaccine doesn't help anybody.

And I heard that laetrile cures cancer. Let's have an episode where somebody says, you know what? You know how to cure your cancer? Stop with that conventional medicine. Just take peach pit extract. Are we taking agency away from all these consumers that are just going to listen to this and then do it? That's a different matter. I'm not taking agency away from anybody. I'm saying realistically, if I put somebody on this show that says, stop with your chemotherapy, stop with your cancer medication, just take this peach pit extract.

People say, no, did you look into this? What do people take you seriously? But they have a right to say, it's my body, it's my treatment. I'm not saying you're telling them what to do, but we can also have a little faith in people to say, that was an interesting episode. I'd like to hear alternative opinions or whatever.

And they're not just going to go and not take a polio vaccine. But we know they go and not take the vaccines because we saw in the red states, they don't take the vaccine. Far fewer take the vaccine. Yes. And more die. I would say also that the people pushing for the vaccine

on that side should have allowed for a little more discernment and nuance to say, if you're really, really old, take the vaccine. If you're younger, they wouldn't do that. So you're responding. Also, Joe Rogan, in a sense, in those conversations, is reacting to a reality where there's been an immense erosion of trust in the medical establishment.

He's not at fault for that. The guy selling the elixir is not at fault. It's just the idiots who bought it from him. Well, if you're being intentionally deceptive and then selling somebody something under false pretenses, you're committing fraud. Are you saying Joe is committing fraud by talking to somebody

with an alternative point of view on polio? No, I said that it's a close cousin of that because this is what Sam is saying, is that if you know that the person taking the elixir or the person simply following the medical advice of the guest that you're putting on your show, if you know the outcome is the same and you know, maybe I'm just saying,

Sam's saying, check into it. Like you're not telling somebody about you know, about hair dye that, you know, you're talking about very consequential matters and consequential matters have to be treated with respect. But I'm surprised on your position because it seems from on Twitter and stuff that assuming good faith here, the, the solution to bad ideas is better ideas of bad speech is good speech. Sunlight's the best disinfectant. Do you not subscribe to those principles? Of course I do, but the whole point of...

So Sam shouldn't just say, oh, this is just bad and harmful. He should put some sunlight on it. I'm sure he will, and others have already. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. It's not an overnight process. Listen, this is what I said. We all know the ACLU used to defend the Nazis' right to speak.

Skokie, yeah. We defend the Nazis' right to deny the Holocaust. And we know that sunlight is the best disinfectant for that. That is not an argument to defend the person who's out there denying the Holocaust. Right. Nor is it an argument for the person to present the person

who denies the Holocaust unless that's the point you want to contribute to society. Now, you can have a debate, have someone on to debate the person who wants to deny the Holocaust. If it's a matter, if you think you are- Exposing something.

If you want to be the sunlight and the disinfectant, which is what you would think we all want to be. We all want to contribute to the good of the marketplace of ideas. We don't want to be the guy who contributes the bacteria that the sunlight has to now come and fix, do we? But you want to leave the marketplace of ideas open to dissent and disagreement. It is. In other words, let's say there's a doctor, hypothetically, who was going on, I don't know if this was in the 90s, but was saying, I'm telling you, thalidomide is dangerous for these pregnant women. And someone said, are you kidding me? The medical establishment, the FDA has approved this medicine.

It's helping with nausea. It's helping so many women. If they stop taking it, they're going to get very sick. And then what happened? We had thalidomide babies, right? So there are cases where people sound the alarm. In some cases, they're wrong. In some cases, they're right.

You want to leave it open to inquiry and debate. I don't know if the polio question is comparable to Holocaust denial. It's closer to Holocaust denial than it is thalidomide babies. And I don't agree with her. I don't agree with the things being claimed, but we're so afraid of wrong ideas that we, what? What's the alternative to challenging those ideas that are being espoused on Joe Rogan?

Yeah, but we know unfortunately that conspiracy theories look here we are in 2025 America and these anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are at a

They're resonating, yeah. All time high. 90 year high. Absolutely 90-year high. Absolutely. So there's your sunlight's the best disinfectant. Sunlight is a treatment. No, the people perpetuating those to me, like ridicule, satire, making fun of them,

that's what I'd like to do. Yes, but you're not... And if Joe had Jake Shields on tomorrow, I'd be more in line with what you're saying. Where it's like, I guess I'm just drawing the line of my degree is a little different as to who I'm assessing as real harmful figures that have no

redeeming social value or intellectual value. He did have Daryl on. Let's talk about that one. And Daryl said that Hitler was against Kristallnacht. And if you have a more sophisticated understanding of Daryl's arguments, you know that this comes from David Irving,

that the general argument is that Hitler was protective of the Jews. Like in 1938, which is pretty far down the line, when Kristallnacht happened, it was kind of a nationwide pogrom against the Jews in Germany that was launched primarily by Goebbels, the propaganda minister. But there was outrage in the German cities. People in Berlin, a lot of the places were outraged by what was going on. And Hitler had to actually get on the phone with Goebbels and say, cut this shit out. This is not good. Not because he loves the Jews all of a sudden, obviously, but because this is bad propaganda. Well, as I mentioned earlier, there was Bergen-Belsen, there was Dachau, there was Buchenwald,

and subsequently, of course, the great big Holocaust legend has been built up into its almost impregnable form now, where the whole world now believes that one man, Adolf Hitler, mad, of course, one madman, Adolf Hitler, killed six million people in Auschwitz, etc. On this great big romantic notion, which is kept alive for various reasons of international finance and high politics and statesmanship, has been kept alive because nobody dares attack it. But I've been heartened in my approach by the knowledge

that the documents that I had found about Hitler and the Jewish question, remarkably enough, all the genuine documents about that showed him extending his hand to protect them. So anything that had been done to them had been done by people far lower down the scale, ordinary common criminals. We have to explain, you see, that the documents which do exist in the file, the genuine documents, show Hitler trying to protect the Jews. The Night of Broken Glass, that famous event in November 1938 when thousands of Jewish shops were smashed and burned down and looted and plundered. 60 or 70 Jews were murdered by individual gangsters that night.

100 or 200 synagogues were burnt down. We have to explain how it is that when Hitler gets the word of that at two o'clock in the morning, I know because I've spoken to all the people who were with him at that precise moment, I know how he got the news. He pulls out every organ stop to try and stop this madness. He said at other times that, Daryl said, that Churchill was installed by

Zionists to pursue Zionist interests and fight World War II. And if you know the full David Irving argument, David Irving says the Jews bought Churchill. All he had to do, they gave him money and all he had to do in return was turn his guns from this direction

towards Germany. From 1936 onwards, he was financed by a little secret pressure group called the Focus. They funded him. They weren't all Jews. They were primarily Jewish, but they were also left-wing socialists and left-wing conservative members of parliament. The then chairman of the British, of the Shell Petroleum Company, wrote out a cheque for Churchill of the order of 40,000 pounds, which in modern day money would be probably about 700,000 dollars, gave it to him as a gift. He was Jewish, it was a Jewish gift to Churchill, they bought him. The price was small because Churchill was by by that sum of money, bought. He was hired. He became a hired help. The only thing he was asked to do was to realign his gun

and point his cannon securely on Nazi Germany. If you look at the events as they really happened, until 1936 he hardly gave Germany a passing mention in his speeches and writings. Other things were more important. From 1936 onwards he began beating the anti-nazi anti-german drum what was the motive um well you know churchill's got a long complicated history i mean he's a you know he's somebody who that that was the riest smile i think i've ever seen yeah um 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 yeah but then you get into uh 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, you know, I think his hostility to, put it this way, I think his hostility to Germany was real. I don make sure that he was the guy who you know uh who was who was representing britain in that conflict for for the for a reason he said that the reason i mean i could go on and on with the various things that that one other thing that daryl said was that the people dying in camps after Operation Barbarossa, after the attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, I guess it was, died of a kind of catastrophe where they were overwhelmed and they were starving to death, such that a letter was sent from a commandant saying,

there's not enough food to go around. It may be more humane to find a fast acting method to kill them all quickly. Make the case for that. Okay. So you've made your statement. A lot of people are thinking, well, wait a second. You said Churchill, my childhood hero, the guy with the cigar. Yeah. Well, and the next thought that comes into their head is that, oh, you're saying Churchill was the chief villain, therefore his enemies, you know, Adolf Hitler and so forth, were the protagonists, right? That they're the good guys if you think he's a villain. That's not the case. That's not what I'm saying. You know, Germany, look, they put themselves into a position, and Adolf Hitler is chiefly responsible for this, but his whole regime is responsible for it, that when they went into the East in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners and so forth that they were going to have to

handle. They went in with no plan for that. And they just threw these people into camps and millions of people ended up dead there. You know, you have like letters as early as July, August, 1941 from commandants of these makeshift camps that they're setting up for these millions of people who were surrendering or people they're rounding up. And so it's two months after, a month or two after Barbarossa was launched. And they're writing back to the high command in Berlin saying, we can't feed these people.

We don't have the food to feed these people. And one of them actually says, rather than wait for them all to slowly starve this winter, wouldn't it be more humane to just finish them off quickly now but what of course what daryl left out of that letter was that the next line was but either way humane or not it would be more pleasant than what we're watching now and then the next paragraph it talks about an end and no matter what we decide i would suggest we sterilize all the women because that'll take take care of the Jewish problem once and for all. So now,

I have a relationship with Daryl. There is no way I'm bringing Daryl Cooper on my show to discuss his take on these issues without having myself or having one of my million dollar a year things. Like, okay, I'm going to have

somebody come on now who's really going to have a revisionist view of World War II and the Holocaust, right? Let me, let's make sure we're prepared to push back on this. This is not any topic. This is serious. But he doesn't do that. Instead, what he said was that I saw that issue with Tucker and, you know, you just care about how war affects people and the psychology of people. And it was a coordinated effort against you.

I saw what happened with you on the Tucker Carlson thing and I spoke about it almost immediately on the podcast. I've been listening to your podcast for a long time and it's so charitable and comprehensive and so thorough. And so you put so much weight on the real lives and suffering of human beings on all sides of any conflict. The regular people that didn't want to be dragged into any war that find themselves on the front line the stories that you tell and the way you tell them is so comprehensive and so again charitable like you the humanity of these people is so well expressed that your fans know you i'm a fan i know you i know how you view things i know how you view things. I know how you portray things. I know how honest you are about all aspects they're illegal and you're going to go to jail if you talk about them. I'm still sitting here.

But the attempt is to make it so that you can't be in any kind of respectable society. Yeah, the attempt is to make you radioactive. And so it really has like the opposite effect of the one that is at least ostensibly intended, you know? I think there's a bunch of things going on simultaneously i think some of this is coordinated and i think um because i think that with everything now online i think there's uh public momentum opinions that aren't necessarily organically shaped never completely whitewashing what was actually said now yes he has every right to do it.

But let's not say that when Sam was criticizing it, Sam was wrong to criticize it or that Sam was an anti-free speech figure. Sam's the guy who brought on Charles Murray and then brought on Ezra Klein right after to debate it. And Sam also, but Sam delved into it. But it's more the substance of his criticism, not the fact that he criticized. That's all well and good.

But my point is, see, I got introduced to the Daryl Cooper thing a little late in the game. I wasn't, I watched that whole episode with him and Daryl Cooper, Joe Rogan and Daryl Cooper, see what all the fuss was about. And one thing was interesting was, first of all, it's stacked. Mind comp can be taken with a grain of salt.

It's stacked against me because Joe's watched clearly a lot of this guy and consumed a lot of his podcasting and I hadn't. So that also just humbles me a little bit before judging to say like, if Joe, who I've watched for years and has had on a lot of different range of people, he's had on Barry Weiss and Ben Shapiro and Douglas Murray. He's also had on Roger Waters and Abby Martin pre-October 7th, too. People didn't go crazy about it

because the temperature wasn't so high as to where it is now. It was, I think, more curiosity-driven. But having said that, because he's more familiar with the... I think Roger Waters is post-October 7th. Not on Rogan, no, pre. And saying a lot of the same stuff,

but we didn't have this reaction to it, right? Because we didn't feel like we're in this precarious or fragile situation but he still had them on i react to it you know but my i'm talking the community as a whole or whatever the culture as a whole in the especially in the jewish uh community and pro-israel community but i'm watching this episode and the way i'm processing it for one the fact that joe is much more familiar with this guest than i am puts me in a position to just, like, judge carefully because if he's, let's say there's a thousand

episodes and you probably know better than I do because you are more familiar with Daryl Cooper like the Fear and Loathing and the New Jerusalem and these other things that are very sympathetic to Jewish suffering or all these things. They're not very sympathetic to Jewish suffering. But go ahead. I'm making presumptions because I haven't been, I haven't immersed myself in this stuff,

but I'm presuming Joe has, and he's coming to the conclusion that you're so obviously not what they're portraying you as. Fine, so I took that with a grain of salt. But my point is I'm watching this and I, my mind goes back to watching lectures of Jordan Peterson in like 2015, 2014. And the way Jordan Peterson used to talk about history

from a psychoanalytical perspective, you hear him talk about Hitler, you hear him talk about Hitler's preferences, and it was a very humanizing thing because sometimes the process of talking about history and psychoanalyzing history is to make the case that you think you wouldn't have been a Nazi in those days. Right, that's fine. That's not the conversation I always had. No, but on Rogan itself, if you watch it with that in mind, he certainly says things that I think are just false and

worth confronting. And the fact, if Joe doesn't have it in his arsenal or it doesn't come to him to confront Daryl Cooper, I don't know, it feels almost self-defeating to just not confront those ideas and explain why they're wrong. If Joe's not equipped to do it, fine, but other people are. Nobody's watching this stuff

and consuming it like that yeah i think i mean i think but it's just a little more i want to say i want to say that it's very important i was a and tiana you ready to play that video in a second yeah all right so listen but you're more familiar with derek cooper not yet i'll tell you when yeah i'll tell you when um um all right so the thing about, there's some elements of truth in everything that's being said here. You know, when I was a kid,

in the late 60s and early 70s, mid 70s, when there was an argument that went around about whether or not the rock stars, because they were into drugs, would cause kids to start taking drugs. And only the squares were concerned about that. And I remember as a kid in high school, my kind of friend group,

one of my friends got really into the Grateful Dead all of a sudden. And I wasn't that into the dead. And our group kind of split up. And all the kids who got into the Grateful Dead got into heavy hallucinogenics. And I remember noting that as a kid, like, oh, they're into,

and I kind of like the dead music, but I wasn't into the dead, right? The whole thing. I said, oh, they're into that. You know, I kind of like the dead music, but I wasn't into the dead, right? The whole thing. I said, oh, it actually did lead to these kids being all into LSD. My long-winded point is that hipness and cultural cachet do have a power and an effect. And when Norman Fin, you know, when Norman Finkelstein says anti-Semitic things, it only goes so far.

When the most important, coolest guy in the world, I want to have a civil conversation. What's that? When the coolest guy in the world is surrounding himself with, what do I keep hearing? Is she playing something? Okay, something played, yeah. When the coolest guy in the world is surrounding himself with... What do I keep hearing? Is she playing something? The coolest guy in the world is surrounding himself with other

cool people who all seem to be into this stuff. This filters down in a way which has nothing to do with facts or research or anything else. None of the kids I knew who were taking LSD were looking up the harm, the pluses and minuses of LSD. They say the dead likes it, so I like it.

Rogan likes these guys. Rogan thinks they're cool. Jake Shields. So this is, I'm disposed to it. And I can't give that a pass. And you can at the same time note there's all this anti-Semitism now that you eloquently put at the beginning of the conversation

and then say, but nobody's done anything wrong. Do you think there's a difference between a Daryl Cooper and a Jake Shields? Well, I don't know because... Really? Do you think Joe Rogan would between a Daryl Cooper and a Jake Shields? Well, I don't know because... Really? Do you think Joe Rogan would have Jake Shields on again? No, I hope not. But I don't see much...

Well, let's start this. I've thought a lot about what you're asking. First of all, Daryl Cooper is a thousand times more sophisticated, smart, and knowledgeable than Jake Shields. Right. I don't see much of him seeing Ian Carroll and Jake Shields. Do you? You want to split that hair for me?

I can a little bit. A little bit. Yeah. I mean, Jake Shields is a proud, unapologetic, Jew-hating, you know, anti-Semite and says it all the time on Twitter and does the worst thing. And Ian Carroll? And Ian Carroll does that whole, he's like sort of adjacent to it. I would say it's maybe one degree of separation.

I mean, they're just not the same exact thing. Do they need to be the same exact thing? I mean... In order to slip into Rogan's universe? Dude, let's not, let's not, this is upsetting me, actually. Listen. No, no.

Let's not buy the gaslighting of the people who are gaslighting us. We know goddamn well there's not a thing that Jake Shields says that bothers Ian Carroll. The only difference is a marketing decision of how they're going to present themselves.

It's a matter of sophistication. Some lady, I was in a space and she said something along the lines of, oh yeah, 6 million Jews died in the holocaust and i was like oh my god bro here we fuck i'm just so sick of hearing that you know you're playing along with something that you just know is bullshit it came to a point like you play along with it for a while because the worst fucking possible thing you could be is a holocaust

denier it's illegal you get banned from everything yeah i think even can you even deny it on twitter it it occurred we're not gonna yeah occurred. People died. I'm not denying it. It absolutely occurred. But the way that they tell us about it is questionable. It's kind of like the 40 head of babies. Yes. Two babies died that day, not 40, and they weren't beheaded. The story should sit down and try to figure out the truth.

And I don't know the exact truth. I don't know exactly what happened, but I know it wasn't 6 million. I know they're full of lies. The whole Holocaust story was based off the Nuremberg trials. What they did is they took, I think it was Rudolf Haas. Yeah, Rudolf Haas. I think it was Haas. There's a Haas and a Haas.

I don't know if I'm pronouncing the last name right. But there's one of them they took, and they tortured him for three days. It was five Jewish people. This is admitted by the torturers and him until finally, you know, no sleep, torture. They started threatening to torture his kids too. He finally, he signed these papers they gave him and said,

sure, I guess, you know, six million Jews. That entire story was built around that. You torture them long enough, they'll tell you anything you want to hear. Exactly. It took three days to break them down. And it was all Jewish people. This is documented. Yeah, the Nuremberg trials were a witch hunt. Elevators to death that go into fire there's so many absurd stories

then you talk about the ovens it takes like an hour or two hours to cremate a body how would you be able to cremate that many people in the ovens as they claim then the gas chambers

there were delousing stations how the fuck were they in a gas chamber when a door opens out they could walk out a lot of the ones too they say were gas chambers when the Holocaust happened when they liberated them all,

none of them were active. They were all later. They said, oh, these used to be gas chambers. The Soviets reconstructed them. You go to Auschwitz. Chimney? Yeah, they reconstructed it. They built the chimney later.

There's no blue stains on it, which the Zyklon B would put there. It was a report. They looked for the bodies, found no bodies in the ground. Something happened there. But, like, okay, why is there no gas chambers the speeches in english i was like oh this dude's probably racist and this is what i'm gonna say to inward right now so this sounds like oh my gosh he's just very pro-germany like yeah he's pro tick tock is all over those videos right now tick tock is eating that up and it's that's the thing about this. I think that all of this is circling around this,

like transformation that's happening from controlled information to open information. And so like 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'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, after um after world war one 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 7 cents an hour, 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. Ottomans, it was during World War I

is they made a bunch of different deals of like, we need to win this war. And if you help us, we'll give you, you know. But then they didn't do the money. So they also promised it to the Rothschilds. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, it gets, I've tried figuring out how it started. And I mean, I guess the Rothschilds, that's why it doesn't, I try not to like go overbearing on like, everybody has to be Jewish. It's just like, that will make you like, yeah, it's unhealthy jake shields and ian carroll retweet each other go on each other's podcast right they they they they you know add to each other's anti-semitic tweets there is zero

difference between them in terms of there's nothing that jake shields would ever say that ian carroll will say dude that's that's wrong that's all fair that's all fair and there's nothing that dan bilzerian will say. And Dan Bilzerian... I'm not going to cut them any fucking slack. They are overrepresented in every single fucking category. They're crushing it across the board. And not just a little bit.

I mean, I'm talking about like 3,500% overrepresented in categories. And we're talking about government. We're talking about banks. We're talking about media. We're talking about Hollywood. We're talking about all the important positions in America that are massively overrepresented. And you said on Patrick Baird Davis' podcast as well,

they play the victim card so effing much about Jewish people. I mean, do you not understand why Jewish people might feel a sense of victimhood, given that six million of them were killed in World War II by a genocidal monster in the Holocaust. Do you not understand why that might make Jewish people feel that, yes, they have indeed been victims? Yeah, I mean, that figure's been revised,

but 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. There's a clip of Ian Carroll saying, blah, blah, blah, the Holocaust, whatever that was. And that's not the point. The point is not that all Jewish people are in on this thing. The point is that, like... There's a mafia that Ian Carroll saying, blah, blah, blah, the Holocaust, whatever that was. 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. Exactly. Because we need to bring Jews to our side, not push them away. Not like oh you're a we need to heal we don't need to like create more divides because the last thing we need is to create another holocaust of sorts whatever that was like we we don't need to like and i don't mean that flippantly like any death is death i'm just

saying that like you don't and then they all start laughing 100 so look if we're just trying to be precise no not precise is in reality not in in accepting their Trojan horse of it. In the tactics that they use, say, right? Like in the spectrum of all this. They're very close together. Ian Carroll, as a matter of fact, doesn't tweet a picture of a Jew with a hook nose and say watch

out he doesn't he does other things that are nefarious and bad but jake shields does that you don't think robert should have jake shields on absolutely not but you think ian shield in carol somehow passes the test no ian carol was the moment where we go oh god this is there's real trouble in the water here that the alarm bells go off because i think what attracts joe if i'm trying to be impartial but given given Joe's history and his credibility with the audience, right? And the goodwill he's built up over the years, I think, with his audience. Ian Carroll gets on the show. And where is the Venn diagram that attracts Joe to Ian?

I think it's conspiracy because Joe's always- With all of them. What? No, but I'm saying Joe has always been attracted to conspiracy theories in general, right? Whether it's moon landing, JFK, all that kind of stuff. You're restating my introduction. Right. So Ian Carroll gets on the show.

They spend most of the time talking about conspiracies. In the last five minutes or whatever, he brings up the Epstein stuff. Now, I'm not trying to give a pass. I'm just trying to understand how that could slip through the cracks. You want to measure in time. I don't think, Jake Shields, there's any way you could look past it or see any other way. I don't think Joe would have Candizana either. i don't think he'd have candace on again okay so let's play this clip but play this clip and you tell me what you see this sure i mean look if the

if the media was just driven by ratings they'd be doing shows on jeffrey epstein every day every day i mean because they would you'd be the number one show in cable news you could go i'm going to talk about no other topic give me me the 8 p.m. hour on MSNBC or CNN or Fox News or whatever. And I'll say, I'm just going to make my show about Jeffrey Epstein. That's the every single day. That's all we're doing. I guarantee you, I have number one show in cable news. Right. More people would want to watch that. Candace Owens show. It'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. She's hitting all the fucking third rails that no one wants to touch.

She's got a six-hour presentation on how Bridget McCrone is a man. It's fucking six hours plus long. First of all, just to imagine if somebody said, I don't know what the equivalent thing is to what Candace Holmes has been saying about Jews, about black people, these fucking N-word apes.

You know, like the worst of the worst. Because she's saying the worst of the worst. And then that person had a show and it's like, could you imagine me yucking it up? That person's awesome. She's killing it. This person who's saying things about, you know, the things that the K, essentially a KKK.

Awesome. So number one, I want you to explain that. And number two, and she's touching all the third rails. Now, they mention Bridget McCrone, but that's not a third rail. Nobody gives a shit about whether Bridget McCrone is a man. We all know the third rails that she's touching, and they're yucking it up about it. Now, tell me, what the fuck am I missing here?

Do you want to say that the bubble over both those guys' heads during that conversation is not a reel of the outrageous stuff she's been saying about Jews? Then we have Dr. Joel Finkelstein, who is Jewish. We have Jacob Zucker, who is Jewish. We have Danny

Sarah Finkelstein, who is Jewish. We have Sonia Yanofsky, who is Jewish. We have Alex Goldenberg, who is Jewish. We have Ohad Fadida, who is Jewish. We have Sonia Yanofsky who is Jewish. We have Alex Goldenberg who is Jewish. We have Ohad Fadida who is Jewish. We have Gideon Ferher who we checked and he is Jewish. We have Simon Lazarus who is Jewish. 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. This Frankist cult, which is masquerading behind Jews, still participates in this shit to this day, okay? Why would you want, as a small nation that is the size of New Jersey, okay, why would you want the pedophiles to flee there? What do they mean by third rail? What they, I think, are unpacking in that clip and kibitzing and laughing about is that Candace Owens has been embarking on this strategy campaign of provocation.

But they don't say, it's disgusting what she's doing. True, but I'll finish. Shouldn't they? Let me finish the point. She's doing this thing where she's poking this beast, this provocation. Yeah, it's awesome. And they're, no, what's amusing them or-

It's amusing them, yes. What's amusing to them is, and I think the thing- They have a right to be amused by it. I'm not fucking amused by it, are you? No, but I think that the way we react to it and being reactionary plays into her hands dude well let's we can strategize our reaction in a second yeah let's agree on the reality of it first and then we can decide how we want to react to it and what i'm seeing all around is nobody wants to listen i i'm i'm taking it out on you because i'm ready to cancel the fucking

podcast and go off twitter because i've had this conversation with 10 other prominent Jewish intellectuals. Yes. All the people who came out against Tucker. Yes. They will not hand this. This is their third. They do not want to risk this. What?

Nobody has more to lose than I do by risking this. They don't want to risk what? Can you clarify that? In other words, they don't want to say what I'm saying. Like, yes, this is a problem. Of course, Joe has every right to say it. Joe is not an anti-Semite. Joe may not even realize.

I just want Joe to like me. I'm okay. You know what? I just want him to like me. Yes, that may be the case. No, I actually just, I'm weighing. First of all, look, I'm weighing a few things here. I'm laughing and saying awesome about a woman who is touching the third rails of all, look, I'm weighing a few things here. They're laughing and saying awesome

about a woman who is touching the third rails of saying that Jews are slaughtering Christian babies at Passover, that Herzl was not Jewish, that Lyndon Johnson was Jewish, that Stalin was Jewish, that the Mengele experiments were propaganda. Absolutely. She plays count the Jew.

I mean, how? I'm not saying to not be nonjudgmental about it. I've gone after Dave Smith for this reason. I can answer you. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. You're supposed to have counter-programming? Counter-program. Go ahead.

You have the mic. The Dave Smith behavior that I don't think is so forgivable supposed to have counter-programming counter-program go ahead you have the mic the dave smith behavior that i don't think is so forgivable or debatable or challengeable in the sense on the marketplace of ideas because it doesn't belong there is his flippancy and his cozying up to some of the worst figures online and saying why are you segregating out dave smith just because he's in this clip and talking about it but you mean just him or both of them well now joe is kind of going into that lane but dave has been doing it. I'm going on Dave for a second because he's

the guest, so that's why this is coming up because he brought up the point and Joe was reacting to it. But I'm just I think I'm saying what you would agree with is that what he's been doing is saying, these guys aren't so bad. What Israel's doing is a disaster. But everybody else is just like providing

cover for all these people in the sense that he will not call out anti-Semitism where it stares him in the face. And when people like us and anyone is screaming, the barbarians are at the gates, whether it's about foreign policy or all these other debates, he's the one saying, stop, they're not at the gates. You're causing the barbarians to be at the gates. Then when they break through the gates, his arguments become unfalsifiable because he gets to say, I told you and we're like no we told you so and you tried to make everybody feel like it's not a big deal these are just some trolls on twitter and so i've gone after him for that in joe's case i have to think about this for a second because i remember a time when jordan peterson used to go on

rogan right who i'm a big fan of and the woke left used to say once again joe platforms transphobe misogynist hateful bigot jordan peterson because he said the words enforced monogamy in an article and they misrepresented the crap out of joe jordan peterson on his show and they barely consumed the content or watched the show and they came to these judgment am i misrepresenting the crap out of somebody what's that am i misrepresenting the crap out of somebody because i hope not no but i think i think in any way no i think some of the emotions are high on this subject and in some cases but you're making a good point yes if it's an if it's analogous if i'm misrepresenting then by all means what i mean is why i'm like looking why it's why it's presenting like i'm giving joe a

pass is because for so long um in a lot of these domains and having these conversations, it was the woke left coming after him for having ideas and conversations about race, about culture, about these things and completely misrepresenting. And I don't want to fall into that same trap. Joe has provided to not just the comedy community, but to the culture, to the world of free speech and ideas in a world that we just came out of in 2024 of oppressing ideas, silencing speech we disagree with. That was the tactic of the left to the right. I'm such a fucking madman. I am not a Joe Rogan hater. I'm so crazy. My mother could be doing this stuff

and I'd be out there blasting it. Because this is not... But I just have to finish. Yeah, go ahead. Just to wrap up what I'm saying here. When I look at that and I see them making light of it, it's very concerning, but it also is informative. This is where the chips have fallen in this conversation.

Over the course of the 18 months, there's a movable middle. There's the people who celebrated October 7th, right? Or were apathetic to it and took the side of barbarians. I can't move them. They are where they are. The left-wing anti-Zionist, anti-Semites hate Israel because it's better and because it's virtuous. So me flaunting the merits of Israel or Jews, it's not going to move them because they hate merit and they hate virtue. So not them.

I don't even think you're right about that, but go ahead. On the far left in the Marxist community? That would not be my read on their psychology. Hating whatever. There's people you can't move, okay? And they partner with the radical Islamist ideologies that want to tear down the West, so they're going to hate a Western representation in the Middle East and all those things. If you're a bigot on what we deem now as the woke right woke right far right and you just hate jews and blame them for every problem and you're bitter and

resentful and you scapegoat jews for everything can't move you there's a movable middle and then there's this spectrum of ideas here that are being peddled out there when i see them making light of that or when i see bill burr in his new special make a joke about human shields and it gets a laugh i can say to myself fuck you bill burr do better terrible joke or i could say i gotta tell you the difference well i just want to finish i just want to go ahead i use this i use this also to rather than just just cast dispersions or judge it to say you know like maybe there's a better tactic and strategies that when we're confronted with these like repugnant ideas we're strong enough as a community. We're strong enough to advocate for better ideas.

Debunk these silly, stupid claims. If you've been watching Schultz make rounds on the podcast, he takes a different approach. And all of a sudden, he's on PBD. He goes, isn't it more likely that America controls Israel, being that they're so much more militarily powerful? And everyone goes, oh. OK.

And that's a quick nudge. He didn't call anybody names. He just did that. Yes. So I don't know. Am I disappointing you? No. What was the thing you said right before you just said about Andrew Schultz? That it's data. It's informative when I watch

them have this conversation as to where the arguments have fallen. And then I said with regard to that it's informative when I see this kind of thing. And I'm trying to figure out a better way to react to it and respond to it. Well, in any case, look, we're all Jews here,

but I do want to make the point, the caveat that I have many of these same feelings before October 7th with regard to other people and other issues because truth is absolutely important. Mm-hmm. But as Jews here, you know, if we're not for ourselves,

then who? Mm-hmm. If not now, when? I am fighting for my people based on what I regard as truth. Mm-hmm. And if I'm wrong, based on what I regard as truth. And if I'm wrong, somebody has to tell me where I'm wrong.

But if I'm right, then all these comparisons to dishonorable actors are not an argument against what I'm saying. Now, Bill Burr makes a joke about human shields, and this is a very important point. Israel is debatable. It is absolutely, I don't agree with Bill Burr makes a joke about human shields, and this is a very important point. Israel is debatable. It is absolutely, I don't agree with Bill Burr, but it's actually absolutely debatable, and I'm sure it's debated within the war cabinet. It's actually a part of international law, which is how many civilians are we going to kill,

even if they're human shields, as compared to what are we going to get strategically for it? What is the price to pay? And Bill Burr thinks that Israel's out to lunch. They're killing way too many civilians for that thing. Now, there's no right or wrong answer to that, but people have to draw a line somewhere, and Bill Burr is criticizing Israel. Fine.

You could make the argument. I made the argument on day one. Listen, one thing Israel might consider is doing nothing after October 7th. Remember I said that? I said, and if Israel did nothing, I would not criticize them, because these are all debatable points. But unless you are post-truth, this is not what Candace Owens, Jake Shields, and these other idiots are discussing. What they will do is when you complain about what they're saying, they will then say, oh, you don't like criticism of Israel, and don't play into their hands.

No, you can criticize Israel all you want, although you, of course, should have a responsible debate about it. You're denying the Holocaust. You're saying that the protocols of the elders of Zion are true, that the Jews are pulling the strings behind all global wars in the last thousand years, that Jews kill Christian babies at Passover. You're preaching to the choir on that. Now, this is not debatable stuff. It's stuff you have a right to say, but we should not be impotent about saying no.

If you're trafficking in these ideas or lending comfort and imprimatur and reputational cachet and hipness and chumminess to the people who are engaging this stuff, you are lining up with evil in this world. And to tell me that, well, yeah, you could say that, but you could have said that about this, and that's what they said about Jordan Peterson, you're dragging me me into this briar patch i don't know how to respond well you're conflating my judgment of joe is lightly you're setting up a hall of mirrors where we don't know what's true and what's not true no no no my we were talking about joe or dave smith

and i judged dave smith a little more harshly given his pattern of chumminess with these worst actors i don't think you'd ever see joe go on jake shields or fuentes or all these people and have them on and have this kibbitzy conversation but there's an there are intersections where dave smith and joe have a rapport and he can channel some of that and the daryl cooper there's that venn diagram now ian carroll was the biggest one of concern for me that's where i went oh my god like i'm drawing a line here and i'm gonna criticize it but i think if you want to move somebody back to your side or be more sympathetic to our cause our side our people i don't know if the way to do it is to cast aspersions and and rush to judgment aspersions i'm casting criticism

is not a criticism is not but rushing to judgment or i see people on twitter we all knew it joe's an anti-semite we've known all along you're not doing that. I'm not doing that. And Sam didn't do that. Yeah, but like you said before, like close cousins, the elixir, all that kind of stuff. Yeah. He's interpreting. He might be lumping in the... You have to be, I think, just nuanced and careful with criticism

to know that it's coming from a place of good faith and coming from not the same place as people who are just willing to jump to conclusions and start saying, we all knew Joe was just an anti-Semite all along. I don't think that's the way to move the middle or make the case back because- I mean, what you're doing is- If this was Joe's first episode, it'd be a little bit different, but there's been a lot to judge here. You're setting up a straw man that I agree with you on, which was not my argument, but yes, I agree. No, but I'm critical of it too. Them kibitzing about that stuff is very troubling. agree with you on yes which is but which is not was not my argument but yes i i agree and um no but i'm critical of it too them kibitzing about that stuff is very troubling it's messed up it's

totally messed up and but well like i've been saying what do we do from there my mantra has been for a while now this stuff is not going to stop itself right and every cowardly jew who's rationalizing it all and they've been doing it for a long time now is saying right this way no no no isn't it more cowardly not to speak out and say here's why all this is bullshit and say it i'm saying that in you like i have a friend i said everything no i had a friend of mine uh shout out cam higby he's he's a prager you personality guy but uss liberty kept going around kept going around, kept going around. USS Liberty, USS Liberty, you're about USS Liberty. It's just so tiresome and ridiculous, but

he just actually made a really in-depth video debunking the whole thing. Except that Dennis Prager thinks it's true. Well, that they did attack it. No, Dennis Prager thinks it was attacked and that it was a conspiracy between America and Israel to keep it silent. Is Dennis Prager an anti-Semite? No, he's Prager. No, he's not.

No, that's what I'm saying. But I'm just saying, Israel is... But it provided a lot more context. I mean, a video like that to me is much more potent and powerful in the audience that this is fighting for because you're saying it's really weird, this is troubling and resonating.

What are you going to do about it? Do we go into our silos and raise our middle fingers? It depends on who. I raise my middle finger to Jake Shields, Jackson Hinkle. If I put them all in one box, it's a little hard to know. Take me seriously.

Okay, Ami. Do you know what I'm saying? Did you see... Are we not agreeing on that? Sort of. Did you see on Twitter when I was pressing Daryl Cooper for his sources? Yes. I got back a deluge of what can only be called Nazi-like anti-Semitic tweets.

Twitter's the third Reich. Aimed at me. Absolutely. Well, but there's a ratio. It wasn't like a bunch of us people were taking issue with me. People were making arguments and a certain number of anti-Semitic crazies. It was basically all anti-Semitic crazies. Damn broke, and there it was. Now, this belies the case that we're making for Daryl Cooper.

Because somehow, while we're seeing the best of him, best in him, and the best in him exists. We are shills if we don't also acknowledge, but we have to admit he's cultivated a seething neo-Nazi like audience and he kind of

signals to them every so often with a tweet that sometimes he takes down saying the Third Reich was preferable to this. Guten Morgan with a Nazi mug. And various, and various,

you know, Arthur Kwan Lee. He says the great Arthur Kwan Lee, the artist who did his thing, but then we played. But there's a deeper, more unknown satanic spirituality

that normalizes anti-natalism, duplicitous sexual abnormalities, communism for the uninitiated, pedophilia, and the sacrificing of God's non-chosen cattle. And those practitioners worship at the altar of the synagogue of Satan because Talmudic Judaism is a stepping stone towards Satanism. Again, you'd think that Daryl, if he was who we like to think he was would say, you know what? I don't need fucking Nazi bigots in my life.

My life is hard enough already making these difficult arguments to try to get people to see a different side of the German people. What do I need right by my side? A fucking guy who's saying that is that Judaism is a satanic religion and, and responsible for all the evil in the world.

A hundred percent. But he does have him right by his side, but he does now. It doesn't help that he looks like an SS car. That's just the vibe. No, but dude, no,

this is very serious. No, I get it. And this is where the rubber meets the road in terms of manning up because no matter what you can say and point to that Darryl Cooper has said which is mitigating

the fact is his actions speak louder than his words if you have your arm around the worst kind of anti-Semite there is and you big up him on Twitter, then maybe you're full of shit and just very sophisticated

when you say these other things that people can hang their hats on when they want to forgive you. I've been thinking about this a lot. Do you think there's a difference between... You need to think longer and harder about it. Do you think there's a difference... Come back.

Do you think there's a difference between judging someone who's the messenger versus the message and that somebody could be out there putting messages out that stoke a lot of anti-Semitism? Who's the worst anti-black hater there is? Hold on. Provide a lot of red meat for anti-Semites. What I told Candace in our second conversation was like, just for the sake of the conversation, for it to go somewhere, I was like, look, you can tell me all day long, you don't hate Jews

in here, in your heart. I don't know what's going on in here with you. I don't know what's going on here with you. And we waste a lot of time and energy trying to prove that. But that's irrelevant because the things you're saying, the ideas you're perpetuating are providing red meat and stoking the flames of anti-Semitism all over the place. And the fact that you're not even aware of these tropes, you may claim ignorance, and you think you're coming up to these revelations of Christians disappearing on Passover, as if you first discovered it,

you're revealing your profound ignorance at best, and hatred at worst. You believe her? What's that? You believe she's actually... I said profound ignorance at best, or hatred at worst. But ask me what you think.

About her? Yeah. Oh, I think Candace is motivated mostly a lot by a creature of provocation, loyalty, cliques, and using anti-Semitism as a way to elevate herself. Right. So anyway. Having been familiar with a lot of the tactics and things,

I'm not excusing it if you want my honest analysis, but there is some Jew hatred there, but it's more about using it for self-awareness. There was a problem with our people. Talk to me. Because I don't know who the worst anti-black,

you know, let's take George Wallace or let's say some legendary black hater, because that's kind of what Candace is emulating. And I had them buddy buddy I called them great they were an artist I used their artwork as my logo

all my followers and then I said something, no you know black people were treated very very badly in slavery I think it's terrible I think it's terrible what happened to black people in slavery. My voice catches when I discuss the passage and what the black people on the ship had to deal with. And people said, no, you don't understand, Noam.

Don't look at, did you hear him? He said he cares about black people. Who are you? I wouldn't kid. Nobody would be fooled. And you know who would be the first people to tell me I'm full of shit? The Jews. Did you just generalize?

You wouldn't buy this argument for five seconds if it wasn't about someone accused of anti-Semitism. It's out in front. It's clear. If I put on that kind of racist person on my show or person like that you wouldn't be saying oh no no no you know it's a marketplace of ideas so what it's not what i said what is yucking it up with people who think it's awesome that he's touching the third rails of black and you asked me what i think deep down i honestly believe deeply motivates candace psychologically i was just giving my honest assessment having seen her behavior and pattern of behavior. I think I

attributed a lot to basically this phrase, which is years ago Kanye tweeted, I like the way Candace Owens thinks. That gave her a big escalation in the profile. And now today, she likes the way Kanye West thinks. And therefore, it's this a lot of it's a clout chase where it's like, look what

I can use here to elevate my profile. But whatever. I'm not making an excuse for the... We've got to wrap it up. I'm not making an excuse for the anti-Semitism. I'm making an excuse for all of them. I'm going to give you the final shot into the exhaust chute in the Death Star. I like this analogy very often because I think very often with a lot of big arguments,

actually, there's a few small arguments that blow up the whole thing. All Joe Rogan would have to do is go out there and say, I think what Candace Owens is saying is disgusting. That's all. I like to have conversations. I think what Jake Shields has said, I just want to let my audience know, there's a lot of talk about me.

I just want to let you guys know. I think that when they say this, this, and that, and it's all about how that J.J. Believe me, I'm embarrassed that I was ever associated with these people. Don't for a second think that I have any sympathy for these people. I think these are anti-Semites. And then he can go on with every fucking conversation he wants. And let's bet money whether he'll do it or not.

I think that i agree would go a very long all he has to do all of that stuff would go a long way say when you play near the edge it's important to draw the line and say well i'm not over there as opposed to saying oh you know as a when you're when you're playing in these territories especially he did say at one point no it just seems like man there's all this anti-semitism and i remember early on and he said it but then he goes but man it's just like yeah it's clearly just overreacting and as i said in the beginning we're not overreacting we are reacting because we're not pretending it's not there just even though people pretended it wasn't there it was there when it wasn't

doesn't mean when it is there it isn't the overreacting also can be debatable yeah and we don't know if we're overreacting well look but i'm saying that all he has to do to really solve much of this problem is just get out from behind this ambiguity that he's created yes the same thing with dave smith yes i mean how but i will just tell you this dave smith will go on twitter and, Candace Owens is a truth teller. She's a truth eater. She's brave. Now...

She's coming into some other stuff I don't agree with, but... No, so she's awesome. Like, they have nothing but praise for her. You won't see Joe do that much. Let me find one word of saying, but you know what? Like, any... Let me tell you this. I just want to be clear.

She touched on three roles. I mean the Macron stuff. The stuff she's saying about the blood libel stuff, I want no part of that. It's always softballing and making things digestible. Things like, look, all that other stuff, the horrible stuff, he'll never say and designate as horrible. It's just other

stuff. I've seen him be very... make, you know, soft language on that kind of thing. The man becomes Clarence Darrow when somebody tries to defend the vaccine. I'll say something. I'll say something you'll agree with, I think. Please. Which is,

look, I think as much as I've been saying that I think it comes from a place of strength, not weakness, to rather than just harshly judge and call names or smear, but actually step into the arena and debate these things, it's also a very sad thing that we have to. You would never tell a black person, you know, all this white supremacy is on the rise, but like, you should just go out there and prove why you're not racially inferior, because you're not. Like, don't let those ideas become dominant. No, it's the white supremacists who need to shut up

and be silenced in a sense to be, we don't have to engage and grant them a response and dignify them with a response as to why these old ideas of eugenics or whatever should be brought back to the fold. It's a sad state of affairs that we have to do that as Jews and sort of say, prove you're not the bad guy. I don't like that posture. It's a sad state of affairs that we have to do that as Jews and sort of say, prove you're not the bad guy. I don't like that posture. It's a sad state of affairs that we find ourselves in. But then you have to go from there.

And I think post-October 7th, I was like, hey, if you're not on our side here, screw you. I don't want to have anything to do with you. You can't see that we are the morally superior position here as far as being attacked.

Like, I don't really, like, I can't redeem you. Can't say I'm not interested, and I was very much into the echo chamber of that just for the chizuk and the strength of needing to be. But now, 18 months in, all of a sudden finding that mainstream platforms like Rogan, like the podcast space,

which I used to really celebrate as places where people can be free to discuss ideas and were on the right side of a lot of issues, when I find them being swayed on the wrong side of a lot of issues, when I find them being swayed on the wrong side of a lot of issues, I can decide to sort of do the, quote, woke thing, I hate, of just criticizing and calling the names, or I can, you know, I think,

do you have a better shot at making Joe more sympathetic to what we're saying or less sympathetic based on what you're trying to do? My point is, if you want somebody to actually say those things that we're saying or less sympathetic based on what you're trying to do. My point is, if you want somebody to actually say those things that you're saying, it's better to give a benefit of the doubt. I gave the benefit of the doubt, but why would he not be more sympathetic based on what I'm saying? What did I say? Because I think people don't like to be told what to do, even if it's the right position to take.

All right. Well. You know what I'm saying? Every time you tried it with Dave Smith, as obvious as it is for him to just say, just say these people, Dan Darzarian, Jake Shields, other words, people, you're right. But the fact that you take a position to demand he say something

is where he's just averse to doing it. And how do you think he looked? Bad! I don't think it... Do you think that contributes to convincing the middle ground that you're speaking about when they see the guy... When someone sees an opponent in debate

taking an untenable position, I think that's the most persuasive you can ever be. Who's being untenable? Dave, I think, began to look ridiculous when he sees this video of Candice, that video of Cand candace and that video candace i think daryl cooper found the same situation but you don't want to be giving into the caricature that look i think jewish organizations for a long time uh especially on the left made all

these demands and took this position of demanding people comply with certain things and standards and that can turn a lot of people off even if the ideas and the aims are good and the intentions are good. So demanding Dave do something rather than pointing out, I think there's a slight difference in that flavor that makes it a lot more digestible for the masses. Even though to me and to you, it looks ridiculous. To a lot of people, it looks like, man, why are they all trying to just demand everybody condemn this antisemitism and that antisemitism rather than just sticking to proving what's true and what's not true. To me, proving what's true and what's not true

is far more persuasive for the likes of Joe Rogan, for the likes of these audiences that they have that are masked. No, no, this is where you're 100% wrong. You think so? 100%? Yes, I'll tell you why. Because what conspiracy theories are, as opposed to an argument about vaccines,

are trying to prove a negative. You can eventually, through double-blind experimentation and data, get to the end of an argument on polio or the vaccines or whatever it is. And I guess maybe there can still be some disagreement within that, but at least it is not a...

It's something that can be proven. Peer-reviewed, scientific studies. A drug has to prove its efficacy. I cannot prove that Christian babies are not disappearing on Passover. I cannot prove that Israel is not a nation of pedophiles. It's unfalsifiable because it's a conspiracy theory. I cannot prove... I agree.

Disprove any of the things that Jake Shields says, any of the things that Candace Owens says, anything... But what you can demonstrate is that rather than gathering data

and being curious and then drawing conclusions, what they are doing is drawing conclusions and then gathering data and evidence to support it. No, but what I can say to... You can point that out.

What I can say to somebody who purports to be a member of the civilized world, I can say to them, listen, you're playing footsie with these people. Do you believe what they're saying or not?

Go on record. If you want to go on record, say, yeah, you know what? I think what Candace is saying could be true. Fine. You still have your show. I would defend you against anybody who would try to argue that

Spotify should pull your contract. It's not about deplatforming. But go on record. You believe it or not. That's all I want to go on record. You believe it or not? That's all I want to know. Dave, you believe this or not? You don't believe it?

Then why are you big up in here? Should I infer from that that you don't believe it, but you think it's harmless gossip stuff? It has no effect in the real world? It's like believing, I don't know, something, I can't think of something, like that Paul is dead? Like some dumb... Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like this is serious stuff. It has no effect in the real world. It's like believing, you know, I don't know, something, I can't think of something like that Paul is dead. Like some dumb, like this is serious

stuff to us. You don't think it's serious? Fine, say you don't think it's serious. He does. Dave a lot of times says I don't think it's that big a deal. But stop with... That's the problem. Stop with, no, but he won't say that whether he thinks it's anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

He won't say. He'll say to Nick Fuentes, I don't think you hate Jews. Dude, I'm with you on that. That's to me where the biggest moral failing on his behavior has been and posturing in this past. It's not just the criticism, where I think he's wrong on Israel. I mean, that's kind of fair game. The other stuff is not so forgivable because when you're playing in this arena and then you provide this sort of kind of

coverage by saying, I'm the cool Jew that's going to cozy up to these people and make them digestible. I mean, you have to be responsible for that. I get you. It is time to cry alarm. Tucker Carlson is fully in this camp. By my friend Candace Owens, who's one of the nicest people I've ever met, actually.

Yeah, she's very smart. She's incredible. And everyone's always, Candace Owens is a hater. Candace Owens is the opposite of a hater, but she's a very kind person. Tucker Carlson is text messaging with the president on a daily basis. If our 78-year-old president should die, J.D. Vance will have Tucker Carlson by his side. J.D. Vance has talked complementarily about Alex Jones.

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. Alex Jones just last week said, don't criticize Israel. It only encourages the demon-like cult that runs the planet. Oh, my God.

He really said that. No, that's crazy. That's unbelievable. That is unbelievable. This is an entity. It's all connected at the hip. Yeah. And it seems like you're finding every reason to avoid conflict. Me?

Yeah. What are you talking about? I debated Dave on Candace Owens. I went on the show and risked looking really bad, but I went into the lion's den and debated him and Candace. Candace three times called her out for it. But I think it's more constructive to do that in some cases than to just write an article or make ourselves feel virtuous and good about it.

It's not working. I also think that Joe is just in a slight, is not Tucker Carlson. I don't think they're the same animal. I don't think he is either. Right. So I'm not giving a pass i'm just like looking at what i'm looking at and in a way that's worse what i'm that's what like i don't think he is either but every moment that he doesn't that he shows yeah that he doesn't have the reflex

to separate himself from these people that I have to say to myself because I'm not a mindless person, uh-oh, like I don't, he doesn't appear, like I don't want to, but something's going on here because most other people would make sure to their audience, don't think, like Phil Donahue used to have on Grandmaster of the KKK.

Sure. Nobody ever thought Phil Donahue might be sympathetic to the Grandmaster of the KKK. Right. This is different. Mm-hmm. Do you think that there's a reaction to Joe from our side that's not constructive and not productive? Some people, yeah.

And what would that look like to you? Well, calling him an anti-Semite and calling for him to be the platform, taking off Twitter, I mean, taking off Spotify. But then I could look at you and say, that's just cowardly not to call for that. How could you say that?

He's out there kibitzing with these guys and rubbing feet. The platformer. Just to play devil's advocate. Yeah, because we also at the same time have competing principles that we believe that free people have a right to say whatever they want. So as much as I wouldn't mind that Candace Owens, her power is cut to her apartment.

She can't, well, I'm trying to think of something like lightning struck and she can no longer broadcast. I'd be happy. That'd be a happy outcome. I understand. Well, Zionists control the weather.

I understand. She has a right to do this and I have to defend her right to do this. Yeah. I have to defend everybody's right to do it. Right. So I don't really think we're disagreeing much at all. Oh, we're disagreeing very much because their right to do it

has nothing to do with our responsibility to fight them sure but what is the substance of that criticism and that fight what is the substance of that judgmental position we went through the whole thing I just don't see where there's that much difference

I think you just I'm putting these people on the spectrum of the worst anti-semites over here and the movable middle. when it comes to results, meaning that if Tylenol is selling poison pills, whether they intended to do it or not is really doesn't matter in terms of our five alarm fire of having to deal with it. As a matter of fact,

we deal with it in an identical way. Sure. But that's a very precise binary thing. It's a poison pill that causes immediate harm. A conversation with sloppy points made is a little bit different. When we're seeing this stuff being disseminated from the most important show in the world, when you're seeing a super spreader, as Sam Harris says,

of, I mean, unless you think that, you know, what Ian Carroll said is not misinformation, a super spreader... I made two videos calling it out precisely. ...of misinformation. Yes, it's important for us to know as we're taking the measure of the man whether it was intentional or not,

whether it's naive, ignorant, whatever it is. That matters for that conversation. It matters not for our reaction to the harm it is, to the danger of it. The danger of it is identical. If Joe Rogan's show becomes a conduit for these poison pills, then we have to react to the poison, not to the intention. But if next week, I remember when he had someone on, maybe it was Kurt Metzger or something, and Joe was like, I mean, this was Israel related. He's like, it just kind of looks like a genocide.

It just kind of looks like that. And everybody wanted to jump on and say, we all knew it. Joe's showing his true cards. The next week he had Coleman Hughes on, and he said, I appreciate your perspective. That's really interesting. Well, no. Actually, that's not what happened. What's not? So first of all, let's say again.

Yes. I'm not talking about calling it genocide as much as that infuriates me. Yes. That is. I used that example because that was the example. That is a debatable position. Right. But, and I know Kurt Metzger very well.

We're friends. And then the next week, Coleman went on. And Coleman crowbarred his comment about Israel. And Joe's answer was not, it wasn't an appreciative perspective. I think it was more like, well, I guess I wasn't appreciate perspective I think it was more like well I guess I don't know that much about it said I appreciate your perspective what's what's unique about this war unlike every other war that I could think of is is you have a an army in Hamas that has perfected the art of embedding itself and meshing itself with civilians so that you cannot hit them without hitting the people around them. Other armies have done this, but none have

perfected it to the extent that Hamas has. No army that I know of in military history has had 15 years to build 300 miles of tunnel underneath a city that they don't use to shelter the civilians, but they use to shelter themselves so that they can operate right under a kindergarten, right under a mosque. So this is a challenge no army has faced. And so that's what makes this war different. And yes, I agree with all of the absolute tragedy

and suffering of the Palestinian people, but what creates that is the way Hamas fights. And we can say one of two things. We can either say, well, Israel doesn't have a clean shot, and so they have to let Hamas get away with it because it's too much to bear. But then we are essentially creating a situation where terrorists have found the perfect solution, which is that you can cross the border, go house to house slaughtering your enemies,

and then hide behind your own people and they can do nothing about it. It's a perfect strategy. Can we live in a world where we allow that to be an acceptable strategy? I don't think so. And it's very ugly to watch. It's heartbreaking, and I completely understand why people don't think the way I think when they see the videos. I completely get it. But I don't think we can actually live in a world where that's allowed to be a strategy.

I appreciate your perspective. Yeah. i see what you're saying yeah um you clearly know more about it than i do but also um one of the fears is that people wanted the people in power in israel wanted hamas to be in power in gaza because they wanted an enemy and then call Coleman has never been on that show again. Coleman did three shows pretty close to each other. Coleman had a pretty powerful short clip there where he defended Israel.

I don't even think he was really saying it. He wasn't really refuting anything that Rogan had said. He just... And that was a anything that Rogan had said. He just, and that was a very good show beginning to end. The best show I think that they ever had together. Coleman has never been on that show again. And that's intentional, you think?

I have no idea. We don't know. I don't know. If he had Barry Weiss on next week to unpack all this, would that change all the things he's done up until now? In your perspective, I'm just curious, like what would be comforting besides this, you know, to...

Yeah, sure. I mean, there's many ways, there's many ways to skin the cat of, I think, adjusting the course, course correcting here. I think just as important as judging it and fairly

and criticizing it fairly, it's also important for us to say, what, why have people that seem to be so sensible and curious on a lot of these issues moved? What's been going on? What's happening? Okay. But the most important thing, and this is really Sam Harris's point. Yes.

I keep trying to avoid the Spider-Man analogy, with great power comes great responsibility. Mm-hmm. But with great power comes great responsibility. Yeah. great power comes with great responsibility. But with great power comes great responsibility. And I think that's really all Sam was saying, is that when you are the biggest media force in the world, when you want to start presenting truly radioactive information, you have some obligation to make sure that you have at least a

arguable case that you think it's true. True enough that you think it's likely enough true that you think you're doing a service by injecting it into the public debate. But you also made the Phil Donahue argument. We don't necessarily think the guest

agrees with the host. Well, because Donahue argument. We don't necessarily think the guest agrees with the host. Well, because Donahue made it very clear. But I'm saying, so if you're going to say, listen, I think that polio is fake. And, you know, and all that comes from that. I think, so, you know, we assume, well, we assume that he said, well, he would say to himself,

I think I'm doing a good thing if I can get fewer people to believe in polio, fewer kids to vaccinate their kids, just K-3. And that's a very – it seems to me – this is why I feel like I'm being gaslighted. It seems to be obviously that everybody understands that you need to be careful with something like that. And if you don't have the expertise yourself, as Sam said, then you hire somebody. We happen to find ourselves in a world where the most popular media format right now is casual, loose, schmooze, and conversation. That's what it is, whether we like it or not. It's not curated. It's not careful.

It's sloppy. And millions of people are into that right now. And it's hard to demand that format change to something else. Well, you're saying they have a responsibility. It's hard to tell comics what to do. This is not the first time

I've known that a few years now everyone's going to look back at me and say he was right all along. I've been through these things a couple times already. What's your track record? What else? I was right about Russ at me and say he was right all along. I've been through these things a couple times already. What's your track record? What else? I was right about Russiagate. I was right about Louis C.K. I was right about any number of things.

You were right about COVID. I was right about COVID. What did you say about COVID? Actually, well, I was right early on that I said that this was serious and that we should be diligent and prudent. You were right about anti-Semitism. I predicted the anti-Semitism. What's happening now, I actually predicted. But I was right that at some point I was right about everything about COVID as opposed to Dr. Bhattacharya, who was actually mostly wrong.

And they treat him like he was some kind of oracle. When you said that, you said it was like a lab leak out of China kind of stuff? I always assumed it probably was a lab leak, but that was not one of my hot issues. I thought it was ridiculous that they're trying to censor. You were right about masks. That was very early, the N95 masks. But I don't understand what the fuck the problem is to just say, like, I don't agree with this stuff. I'm going to have these people on air.

I'm going to talk to them. But I think that X, Y, and Z is garbage. Like, that's all he really has to say if that's what he thinks. Right? Like, it's not that complicated. It would make us feel better. There's no question. It just would.

I mean, it seems like a really simple kind of statement. Like, this is not complicated. This is not... You know comedians better than anybody, and they don't like to be told how to have conversations. But that's neither here nor there. Nobody has to tell him anything. Well, I'm saying it like women.

If you want to appeal to people's sympathy, though, I would caution against making demands. I'm not trying to appeal to... You're saying you're not doing that, but we are kind of doing that. You're strategizing now. Strategy is a different conversation. Who?

I am talking... Most of it, the disagreement here is I'm calling out tactics versus substance. We all, we do agree about the substance. I alluded to that in the very beginning of this conversation, all my concerns. We all, we do share a lot substance. I alluded to that in the very beginning of this conversation, all my concerns. We all, we do share a lot of the same concerns. I am talking tactics now. And if the way you're

trying to... You're talking tactics. The way you're trying to appeal to somebody is by making demands and they keep getting further away, maybe there's a different way to do that. Ian Carroll's followers. It's significant what's going on. And I'm not denying that. And I'm not judging it. But Ian Carroll's following check this out to get them skyrocketed on every platform after his

rogan performance oh yeah this is i want to make this point too go ahead that especially when you get on a on a position of condemnation of such things, Peterson made this point when the woke left came after him illegitimately, even if we're trying to come after people legitimately. He said that whenever there's a woke mob, he's like, I figured out a way to monetize social justice warriors, you know, because when they come after me, you know,

I just ride out the storm and then I come out bigger and stronger than ever, you know? And that's great when the figure is good and the ideas are good. It's really bad when the ideas are bad and nefarious. So the way we react to these things can have a very opposite intended effect by making the problem much bigger and making the guy's audience much bigger. No, I think it's the opposite. And I think it applies if people respond to that.

People are familiar. They're so ready to get rid of all this woke crap that when we look like a, you know, like when you posture in the same way, you just made my point for me. You said Ian Carroll's audience exploded. Avoid bromides. So, yes.

What was that? If somebody is little known, like avoid just like patent rules of thumb. If somebody is little known, yes, sometimes it's better. Just let it go. Nobody noticed it. So don't call attention to it. Right.

That's not what's going on here in New York County. He was on the Rogan show. Now, Peterson is saying, when they came at me, they made me stronger. Why? Because Peterson had the better of the arguments. So by bringing that attention,

he was able to vanquish the other side by exposing them because he really handily handled all those arguments. Don't assume that if the world came at Dave or Joe or any of these people that they would have Peterson's look because I don't believe they have Peterson-level arguments to defend themselves.

I don't think there's good arguments that they're going to be able to say like, yeah, I know she's a Nazi, but I think it's okay to say she's awesome and stuff like that on third rails. But they are having Peterson's look. Candace and Ian, you just said blew up after people tried to come after them. No, I didn't

say they came after them. I said Ian blew up because of the exposure that he got on the Rogan show. And did the attacks on him or people try to take him down make him more popular or less? Or Daryl for that matter? More popular or less? I don't know. I would say more.

That's the thing. I want them to be less popular. I want these people to be dwindled in their influence. I think we can step up to the plate and retake the narrative. That's my point. It's from a place of confrontation, not from whittling away. None of us had heard of Ian Carroll

before he was on Rogan's show. If you're on Twitter, you do. I had never heard of him. Nobody I knew had ever heard of him. He was so little known that one I had never heard of him. Almost nobody I knew had ever heard of him. He was so little known that one guy was debunking him. I'm sure he said, maybe he's a Russian plant. Misfit patriot probably. How do you account for his sudden popularity?

People think there's some nefarious things going on there for ratioing. I don't believe that. But somehow he came to Rogan's attention and rogan launched him and so you're saying the question well after the rogan launch is it a net positive to complain about it i i think even if there's some short-term uh extra exposure the guy gets by complaining about him like i said it won't stop itself we that we cannot just get open field run. I agree. We agree.

And if you have this small little thing on you and you're like, hey, it's nothing, and you check it out and there's no cancer or anything like that, you can just ignore it. Then it gets bigger, and all of a sudden it makes itself known. Like, what do you do? So I would say confront it.

Well, that's the thing. She knows. Like two years ago, before October 7th, I was crying alarm about this stuff. Mm-hmm. In the podcast sphere, not actually,

I didn't, I thought Charlottesville was a nothing burger. Listen. The Unite the Right Market as I started to hear these conspiracy theories on podcasts.

Yeah. Before October 7th, I started to really worry about it. Were you worried about anti-Semitism in the Trump era? Not just,

no, in the Trump era, no. In 2016 when everybody was saying tiki torches. I wasn't. I wasn't at all. You were worried about anti-Semitism on the left. On the left. As a matter of fact, I was always worried about it on the right. I called that. I just want to say.

My response to people who were complaining about Trump was that come on, with enemies like Trump, we don't need friends. Well, he's a great guy now. Now you love him, don't you, Noam? And you know that so well, and we love that. But look, Noam, we are creatures of the Jews, no survival. That's our thing. We're about to go into Passover, Pesach, and it's a manual for survival. That's what Eric Weinstein talks about. So as concerning as it all is, and it's keeping us for survival that's what Eric Weinstein talks about so as concerning as it all is and it's

keeping us up like we know how to survive and if you activate us in survival mode I think we're going to be okay do not be part of the go back and listen again to what Sam Harris said he did not argue for deplatforming Joe Rogan he argued for responsible dissemination

of consequential information did you see Gad Saad's response to it? Yes. I thought he completely strawmanned Rogan. You mean Harris? I keep doing that. Yes. That's the thing of age. Completely strawmanned

Harris. Yeah, that's where I feel about it. I don't know. Sorry if my position let you down. It did. Sam's weakest point, apparently weakest point,

was that he was against Lex Friedman interviewing Putin. But you know, he had a point there too. Meaning like, unless you're prepared to go to Russia and treat this guy to a real interview, knowing that he poisons journalists and surrounded, you know, then you are in a sense going to play into the guy's hands. And if you think that he is a force for bad, then you don't want to play into his hands. And that's a general moral point of behavior for all of us. We should not knowingly do something that leads to bad for people or for the world. So now you may think it's not, you may not. No, there's various,

various, you know, nuances there. But if you're being honest with yourself and say, you know what, I'd love to do this interview, but I know I have a huge audience and this is just going to be his way of just spreading this stuff.

And I, and I'm not going to be able to interrupt him and correct him. And I'm not going to take that chance. Maybe I shouldn't, maybe I shouldn't do it. I think that with love, we can actually change the world. What the world needs now

is love. Well, he was weird. He's like, I'm conflicted about interviewing Netanyahu, but Putin, I'm excited about. I was like, okay, that's a little funny. Yeah, because who was conflicted? I think he told, I think he was saying that to Douglas.

What is that about? Because Netanyahu you can ask him whatever you want You can challenge him It's fair enough but I mean people used to do this I mean Larry King would go I mean these like journalists of Legacy in the 90s would interview World leaders and terrorists

Somebody who interviewed Saddam Hussein or something I mean this was like part of the- But they would challenge them. Yes. They would challenge them. And actually, Ted Turner- They have to be careful.

They're in a cave in Afghanistan. They got to be careful. So one could say, hey, we know the journalist doesn't approve, but it's interesting to profile how these people think. And if Lex can do that, who knows? Maybe it's informative. The proof will be in the pudding. If he's going to interview Putin. We'll see how he

did. I mean, Tucker Carlson did not do a very good interview. He was a great guy. Shut up. Okay. Yeah. Since we're like 4,000 hours over, can I ask a question? Yes. What did you think about Leslie

Stahl's interview on 60 Minutes of the Hostages? I didn't see it. Can we talk about that? Listen. Yes. We can go a little bit longer if you want. I'm happy. What we did wrong, we're meeting the Jewish people.

And again, by the way, speaking of what I was right about, I can show you my chat saying this on October 9th, telling people, avoid the atrocity porn. It's not going to convince anybody. I literally tweet. You remember saying that? Because we felt, look what they did to us.

This should be our argument. How can you oppose us after you see what they've done to us? That's going to backfire because once the optics come out the other way, we become the villains. One thing I said was, okay, but we were about to see daily George Floyd videos and a worldwide defund the police reaction. You remember me saying that? But what I also said was, it's not an argument.

If Israel is doing wrong by the Palestinians, that argument is not, nobody's disabused of that idea by the fact that the Palestinians did something awful, that they committed atrocities. What we needed to do over the last 18 months, and we didn't, was explain to people not that October 7th was an atrocity because the news did that for us. It was explained to people why we've tried to make peace. We've tried the two-state solution. They are the ones who don't want peace. Every man, woman, and child should know the five bullet points of the Israeli position by heart. They don't know any of them. We squandered all the attention by trying to say, please, don't you see what they did to us? Don't you see what they did to us? And of course,

inconveniently, some of the things we said they did to us didn't even happen, which really made us sound like we were crying wolf. And then we just got into this proven negative debate, again, with whether there were rapes or there weren't rapes. Insane. Just to get into that. And it got us nowhere. But when Bill Clinton comes on and says, listen, I was at the meeting and we offered them 99% of the state, and to this day, they still won't take it.

Bad people say, really? Wait, you guys are doing October 7th, even though you were offered all that? I didn't know you were offered all that. Oh, you were attacked? The reason the territories are occupied are because they attacked Israel? You mean Israel didn't take the territories

and then Israel tried to give it back right after and they were turned down? Like, these things actually matter to people. People get, we didn't do that at all. And the result was predictable. Yeah, I know. You lost the argument.

You lose the argument also because I think you have to defend yourself and not have to worry about defending what you're doing when you have a, asserting a position of strength and saying, we have to do this. It's going to be ugly. It's going to be bad. And I think when Israel contradicts its own position

or weakens its own position, when it tries to say, Hamas is completely responsible for all of this and yet we are also responsible by trying to do this sort of left-wing posture of we're sending humanitarian aid and we're trying to help look at the optics like own the fact that you have to do what you have to do it's horrible war is horrible you didn't want this but I always thought it's like the second you get on the news and you say like we're sending 800 trucks it's not 300 trucks you're lying it's like trucks no trucks you're at war with palace with with hamas with the kaza strip but you're not the by the biden administration

gave israel no choice yeah i at various but i just also think that was a part of weakening because when people see that they feel gaslit they're like what are you talking about and i think having to own the position that we have to do this, we have to defend our citizens, we can't compromise the security of our people and our state for the altruistic aims of trying to help the civilians of Gaza. We have to put our country and our civilians as paramount

and that's our priority. That's what the responsibility of any Western government is. And so when you try to do that and claim Hamas is responsible, but then also take responsibility for the wellbeing, you're just kind of weak. You're like one hand, you're taking water out of the lake here and pouring it into here, and you're not actually gaining any momentum. Because people might hate you, but they'll respect the fact that you're doing what you have to do.

The truth is, we don't know whether it was the right thing to do. It wasn't an immoral thing to do based on what was known prospectively. But in retrospect, if nothing positive comes from all this, if it resets almost to the status quo ante and rockets start coming again, it's going to be hard to justify all those. What, Israel's response? It will be hard to say they did the right thing in retrospect, given all the innocent people that died and suffered and have no homes. It can only be considered to have been a success

if there's something good to show for it. If it resets to exactly the same situation as we acquired, it's going to be very difficult to say we did the right thing. But I want to just repeat myself. It doesn't mean it was an immoral thing to do going forward, because you don't know the future. Yes. But at the end of the day, I think war, if you're going to do it, it has to be ruthless

and quick and not be dragged out for 18 months. You have to do it to the point where you do it to win, and the standard is victory and self-defense to secure your citizens and your state. Now, the hostages made that also much more complex and difficult, but I think the extent to which Israel was not restraining itself— You know, our argument there is a little bit BS-ish. What's that? Because Hamas made it somewhat easier for us by not releasing us, meaning Israel. I'm speaking in full dual loyalty mode now. Hamas made it easier for Israel by not releasing the hostages. However, if Hamas had released all the hostages on day one, Israel still had all the same

reasons that they had to go in there. I meant they made it complicated because you don't know, you don't want to compromise the lives of the hostages that are there while you're in guard. Oh, I'm sorry. I meant that as a bombardment of Gaza when you're trying to destroy Hamas. I'm referring to as many... I know, I know. You're saying it's all about just resting the hostages.

Well, if you want to do something, just release the hostages. And surrender. No, release the hostages and unequivocally surrender. You cannot be here anymore. You must be gone. That's the standard. The surrender was the key. I meant the hostages made it complicated for Israel militarily because they're putting them at risk when they have to do it. But I actually think you get

more hostages back when Israel, this part of the world doesn't respond to restraint. They respond to power. No part of the world responds to it. Yeah, yeah. No hostage taker responds to restraint. Correct. And I think that's when you start getting hostages back

when you start to say that Israel is unapologetically going to assert its strength and do what it has to do. And the fact that they didn't do that, and maybe that's because of Biden, and maybe that's because of restrictions put on Israel, I don't really know. I'm not a military tactician. You show me somebody.

It's amazing how things are predictable. You show me somebody with a vocal fry and I can guarantee you they're for restraint. Full circle. I'm not kidding. I don't know. Matthew McConaughey, you think he's for restraint? You know what I'm saying? It's amazing how these

things do correlate. Maybe Matthew McConaughey's got he's for restraint you know what I'm saying it's amazing how these things do correlate but maybe Matthew McConaughey he's got a big fry and he would support his for restraint that's what he would do especially using a Lincoln it's not a tank full circle

alright yeah that was some hefty schmoozing right there we got into the weeds it was good okay where do you live?

I'm in Jersey in Jersey I'm close alright goodnight everybody thank you Okay. Where do you live? I'm in Jersey. In Jersey. I'm close. All right. All right. Good night, everybody. Thank you. Oh, let us know.

Podcast at commieseller.com. And what's your Twitter information? At Fertile Ground for that kind of controlled reverse opposition, whatever bullshit psyops. And that's where, for me, the bottom line is, can I corroborate it with primary sources? And Q is the definition of no. Of course I can't. It's like, for me, the bottom line is can I corroborate it with primary sources? And Q is the definition of no. Of course I can't. It's like, what is it, a time traveler that's coming back that's telling us how to save the world or something? Like, I don't understand.

Do you think stuff like Pizzagate, like when they had that guy come in and fire up that shot, I felt like that was a great way to put a halt to all the looking into the Podesta emails. That's exactly what that shot. I felt like that was a great way to put a halt to all the looking into the emails. Because then all of a sudden it's a kook thing. Now it's a crazy person and a dangerous person because he's got a gun. You're causing dangerous people to take their guns. Just like with

the vaccines, it's like they always have to make it dangerous. It's dangerous to say that this might have side effects, right? Because if you read those emails. Exactly right. Those emails are bananas. And they're not explained.

They're talking about young kids who are going to be coming to a party to have fun. They'll be in the pool and they will be there for sure. $65,000 worth of hot dogs flown from Chicago for a White House party. The whole thing is like very weird. Did you ever see the archived Instagram posts from James Oliphantus' Instagram? No. Because that's a dark place. So there's so many layers to Pizzagate that they tried to cover up intentionally for very good reason.

Well, how about the logos? Well, the thing is I avoid, and the way I've talked about it, I've avoided all the symbols and logos and even some of the pizza stuff because I think there's so much more ripe, clear evidence that is way more powerful. And James Alfonso's Instagram account is a great example. Can you find it online? So you cannot find it on Instagram anymore. It's only been archived onto other sites, which is kind of sketchy because it's like, how do I know you're not adding photos and stuff? So you kind of have to dig and dig and dig and cross-reference over and over and over to make sure that you're getting sort of like the consensus because everyone watched as it happened.

So people like Liz Croak and people like Alex Jones, like they saw these things come out and you can find plenty of different archives of all of James Alphonse's Instagram posts. And there are things like photos of children with their arms taped to tables. And the caption is, looks like a fun time. And then people that have always been commenting on his posts, like the people that are interacting with his posts all the time, have even weirder Instagrams where it's like kill room. And there's a coffin that's open and things like that.

There's like a photo of like a walk-in freezer. And it's like, man, looks like you've been having a fun weekend. Things like that, that are just super dark. And a bunch of babies and a bunch of symbolism, a bunch of children. And it's all photos on their Instagram in plain daylight. And they all got scrubbed, obviously. And that's not to mention Podesta's art collection and the Marina Abramovich connections. It goes on and on and on and on and on.

Yeah. And we're talking about the Clintons with the Haiti scandals, with the cocaine in Arkansas. It's like the thing is that we sound crazy. I sound crazy to someone that doesn't do their own research because you just start there's so many layers of like crazy shit that's happened with some of these people. Yeah. That if you don't know the history of a person like Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, it's really easy to think, oh, that's just so insane that you would think that they would be involved in it. And first of all, they frame it in the articles about Pizzagate. They say Hillary Clinton was the mastermind of a global pedophile sex trafficking ring, all headquartered in this pizza shop, which is not what anyone ever claimed.

Right. So as soon as you can discredit that, you discredit the whole thing. Classic frame job, which Nancy Pelosi explains very well, where you make a false claim and you say that's what they're saying and then you discredit the false claim. But if you really learn the history of the Clinton family, just as one example. Did you ever read The Strange Death of Vince Foster? No. But I know a little bit about the Foster situation and a couple of those weird deaths earlier on. I read that book. I should read that. Back in the Dizzee. And that's what got me into wondering about the foster situation and a couple of those weird deaths earlier on. I read that book. I should read that. Back in the dizzay. And that's what got me into

wondering about the Clintons because that guy died. They found his body where there was less blood at the scene that was missing from his body. And the gun was still in his hand. I was actually just reading about that specific murder in Whitney Webb's books like two nights ago because she goes over that too because it's a huge question mark the gun was in his hand the guns never in your and his family claimed that that wasn't the right gun he he was he had a black gun and his family was like no he owned a silver gun all these weird things they never found the bullet like all sorts of things that just don't add up and that was right after Epstein had first walked into Bill Clinton's life that was between White House visit number one and White House visit number two.

While Epstein was funding the refurbishing of the entire West Wing of the White House. I'm glad you brought up Epstein because there was a point that I was going to make earlier that I forgot. The Epstein situation is identical to the Manson situation. You think so? Yeah. Explain what you mean. This is why. I mean, I think you don't mean that literally.

I think you mean that in a more metaphorical way. I mean the structure the structure of how you would pull it like if you were gonna use an intelligence asset to do something evil to do something where you can get dirt on people or compromise people or or accomplish an objective You would get someone who's already fucked up. Oh, 100%. And then you get that fucked up person and you help them, you know, run this cult. Or you help them get girls. But you intentionally keep them separate. Yeah.

You're not hiring them. They don't work for you. Right. They're a private entity. It's like layers of obfuscation. Like if he wasn't personally a pervert, it wouldn't work. Oh, not a chance. No. Like think about, like the guy gets arrested for having sex with

underage girls or getting them to do happy endings or whatever, wherever he did. So he gets arrested and then the real weird thing is that he just gets out and gets like house arrest. Yep. And he gets like a little slap on the wrist and then he's back in action with all these rich people again. again. Like really

rich influential people like Bill Gates is hanging out with him after he's already been arrested and convicted. Like that's bananas. But to your point about them But he's gotta already be fucked up. He can't be like a straight edge regular guy with a family and children

that is just evil. No you gotta have him in on the thing So if you got a guy you know is already a freak You know he's already a nut and he's already like doing how you recruit him below and fucking hookers all the time and maybe he's Been caught with a few underage girls you well when you study where he came from and how he got plucked from the Dalton school and then got put into Bear Stearns and They got put through Bear Stearns and they got put through Bear Stearns and then got put into money management.

It was teaching at one point. It was teaching at the Dalton school and then he was a banker at Bear Stearns, which he conveniently left when this big scandal broke that implicated him and the director, Goldstein, that had hired him and had been helping him up. And then he left and kind of took the fall and took the dirt with him.

And then he went into the arms running businesses, which is where he met Maxwell, Daddy Maxwell, not daughter Maxwell, and Adnan Khashoggi and Lise and all these other arms traffickers. And that's where he got into