Speaker 1: Joe's a friend, and I was trying to be gentle
Speaker 1: with him about what I regard as being a dangerous
Speaker 1: tilt that he and some other podcasters are encouraging. What
Speaker 1: I really maybe should have said, then can now, is
Speaker 1: that everybody recognizes his expertise in the areas they know about.
Speaker 1: I get very annoyed when I hear people who are
Speaker 1: in no way recognizably historians, in no way recognizably expert
Speaker 1: in the subjects they talk about regurgitating false versions of
Speaker 1: history that I saw debunked already in my lifetime. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's an area of the American right which is at
Speaker 1: the moment simply reheating David irvingism.
Speaker 2: I'm sick of talking about Douglas Murray, and I'm sure
Speaker 2: you are too, But it's important and I'm going to
Speaker 2: have to connect some dots on this one. So by
Speaker 2: the end of this you'll either think I'm a genius
Speaker 2: or a crazy person. But I implore you to stick with me,
Speaker 2: because I have a genuine point to make, and I
Speaker 2: think it's an important one for people to at least consider.
Speaker 2: You just have to consider it, okay, you have to
Speaker 2: consider it. So Douglas Murray drops an article today in
Speaker 2: the New York Post and he I'm going to read
Speaker 2: through some of it for you because I want you
Speaker 2: to get a feel for it. Basically, he's calling for
Speaker 2: standards when it comes to the podcasting world. And I
Speaker 2: think we all know what he's hinting at. With standards.
Speaker 2: Who will set those standards, who will enforce those standards?
Speaker 2: How are we to do so? What will be what
Speaker 2: will be the punishment? Well, sounds like a hop, skip
Speaker 2: and a jump to censorship now done. It ironic given
Speaker 2: that Douglas Murray rose to major prominence railing against the woke,
Speaker 2: censorious nonsense under the Biden administration, and now he seems
Speaker 2: to be taking much of the same tactics and repackaging
Speaker 2: in them for his own cause. But I want to
Speaker 2: point something out about Douglas Murray that I don't think
Speaker 2: most people are aware of. Douglas Murray, who came out
Speaker 2: of Oxford. Not long after graduating, he writes his very
Speaker 2: first widely read book, which was Neo Conservatism, Why We
Speaker 2: Need It. This is two thousand and six, so he's
Speaker 2: a approximately twenty five year old man at the time,
Speaker 2: and it's odd that a twenty five year old would
Speaker 2: have such a keen grasp on geopolitics and politics in
Speaker 2: general and be able to elucidate to his audience why
Speaker 2: we ought to be fighting these endless wars. He then
Speaker 2: proceeded to make his career by traveling to war zones
Speaker 2: and telling CNN or MSNBC or Fox News what they
Speaker 2: wanted to hear, which was that the Empire is doing
Speaker 2: great and this war is necessary, and that if we
Speaker 2: only keep funding and arming and fighting in these wars,
Speaker 2: then victory is just around the bend. And he did
Speaker 2: over and over again, despite the fact that his track
Speaker 2: record has been demonstrably proven to be horrifically wrong over
Speaker 2: and over again. Douglas Murray and his ILK of IDW guys,
Speaker 2: the intellectual Dark Web guys, guys of Sam Harris, Constantin Kissen,
Speaker 2: who's kind of this modern version of it Dave Ruben.
Speaker 2: Very interesting the similarities that they're all pushing the same narrative,
Speaker 2: All of these guys that rose to prominence being these
Speaker 2: intellectuals that pushed back against censorious nonsense, that were courageous
Speaker 2: enough to tell the truth when no one was willing
Speaker 2: or no one was permitted to do so on the internet.
Speaker 2: They now are circling the wagons to try and deplatform
Speaker 2: in particular my guy Dave Smith. Not just Dave, it's
Speaker 2: also Daryl Cooper. And it seems as if they are
Speaker 2: angling to damage Joe Rogan, or at minimum damage Joe
Speaker 2: Rogan's relationship with heterodox thinkers like Daryl Cooper Dave Smith. Certainly,
Speaker 2: if Scott Horten were ever get an invite, if I
Speaker 2: were to ever get an invite, they don't want they
Speaker 2: don't want people like us going on those platforms. So
Speaker 2: why why are they talking about that right now? Well,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna get to that, and that's the important part.
Speaker 2: But before I do, I want to read you a
Speaker 2: little bit of his article, because I think it's important
Speaker 2: that you understand his argument. I could read you from
Speaker 2: Constantin Kissen, who released his article just yesterday, but it's
Speaker 2: the exact same fucking article, So I'm not gonna read
Speaker 2: you his. That's okay, right, I think you'll permit permit
Speaker 2: that omission. You can read it on your own if
Speaker 2: you're really interested. I saw this article had just dropped
Speaker 2: while I was at the gym. I read it. I
Speaker 2: was so enraged I had to come and record an
Speaker 2: episode right away, so I'm doing so. Here's what he
Speaker 2: has to say, Douglas Murray released late last night. He
Speaker 2: says so called Israel Hamas Ukraine war expert spew false
Speaker 2: info on Joe Rogan's podcast. There has to be a standard.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna try not to read it in his voice.
Speaker 2: Last week, I seem to break the internet. I went
Speaker 2: back on the Rogan podcasts to talk about my new
Speaker 2: book on Democracies and death Cults Israel and the Future
Speaker 2: of Civilization, which is available at all good bookstores and
Speaker 2: on Audible. Since you ask, I've been on Joe's podcast
Speaker 2: a number of times before and have always enjoyed it.
Speaker 2: Joe is a master of his art. A lot of
Speaker 2: people think they can talk casually, interesting but interestingly for hours.
Speaker 2: That's mainly because Joe makes it look so easy. But
Speaker 2: this time I went on with a question, so he
Speaker 2: wants to clarify I'm not talking a shit about Rogan here,
Speaker 2: but he kind of is, because he's going to now
Speaker 2: criticize some of the regulars that Rogan's had on over
Speaker 2: the past year. Having not spoken to Joe since the
Speaker 2: wars in Ukraine, and Israel started. I had become increasingly
Speaker 2: irked that the guests he had that he has had
Speaker 2: on have been almost entirely anti Ukraine and anti Israel
Speaker 2: quick interjection, totally false. He's had on multiple guests that
Speaker 2: are pro Israel and pro war in Ukraine. Brogan even
Speaker 2: pointed that out during the conversation, so certainly not true.
Speaker 2: Many of the latter, in particular, are not just been
Speaker 2: addictively and maliciously anti Israel, but have been spewing claims
Speaker 2: that are demonstrably false. Many are also people who are
Speaker 2: simply in no way expert at what they are talking
Speaker 2: about attacks on Israel. One of these is a comedian
Speaker 2: who goes by the name of Dave Smith, claiming some
Speaker 2: Jewish ancestry, he has spent the eighteen months since October seven,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three being very unfunny. Indeed, specifically, he has
Speaker 2: decided to spend his time going around the podcast world
Speaker 2: sounding off about Israel. How dare he? In the process,
Speaker 2: he largely cites people like him, people who have many
Speaker 2: views but no obvious expertise, people like Daryl Cooper, who
Speaker 2: says he isn't a historian, yet has been invited onto
Speaker 2: some of the world's biggest podcasts. As quote a historian,
Speaker 2: one of Cooper's many ahistorical claims is that Winston Churchill
Speaker 2: was the chief villain of World War II. On these
Speaker 2: and many other occasions, Cooper has simply lied about history.
Speaker 2: When invited to debate the world's foremost living expert on
Speaker 2: Churchill last year, he declined, saying that he didn't know
Speaker 2: enough to go against such a figure. Yet still Cooper
Speaker 2: gets an on show after show to throw out falsehoods
Speaker 2: that he can't even back up. Sometimes you read it anything,
Speaker 2: but he can't even back them up, and on which
Speaker 2: his online interviewers seem happy not to challenge him. Another
Speaker 2: such figure from the world of comedy who was changing
Speaker 2: his shape to fit the time as Rogan guest, Ian Carroll,
Speaker 2: is what are you even talking about? Ian Carroll's not
Speaker 2: a stand up comic. I don't think he's ever tried comedy.
Speaker 2: I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he hasn't.
Speaker 2: What all right? This is someone who, when he last
Speaker 2: went on Rogan's podcast, very carefully tried to minimize the
Speaker 2: evil of Adolph Hitler. No, I don't think he did
Speaker 2: that outrageously and completely falsely. Carol claimed that in the
Speaker 2: nineteen thirties Hitler had kept his anti Semitism down, a
Speaker 2: provably false claim that Rogan did nothing to counter. Well,
Speaker 2: that's not true, and there are historians that have documented
Speaker 2: this quite correctly that in fact, in the lead up
Speaker 2: to World War Two, it was not very popular to
Speaker 2: make his full opinions known, and he did downplay them
Speaker 2: for political reasons. Not to say that he was not
Speaker 2: in fact a very fierce anti Semite, but rather he
Speaker 2: was just trying to get into political power, and therefore
Speaker 2: he downplayed some of his more heinous instincts. All these
Speaker 2: men have also been paling around online with Holocaust and
Speaker 2: ires and proud any Simites like Jake Shields. My bout
Speaker 2: on it. It's funny, I'm friends with all of these people. Oops,
Speaker 2: all right, my bout on Rogan. Two weeks ago, Rogan
Speaker 2: had his mate Dave Smith on yet again for a
Speaker 2: long podcast but for my return to the show that
Speaker 2: I could come on only if Dave Smith was once
Speaker 2: again in the studio, as if Joe didn't want to
Speaker 2: be unaccompanied, or that Joe thought it was I, of
Speaker 2: all his guests who must be challenged I just got
Speaker 2: to take a pause there. Uh yeah, I think that's
Speaker 2: exactly what happened. Actually, I think that Douglas Murray hit up.
Speaker 2: Rogan said I got this new book and I want
Speaker 2: to shill it. And Rogan, having had on a lot
Speaker 2: of guests that have gone against the pro war narrative,
Speaker 2: have convinced Joe that, in fact, people like Douglas Murray
Speaker 2: are the propagandists, quite to the contrary to what Douglas
Speaker 2: Murray is attempting to claim here, And I'll get into
Speaker 2: his history and explain why I think not only is
Speaker 2: that true, but also that Rogan and Dave and everybody
Speaker 2: else is right that they should not be listening to
Speaker 2: a absolute imbecile like Douglas Murray. But I digress. I'll
Speaker 2: get there. I like a debate as much as the
Speaker 2: next Scotsman. But what resulted was more than a debate.
Speaker 2: It seems to have led to some kind of podcast
Speaker 2: world meltdown. The first reason was that from the outset,
Speaker 2: I challenged Joe on his choice of guests and why
Speaker 2: he had been giving a platform to only one side
Speaker 2: of a debate, and a very conspiratorial one at that
Speaker 2: well false premise he wasn't doing that. Continuing, he and
Speaker 2: Smith were immediately defensive. But the real problem came when
Speaker 2: I raised the issue of expertise. Because, as I said
Speaker 2: then and have said often, we have lived through a
Speaker 2: period when the experts have gotten an awful lot of
Speaker 2: things wrong, from the Covid lafeique to the Hunter Biden laptop.
Speaker 2: We have lived through years after which distrust of experts
Speaker 2: have has become inevitable. Yet that doesn't mean that expertise
Speaker 2: does not exist. I agree. It does not mean that
Speaker 2: a comedian can simply hold himself out as a Middle
Speaker 2: East expert and should be listened to as if he
Speaker 2: has anybody of work. I did not mean that someone
Speaker 2: who says they are not a historian but who practices
Speaker 2: false history should be cited as a historian. This point
Speaker 2: seemed to rile both Smith and Rogan. It appears to
Speaker 2: have riled their audiences even more because many people seem
Speaker 2: to think that what I mean is that they are
Speaker 2: not allowed to have an opinion that is wrong. I
Speaker 2: think they are. It's just that there should be a
Speaker 2: price to pay for spreading bullshit, and part of that
Speaker 2: price is that you should be called out. Have you
Speaker 2: been there. If I had gone Rogan's podcasts and held
Speaker 2: myself out as an expert in MMA fighting, I suspect
Speaker 2: he would have noticed if I had kept making mistake
Speaker 2: after mistake and shown ignorance piled upon ignorance, I think
Speaker 2: he'd say, hey, you don't seem to be very knowledgeable
Speaker 2: about this, and he'd be right. So why is it
Speaker 2: hard to grasp that something similar applies in other areas,
Speaker 2: in bigger rings and more important fights. Having spent most
Speaker 2: of the last eighteen months in Israel, Gaza, Elebanon in Ukraine,
Speaker 2: I don't think I know everything, but I think I
Speaker 2: know a darn site more than someone like comic Smith,
Speaker 2: who admitted he'd never even been to the region he
Speaker 2: spends all his time talking about. Oh so you have
Speaker 2: to go to a country to comment on it? Do you? Said?
Speaker 2: Part of the Internet? Again, The answer is obviously not,
Speaker 2: But if it is your job, or you're making it
Speaker 2: your job, then probably yes. If I filed columns for
Speaker 2: this paper pretending to be an expert on countries I've
Speaker 2: never been to, I would expect my readers to complain,
Speaker 2: as they should if I filed columns about a war
Speaker 2: zone from the safety of West Palm Beach. I think
Speaker 2: it would be a fraud. Journalism has had its own
Speaker 2: meltdown in recent years. I got to take a quick
Speaker 2: pause here because this is so unbelievably irritating. Well, guess what, Douglas,
Speaker 2: you were sitting there. Why didn't you do it? Why
Speaker 2: weren't you able to actually poke any real legitimate holes
Speaker 2: in Dave's narrative about this war and how it began.
Speaker 2: It's not as if you weren't sitting right the fuck
Speaker 2: there for three hours, so you failed miserably to counter
Speaker 2: his arguments in real time. So what are you actually
Speaker 2: asking for, Because it's not simply that you want someone
Speaker 2: to call bullshit because you were there to do that,
Speaker 2: and you're now doing it again when you're not there,
Speaker 2: So that's not what you're calling for. What you're calling
Speaker 2: for is for people like Dave Smith to no longer
Speaker 2: get that platform. You are calling for deplatforming. It couldn't
Speaker 2: be more obvious. I just want to make it clear
Speaker 2: to everybody if they're not picking up on that, it
Speaker 2: doesn't mean that we don't have standards. Much though that
Speaker 2: might amaze some people. What the standards are in the
Speaker 2: new media, especially on podcasts, is still being worked out,
Speaker 2: but there must be some otherwise the new media will
Speaker 2: lead people into errors and evils far greater than the
Speaker 2: old media could ever dream of.
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 2: Really, could they lead us into a twenty year war
Speaker 2: in Afghanistan? Could the new media do that? Could the
Speaker 2: new media concoct a bullshit story about WMD's in Iraq
Speaker 2: that lead to the death of a million people? The
Speaker 2: new media get us into a war in Ukraine for
Speaker 2: the past two years via proxy and have hundreds of
Speaker 2: thousands of perish unnecessarily? Could the new media do that?
Speaker 2: Did the old media do that?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 2: It was the old media that did that. So you're
Speaker 2: saying that the new media is going to do something
Speaker 2: worse than that. Might I add you were one of
Speaker 2: the figureheads of the old media that led us astray,
Speaker 2: that lied through your fucking teeth for decades, who wrote
Speaker 2: a book titled neo Conservatism, Why We Need It in
Speaker 2: two thousand and six, at the spry age of approximately
Speaker 2: twenty six years old. You're propagandizing the world and you're
Speaker 2: getting national attention to propagate the idea of neo conservatism,
Speaker 2: which was the ideology of the empire over the past
Speaker 2: twenty years. Be it neo conservatism, neoliberalism, doesn't really matter.
Speaker 2: It's the same general framework because it led to a
Speaker 2: ton of disastrous wars, every single one of which you
Speaker 2: saw first hand and lied about over and over and
Speaker 2: over again. So when I push back against what he's
Speaker 2: saying here, it's not to say that I think that
Speaker 2: there shouldn't be standards in independent media. I think there should.
Speaker 2: But the number one standard is that the audience decides,
Speaker 2: and the audience ought to. I can't force them, but
Speaker 2: the audience ought to decide based off of track record,
Speaker 2: who is and who is not reputable. And if you
Speaker 2: have been following Dave Smith or Douglas Murray's work for
Speaker 2: the past decade, then you already know the answer. And
Speaker 2: the answer is Dave Smith is far more reputable than
Speaker 2: Douglas Murray or Sam Harris or Constantin Kissen. And Dave
Speaker 2: doesn't run from a fight, and he has debated all
Speaker 2: of these issues at nauseum, and he has dominated those
Speaker 2: debates because he's right, because he's arguing from strength not weakness,
Speaker 2: because he's not a propagandist, because he's actually doing the research,
Speaker 2: and and then testing his own metal against some of
Speaker 2: the most highly acclaimed academics out there, and time and
Speaker 2: time again he trounces them. Not because he's some unbelievably
Speaker 2: gifted debater, not because he plays tricks, not because his
Speaker 2: audience and his fans are dupes, but rather because he
Speaker 2: has the truth on his side, which is, at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, the greatest secret weapon you can
Speaker 2: have in any debate, Are you telling the truth or not?
Speaker 2: Because if you have to defend a falsehood, any reasonably
Speaker 2: gifted debater will defeat you. And that is what Dave
Speaker 2: is doing time and time again, and that is why
Speaker 2: they want Dave Smith deplatformed along with others. So this
Speaker 2: is where it gets interesting though, and I hopefully it
Speaker 2: was already somewhat interesting. But Douglas Murray, as I've already
Speaker 2: laid out his history, his track record is atrocious. There
Speaker 2: isn't a war he hasn't advocated on behalf of, and
Speaker 2: there isn't a war that he told the truth about.
Speaker 2: And there is an a war that's gone as he
Speaker 2: described it to be going. And there is an a
Speaker 2: war that actually turned out to the positive of the
Speaker 2: people there, or us or the world every single thing
Speaker 2: he said about every single war has ultimately been disastrously wrong.
Speaker 2: So if you and Constantine Kissin and Sam Harris and
Speaker 2: Dave Rubin and others want to require there to be standards,
Speaker 2: well then let's start there. Let's judge each other by
Speaker 2: our track records. Put my track record up against y'all's.
Speaker 2: I'm happy to do it too. I don't have nearly
Speaker 2: the audience or nearly the reach, and I haven't been
Speaker 2: doing this nearly as long as Dave Smith has. He's
Speaker 2: been doing it for I don't know, going on fifteen
Speaker 2: years now. I've only been doing it for four. But
Speaker 2: regardless test my track record, I get a lot right.
Speaker 2: Y'all get almost everything wrong. Why is that? And by
Speaker 2: the way, everything that you do get right when it
Speaker 2: comes to two genders and you know, fighting against woke
Speaker 2: and fighting against censorship, I got that right too, and
Speaker 2: so Dave Smith. So basically, what's happening, in my opinion,
Speaker 2: is that the audiences are taking in the content from
Speaker 2: all of us and they're realizing that we're just better
Speaker 2: than you, that we get it right more often than
Speaker 2: you do. And the reason we get it right is
Speaker 2: because we're not paid propagandists, which I believe you to be.
Speaker 2: Why do I say that, Well, let's get into the history.
Speaker 2: Mister Murray is on the International Advisory Board of the
Speaker 2: NGO Non Governmental Organization Monitor, a Jerusalem based in GEO
Speaker 2: described as pro Israel and right wing, which was founded
Speaker 2: in two thousand and one by Professor Gerald M. Steinberg.
Speaker 2: So interesting, isn't it timing wise? Because just a few
Speaker 2: days ago this happened. Waiting off is rarely planned.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't say waived off. I'm not in a rush
Speaker 3: to do it because I think that Iran has a
Speaker 3: chance to have a great country and to live happily
Speaker 3: without death, and I'd like to see that. That's my
Speaker 3: first option. If there's a second option, I think it
Speaker 3: would be very bad for Iran. And I think Iran
Speaker 3: is wanting to talk. I hope they're wanting to talk.
Speaker 3: It's going to be very good for them if they do.
Speaker 3: And I'd like to see Iran thrive in the future,
Speaker 3: do fantastically well. I know the Iranian people. They're incredible people,
Speaker 3: always have been, very smart, very energetic, very successful people.
Speaker 3: And I don't want to do anything that's going to
Speaker 3: hurt anybody. I really don't. But Iran can't have a
Speaker 3: nuclear weapon. It's pretty simple. It's really simple. We're not
Speaker 3: looking to take their industry, we're not looking to take
Speaker 3: their land, we're not. All we're saying is you can't
Speaker 3: have a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 2: So what happened earlier this week was that Trump jd Vance,
Speaker 2: Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegg says Scretary of Defense, and whiles
Speaker 2: they all basically advised against the Israelis striking the nuclear
Speaker 2: facilities within Iran, which means that they were very very
Speaker 2: close to doing so. Now, this is important thing to understand.
Speaker 2: This is what I've read, I don't know, you know,
Speaker 2: to be one hundred percent factual. New York Times reported
Speaker 2: on it, you know, take it with a grain of salt.
Speaker 2: But assuming that's true, what it tells you is that
Speaker 2: there are elements within the Trump camp that do not
Speaker 2: want a full war with Iran, and there are other elements,
Speaker 2: Marco Rubio being the top one that wants to strike
Speaker 2: Iran as fast as possible. And I just think that
Speaker 2: this timing is extraordinarily interesting. Just imagine for a second
Speaker 2: that you're a government official, You're in charge of you know,
Speaker 2: the Mockingbird Project for the CIA, and you're realizing that
Speaker 2: the narrative is getting out of hand. All of the
Speaker 2: wars that you try and propagandize the American people into supporting,
Speaker 2: Suddenly they're not buying it. The reason that they're not
Speaker 2: buying it is because they're not getting their news from
Speaker 2: you anymore. They're not getting their news from the people
Speaker 2: that you've been feeding a script to for the past
Speaker 2: fifty years. We're not tuning in to Cronkite or Dan
Speaker 2: Rather or anybody anymore, none of them. We're turning into
Speaker 2: independent news sources. So you got the Rogan's, the Tim Poole's.
Speaker 2: Maybe you tune into Dave Smith now and then if
Speaker 2: you're trying to get public support for a strike against
Speaker 2: the Iranians, wouldn't it be good if you had some
Speaker 2: other trusted, independent voices that you could turn to and
Speaker 2: you could say, hey, we want you to put a
Speaker 2: fissure in between Dave Smith and Joe Rogan. Wouldn't that
Speaker 2: be nice? What if they were all former IDW guys
Speaker 2: that argued in favor of free speech and open dialogue
Speaker 2: and against censorship. Wouldn't it be great if they had
Speaker 2: that type of track record where they're supported by some
Speaker 2: portion of Rogan's audience, wouldn't it'd be great if they
Speaker 2: could be the ones that come out against him platforming
Speaker 2: people that are counter to our interests when it comes
Speaker 2: to propagandizing people and priming them for war. Look, I
Speaker 2: know I'm connecting dots here, and i know I'm making
Speaker 2: a claim that sounds a little outlandish, But when you
Speaker 2: consider the fact that at some point in the past,
Speaker 2: it was reported by former CIA agents that they had
Speaker 2: more than half of all nightly news programs were directly
Speaker 2: under their control. By some estimates it was upwards of
Speaker 2: eighty percent of the commentators were directly under their thumb.
Speaker 2: So if you think, given that Joe Rogan gets fifteen
Speaker 2: million viewers on average and all these other shows do
Speaker 2: hundreds of thousands, and nightly news shows are lucky to
Speaker 2: compete with them, if they do it all, if they've
Speaker 2: already done it in the past, why wouldn't they do
Speaker 2: it now? Right? I don't think I'm I don't think
Speaker 2: I'm reaching here. I'm literally extrapolating or not very distant history,
Speaker 2: and I'm applying it to the present. I'm arguing to
Speaker 2: you that it would be foolhardy to believe that they
Speaker 2: wouldn't be doing this, that they wouldn't be applying leverage
Speaker 2: to these platforms to try and curtail their messaging. Timpoole
Speaker 2: got in the line of fire just last week because
Speaker 2: he met in semi private with Benjamin at Yahoo, Prime
Speaker 2: Minister of Israel. Interesting timing on that one, too, given
Speaker 2: that these strikes were supposed to be happening this week. No,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that Tempoole accepted any money. I don't
Speaker 2: know that, and I doubt it personally. But the fact
Speaker 2: that you have all these idw guys coming out, all
Speaker 2: in tandem, all basically verbatim, all in sync, all on
Speaker 2: the same messaging beat, all destroying their reputation in order
Speaker 2: to try and tarnish a guy like Dave Smith, you
Speaker 2: don't find that interesting. You don't find that timing super interesting.
Speaker 2: That they nearly got this war that they've wanted forever.
Speaker 2: Let me show you how long they've wanted it.
Speaker 3: There any other nations that you would recommend that the
Speaker 3: United States launch preemptive attack upon at this point.
Speaker 4: The answer is categorically as the two nations that are vying,
Speaker 4: competing with each other. Who will be the first to
Speaker 4: achieve nuclear weapons? Is Iraq and Iran. A third nation,
Speaker 4: by the way, is Libya as well, while no one
Speaker 4: is watching, under the cloak, is trying very rapidly to
Speaker 4: build an atomic bomb capability. The question that you ask,
Speaker 4: I think it is vital, it's important, and that is
Speaker 4: what do you do about it? You have to dismantle
Speaker 4: the network, and the question is do you dismantle all
Speaker 4: of it at once?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 4: The first thing you did after the wake up call
Speaker 4: and September eleventh was that you took on the first regime,
Speaker 4: the obvious regime. You remove the Taliban regime and you
Speaker 4: scatter it. Okay, although it has not been completely destroyed it.
Speaker 4: Now the question is what's your next step? Knowing that
Speaker 4: three of these nations are developing nuclear weapons. This is
Speaker 4: not a hypothesis, it is fact. Iraq, Iran, and Libya
Speaker 4: are racing to develop nuclear weapons. So now what is
Speaker 4: the next I believe that the next step is to choose.
Speaker 4: It's not a question of whether you have to take action,
Speaker 4: but what kind of action and against? If I had
Speaker 4: to choose, should there be military action first against Iraq
Speaker 4: or first against Iran.
Speaker 2: I would choose to go after Iraq. So that's Benjamin
Speaker 2: net Yahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, talking to our
Speaker 2: Congress over twenty years ago, laying out the game plan.
Speaker 2: Some of those faces that you saw in there, they're
Speaker 2: no longer with us. Gaddafi and Libya gone, Saddam Hussein
Speaker 2: in Iraq gone, Iran still standing. So we have these
Speaker 2: reports that come out the same week that there's this
Speaker 2: attempt from these former IDW guys to try and sever
Speaker 2: the relationship between Dave Smith and Joe Rogan. The very
Speaker 2: same week they were this close to getting the bombing
Speaker 2: campaign geared up against the nuclear facilities in Iran, which
Speaker 2: Iran has said repeatedly. I can't say that they'll actually
Speaker 2: follow through, but they've said repeatedly that if you do that,
Speaker 2: they will fight back, they will defend themselves. And we've
Speaker 2: got a lot of troops in that region, which means
Speaker 2: we likely lose soldiers in response, we lose Americans, which
Speaker 2: means cassaspelli, which means full war. I don't think I'm
Speaker 2: taking huge logical leaps here right now. This is the
Speaker 2: other key thing to understand the Israelis, from everything I've read,
Speaker 2: don't have the capacity to take out the nuclear facilities
Speaker 2: that the Iradians have, because after they've already taken out
Speaker 2: their facilities so many times of the past fifteen years,
Speaker 2: they have buried them very, very far below the ground. Therefore,
Speaker 2: the only munitions that are capable of actually reaching them,
Speaker 2: assuming you don't actually just go in there on foot,
Speaker 2: would have to be you know, basically bunker busters, which
Speaker 2: the Israelis don't possess, not the ones necessary to get
Speaker 2: deep enough to actually take out these facilities. So what
Speaker 2: Netanyahu was in town to do was not just to
Speaker 2: meet with Tim Poole and other independent media folks, but
Speaker 2: he was there to talk to Trump in person, to
Speaker 2: try and get him to take on their war to
Speaker 2: strike those facilities which have led to a war between
Speaker 2: the United States of America and Iran and who knows
Speaker 2: who else. So, yeah, I don't think any of this
Speaker 2: is coincidence. And I think that they they sense that
Speaker 2: they've lost their grasp on the narrative. And I know
Speaker 2: it sounds ridiculous that they'd be concerned about some stand
Speaker 2: up comic, some member of the Legion of Skanks like Clint,
Speaker 2: you honestly believe that they're going after Dave Smith. You
Speaker 2: honestly think that they're trying to to undermine Dave Smith.
Speaker 2: I just want to be very clear with you, guys.
Speaker 2: There has been no more successful other than maybe maybe Finkelstein,
Speaker 2: there has been no more successful commentator debater on this
Speaker 2: issue over the past eighteen months than Dave Smith. If
Speaker 2: you think he's not on their radar, you're out of
Speaker 2: your fucking mind. He is absolutely on their radar. I
Speaker 2: struggle to believe that Douglas Murray, James Lindsay, Sam Harris,
Speaker 2: Constantin Kissen, all of these guys. By the way, constant
Speaker 2: Kissen was just on two weeks ago. He was just
Speaker 2: on Joe Rogan two weeks ago. Douglas Murray was just
Speaker 2: on last week. I struggle to imagine that these men
Speaker 2: would risk their relationship with Joe Rogan, the largest platform
Speaker 2: in the world, for no good reason. And I think
Speaker 2: there's a very good reason, and I think that they've
Speaker 2: been employed to do it.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: I can't prove that, but I want you to pay
Speaker 2: attention to what they're doing and what they're saying in
Speaker 2: the synchronicity with which they are doing what they're doing,
Speaker 2: and judge for yourself. As I said, I'm connecting dots.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying it definitively, but I am saying Dave
Speaker 2: Smith is absolutely on the regime's radar. They want their
Speaker 2: war and Dave Smith, Rogan and independent commentator space like
Speaker 2: the actual independent commentator space that has very significant audiences
Speaker 2: these days, is a problem to them. And they if
Speaker 2: they can't buy you, they'll threaten you. If they can't
Speaker 2: cancel you, they'll deplatform you. They're gonna do anything they
Speaker 2: can because they don't have any other choice. They already
Speaker 2: tried the censorship regime in the twenty twenty twenty twenty
Speaker 2: one timeline didn't work out so well, so they got
Speaker 2: to try something else. And who better than a guy
Speaker 2: who sits on the board of a Tel Aviv based
Speaker 2: Inngo to push this operation. British guy sounds very authoritative.
Speaker 2: He's gotten every single war wrong over the past twenty years,
Speaker 2: but people still give him the time of day. They
Speaker 2: still listen to him as if he's some sort of
Speaker 2: reputable figure that you ought to take seriously. But don't
Speaker 2: listen to Dave Smith, who's been right about everything for
Speaker 2: a decade. Dismiss him. He's a stand up comic. Why
Speaker 2: should you be listening to Dave Smith? He's a comic.
Speaker 2: Listen to this guy who's been fucking wrong about everything
Speaker 2: for twenty years. Wouldn't that be preferable if you enjoyed
Speaker 2: this episode, But you still need a nicotine fix because
Speaker 2: you can't put down the vapor. The cigarettes got an
Speaker 2: option for you. Zippis toothpicks dot com promo code Clint ten,
Speaker 2: get yourself ten percent off. I love these things. As
Speaker 2: you can tell, I am cutting way back. It's all
Speaker 2: a consequence of having some other item that is, you know,
Speaker 2: still satisfying that very very heterosexual oral fixation issue that
Speaker 2: I have. Anyways, zipp ixtoothpicks dot com promo Clint ten
Speaker 2: to get yourself ten percent off. You must be twenty
Speaker 2: one or older to order. Warning. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.
Speaker 2: Zipmore smoke less with Zipix nicotine. Toothpicks that's zipp I
Speaker 2: x nicked. That's zipp I X toothpicks dot com promo
Speaker 2: code Clint ten. Get you some Get the fuck out
Speaker 2: of here. I mean it is so it's gaslighting. It's
Speaker 2: so irritated and I and I honestly believe that I'm
Speaker 2: I'm right on this. I think that they are running
Speaker 2: a goddamn op and I know it sounds crazy, but
Speaker 2: I think I'm right. Let me know what you think
Speaker 2: in the comments, like subscribe, share it around being bing bong.
Speaker 2: Quick note before I get out of here, Trump put
Speaker 2: COVID origin on White House doc Gov and basically he's
Speaker 2: pointing the finger at Fauci everything that we've talked about
Speaker 2: in the past. So I'm not going to recap it all.
Speaker 2: I think we're all on the same page. Anyways. It's
Speaker 2: nice to get confirmation of what you and I already
Speaker 2: knew four years ago. I guess it's nice to know.
Speaker 2: But here's the reality. Fauci's still walking free. There's nobody
Speaker 2: that's facing trial. There's nobody that's even under investigation as
Speaker 2: far as I know. So until that changes, I don't
Speaker 2: give a shit what you put on your website. We
Speaker 2: need justice and if you're not capable of delivering that,
Speaker 2: then this is just lip service. It's just basically trying
Speaker 2: to assuade our concerns while delivering nothing. We need actual investigations,
Speaker 2: actual prosecutions, lest these people do it to us again.
Speaker 2: They locked down the world, millions of people died, and
Speaker 2: they transferred the most wealth and human history during that
Speaker 2: twenty four month period. If they get away with that,
Speaker 2: well then you can just write off our future because
Speaker 2: if there's not justice to be found for something like that,
Speaker 2: well then there's no justice in this world. And that's
Speaker 2: the truth. And I hope, I hope that Pambondi, Battel, Bongino,
Speaker 2: Trump himself are the real deal and that they will
Speaker 2: eventually go after not just those people, but also the
Speaker 2: Epstein folks. And if you don't, well then you're in
Speaker 2: on it, and that's too bad. I hope you're not
Speaker 2: fingers crossed. Like I said, like buddon comment, subscribe, share
Speaker 2: it around. Thank you guys so much. We just did
Speaker 2: back to back thirty k viewership on YouTube for my
Speaker 2: two most recent episodes. I have never done that with
Speaker 2: a solo show. I've had some shows that did fifty
Speaker 2: to one hundred thousand views with guests, but just me
Speaker 2: shooting the shit with you guys to get that many
Speaker 2: views is bonkers. Couldn't have done it without you. Couldn't
Speaker 2: have done it without you, guys, sharing the show and
Speaker 2: telling people about it and picking up your nieces and
Speaker 2: nephews and sons and daughters and grandmas and grandpas and
Speaker 2: mothers and wives. And you picked up their phone and
Speaker 2: you didn't tell them shit. And you just went to
Speaker 2: Liberty Lockdown on your favorite podcastcher and you click subscribe
Speaker 2: and you didn't say anything. You handed it back to them.
Speaker 2: That's the only reason this is happening because of you, degenerates,
Speaker 2: and I couldn't be more appreciative. I'll see you guy.
Speaker 2: You're not gonna believe this. But just as I was
Speaker 2: about to publish who Else sits down? A bunch of
Speaker 2: these guys I keep talking about. So I've been talking
Speaker 2: about Constantin Kissing and Douglas Murray. They're the ones that
Speaker 2: released these articles over the past forty eight hours. Who
Speaker 2: else was I talking about? Well, Dave Rubin just had
Speaker 2: on James Lindsay to talk about what you're allowed to
Speaker 2: talk about on the internet. What are the odds all
Speaker 2: of the idw doing the exact same thing at the
Speaker 2: exact same time. Let's listen to a little bit of it.
Speaker 5: Podcast is stan is a place where people scold the
Speaker 5: mainstream media for failing to live up to their standards
Speaker 5: while having none of their own.
Speaker 2: I've been thinking a.
Speaker 5: Lot about this because people are putting aside even the
Speaker 5: specifics of the debate, and you guys are welcome to
Speaker 5: talk about whatever you want. Obviously, as we watch mainstream
Speaker 5: collapse and the gatekeeping that you were talking about earlier,
Speaker 5: James and most people watching this, I think agree that
Speaker 5: gatekeeping has been terrible, especially COVID. I think blew apart
Speaker 5: so many doors for people that now they're questioning everything.
Speaker 5: And you've got people thinking that Winston Churchill was the
Speaker 5: bad guy in World War Two and somehow Hitler was good.
Speaker 5: And just like the litany of things that we've opened,
Speaker 5: we've upended, we are finding ourselves in a weird place
Speaker 5: where everyone's just gone off to their corner to find truth.
Speaker 5: Is this like, in some sense the most dangerous thing
Speaker 5: that a modern society can be in where we're just
Speaker 5: going to all define truth for ourselves. And in some
Speaker 5: ways we have to blame the gatekep, the previous gatekeepers,
Speaker 5: because they did not do a good enough job gatekeeping.
Speaker 2: For James, Lindsay says some stupid shit. I got to
Speaker 2: interject there now, the most dangerous thing you can have,
Speaker 2: The most dangerous civilization that you can live in, is
Speaker 2: not one in which we all have our own truth.
Speaker 2: It's one in which we all believe the same lie. Hello,
Speaker 2: isn't that obvious If you all believe the same lie,
Speaker 2: If you can propagandize an entire population into a lie,
Speaker 2: it can destroy you. Not just destroy you, but it
Speaker 2: could destroy the world. There's so many examples historically of this,
Speaker 2: where I mean Japan World War two. There's aspects of
Speaker 2: that within twenty twenty across the entire world, where the
Speaker 2: entire world believed a lie and we almost destroyed ourselves
Speaker 2: over it. So there are lots of paradigms in which
Speaker 2: civilization is jeopardized, not because we all get to talk
Speaker 2: freely and some of us might believe wrong things, and
Speaker 2: not because the gatekeepers got it wrong, but rather there
Speaker 2: was censorship, and the gatekeeping was there to prevent us
Speaker 2: from discussing things and to prevent us from getting to
Speaker 2: the truth, which you guys are now trying to do
Speaker 2: because the open dialogue has led us to a conclusion
Speaker 2: that isn't in alignment with your funders. Yeah, I'll say it.
Speaker 2: That's exactly what I think is happening is that your
Speaker 2: funding source is telling you, hey, open dialogue was all
Speaker 2: good right up until they started to say, hey, what
Speaker 2: about this relationship with that other nation in the Middle East?
Speaker 2: And all these wars that we fought, and they've all
Speaker 2: been disastrous and they've basically bankrupted us. They put US
Speaker 2: ten plus trillion in debt. Maybe we shouldn't be doing
Speaker 2: that anymore. And then all of a sudden, all of
Speaker 2: these guys that are interested in open dialogue and free
Speaker 2: speech and debate, no gatekeepers, no censorship, All of a sudden,
Speaker 2: all of them have a problem all about the same issue,
Speaker 2: and there's one unique thing that ties them all together.
Speaker 6: Ride or Die for Israel. WHOA wow, fascinating. What you're
Speaker 6: witnessing is postmodernism. What he's actually putting his finger on
Speaker 6: is called the postmodern condition. So now we have of
Speaker 6: I guess the alt media, which largely codes right podcast
Speaker 6: to stan is a great name for it, because if
Speaker 6: you don't pay your right dues to it, then.
Speaker 2: They'll kick you out that it has gone postmodern.
Speaker 6: This is the postmodern condition, and everything that went along
Speaker 6: with postmodernism on the left that sucked is going to
Speaker 6: come here. That also sucked. There's a day out there
Speaker 6: who have gate kept the institutions so that their knowledges
Speaker 6: are considered valid and nobody else's outside knowledges are considered valid. Therefore,
Speaker 6: outsider knowledge that challenges the existing establishment is considered more valid.
Speaker 6: And so that's actually also what he's touching on. So
Speaker 6: this is why these people qualify under a brand name
Speaker 6: like Woke Right, because most of them identify on the right.
Speaker 6: They push so called right wing values, and they've adopted
Speaker 6: a left wing of pistemology.
Speaker 2: It's not that I'm not interested in expertise. It's not
Speaker 2: that first hand accounts don't have value. It's not that
Speaker 2: going to the location of the place that you're talking
Speaker 2: about might add additional context that is valuable to your listeners,
Speaker 2: your readers, whatever. It's not that I'm arguing that it's
Speaker 2: I'm certainly not arguing that everybody who has a heterodox
Speaker 2: view is correct at be absurd. I'm arguing that the
Speaker 2: experts have failed us, and you guys stood shoulder to
Speaker 2: shoulder with us as we pointed out the same thing.
Speaker 2: You were that the experts were wrong about XYZ in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty twenty one, even long prior to that. But
Speaker 2: now we're saying that we still believe the experts are
Speaker 2: wrong about this issue, this issue in particular. You won't
Speaker 2: engage with us on a debate on the merits of
Speaker 2: our own arguments or our own due diligence on these
Speaker 2: issues because you can't, because we have a really good
Speaker 2: case that none of you can take on, so much
Speaker 2: so that Douglas Murray sat mere feet away from Dave
Speaker 2: Smith for three hours and couldn't contend with our argument
Speaker 2: because it's a solid one. So that's the reality. I'm
Speaker 2: not arguing that every heterodox view is correct. I'm arguing
Speaker 2: that the experts in these particular arenas have been wrong
Speaker 2: and continue to be And if you're going to talk
Speaker 2: about getting narratives wrong, then why the fuck aren't you
Speaker 2: looking at Douglas Murray's track record of being wrong about
Speaker 2: every foreign intervention for two decades. Well, the answer is
Speaker 2: that you don't disagree with him on that because you
Speaker 2: guys are pro war, because you are pro empire, and
Speaker 2: whether you be neo conservative, neoliberal, or just bought and
Speaker 2: paid for shills doesn't really change the outcome you are
Speaker 2: coming to the wrong conclusions because you're wrong, not because
Speaker 2: we are, not because we're seeking out miss and disinformation
Speaker 2: from stand up comics, but because that stand up comic
Speaker 2: has done more research and more due diligence and tested
Speaker 2: his ideas in the open marketplace of ideas, and he
Speaker 2: has prevailed time and time again. And that is why
Speaker 2: all of you are unifying to try and unseat him.
Speaker 2: But unseat him you shall not, for the king shall reign.
Speaker 2: So this is utter garbage, obviously, But I did have
Speaker 2: an interaction with James Lindsay today that is very it
Speaker 2: just it's a great example of what I'm describing here.
Speaker 2: We make solid arguments, they don't contend with them. They
Speaker 2: laugh us off, despite the fact that we are winning
Speaker 2: the debate. We're winning the debate not because our audience
Speaker 2: is stupid, but because our audience is actually listening. Check
Speaker 2: it out. So my buddy Liam McCollum posts a meme.
Speaker 2: It says Dave Smith, America first, Douglas Murray, the War Party.
Speaker 2: Very accurate. James Lindsay quotes it says libertarians, every war
Speaker 2: is just unless it's fought by America and its allies.
Speaker 2: It's a critical theory of the great power, just like
Speaker 2: Lenin and Stalin taught the Soviets. It's not America first,
Speaker 2: it's America last and moral authority because of its power.
Speaker 2: It's not libertarian either. So all of that's wrong. I'll
Speaker 2: show you what I responded with, but just to start
Speaker 2: off with, every war is just unless it's fought by
Speaker 2: America and its allies. There are very few wars that
Speaker 2: libertarians find to be just at all. Were probably the
Speaker 2: least pro war you'll find. And I responded opening statements
Speaker 2: straw Man conclusion, peer confirmation, biased deeply Inhale's own fart, continues, continues,
Speaker 2: evading all of our actual arguments. I see why you
Speaker 2: love Douglas Murray. He responds to me, give me your
Speaker 2: theory of just war, if and when you're ready, and
Speaker 2: compare your theory against the Hamas Charter and its consistent
Speaker 2: behavior since the nineteen eighties when it was written. For
Speaker 2: all the talk about quote your arguments, put up or
Speaker 2: shut up? So I put up, and guess what James lindsay.
Speaker 2: Shut up. Here's what I said. This is a description
Speaker 2: of just war theory. So I'm going to go through
Speaker 2: each aspect of it. Bear with me, It'll take maybe
Speaker 2: sixty seconds. Hamas attacks, Israel has a right to respond
Speaker 2: check mark, so that falls under the just war justin bello,
Speaker 2: the nature of the response is massively excessive, wiping out
Speaker 2: tens of thousands of innocence. That does not qualify just postbellum,
Speaker 2: which is after the war. There is no real plan
Speaker 2: for peace, and there hasn't been a serious effort to
Speaker 2: establish an autonomous Palestinian state in decades. Israel has a
Speaker 2: right to respond, they do not have a right to
Speaker 2: mass slaughter innocence, just as Hamas has no right to
Speaker 2: do so, despite the decades of blockades and abuse the
Speaker 2: Palestinians have suffered last resort. This is another criteria for
Speaker 2: just war theory. All reasonable, peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.
Speaker 2: They were not. In fact, Hamas was propped up by
Speaker 2: NETANYAHUO because they didn't want a two state solution, diminishing
Speaker 2: Fatah gave them the quote no partner for peace argument,
Speaker 2: So that doesn't check off either probability of success. There
Speaker 2: is no chance that they wipe out Hamas the state
Speaker 2: of goal without wiping out or ethnically cleansing two million
Speaker 2: innocent non combatants. That doesn't check discrimination. The IDEF has
Speaker 2: failed miserably and avoiding harm to non combatants, as has Hamas.
Speaker 2: That doesn't check proportionality. The force used must be proportionate
Speaker 2: to the military objective of avoiding excessive destruction. If you've
Speaker 2: looked at Gaza at all or thereabouts, it has definitely
Speaker 2: been excessive. So proportionality doesn't match. With all that being said,
Speaker 2: And this is the key part, and this is what
Speaker 2: really frustrates me about the framing that they continue to
Speaker 2: apply to the libertarian argument, be it Dave Smith or
Speaker 2: Scott or myself or anybody else. Is that I said,
Speaker 2: with all that being said, I am only interested in
Speaker 2: ending America's involvement. Funding and arming the Israelis while providing
Speaker 2: aid to the Palestinians is insanity. You want the war
Speaker 2: to continue and for me to shut up, fine, publicly
Speaker 2: endorse the completeisation of American involvement, pull our troops from
Speaker 2: the region, and the aid and munition shipments stop bombing Yemen.
Speaker 2: Until then, I will continue to speak out. I've never
Speaker 2: argued that Hamas is fighting in a moral way, nor
Speaker 2: have I defended their actions. You are attempting to force
Speaker 2: a false binary, when the third option is all most
Speaker 2: libertarians want, namely to not be involved, to not be
Speaker 2: robbed to fund the mass slaughter of kids. The fact
Speaker 2: that you struggle so mightily to understand and this simple
Speaker 2: premise tells me you are either not trying very hard
Speaker 2: or you're being paid to take this position. I don't
Speaker 2: care which it is. When I say America first, I
Speaker 2: mean it, and I do I mean it and they
Speaker 2: don't because they're liars. Now are they paid to lie?
Speaker 2: Or are they just principle lists hacks and people that
Speaker 2: you probably shouldn't listen to anymore. That's up to you
Speaker 2: to decide. See, that's the beautiful thing about this. I'm
Speaker 2: not interested in seeing these people deplatformed. I have no
Speaker 2: problem with Joe Rogan having them on all the time.
Speaker 2: I don't care because I believe that as long as
Speaker 2: we have an open dialogue, as long as we also
Speaker 2: contend with your ideas in this arena, we will prevail.
Speaker 2: Because we're not afraid of having our ideas contended with.
Speaker 2: We relish it. James Lindsay calls me out, says put
Speaker 2: up or shut up. I put up. It's now been
Speaker 2: an entire day, no response likely won't be by the
Speaker 2: way I checked his timeline. He is tweeted all day.
Speaker 2: So he asked for an argument. I gave him one,
Speaker 2: a very solid one one that whether you agree or disagree,
Speaker 2: I think that the conclusion most America First people agree with.
Speaker 2: We don't want to be involved. We don't want to
Speaker 2: be funding it, we don't want to be fighting it.
Speaker 2: That's what we're asking for. Until you stop that, we're
Speaker 2: not going to shut up about it. And the only
Speaker 2: reason that American Libertarians are really talking about this as
Speaker 2: much as we are is not because we're ride or
Speaker 2: die for Hamas anymore than we are right or die
Speaker 2: for Vladimir Putin. It's that we are funding one side
Speaker 2: of these wars. We are funding the Israelis, and we
Speaker 2: are funding the Ukrainians. We're also arming them. That's the
Speaker 2: reason we have so much to say about this, And
Speaker 2: that's the reason that you don't want us to have
Speaker 2: a voice anymore. And that's the reason that you don't
Speaker 2: want us to be on the largest platforms, and that's
Speaker 2: the reason you're all working in tanem to try and
Speaker 2: undermine this movement. And it's not gonna work. I already
Speaker 2: know for a fact can't tell you how. You could
Speaker 2: probably guess that Joe Rogan is privy to what's happening
Speaker 2: and he is not taking it kindly. So keep it
Speaker 2: up because we're not gonna stop, and we're not going
Speaker 2: to back down. And you guys can keep ducking and
Speaker 2: dodging us and quote tweeting and then running away when
Speaker 2: we make a more compelling argument and we ratio the
Speaker 2: shit out of you time and time again. We can
Speaker 2: debate you live and just trounce you and crush you
Speaker 2: over and over and over again. But you still have
Speaker 2: the access to the corporate media that'll give you some
Speaker 2: some semblance of that authoritative nature that you once held.
Speaker 2: But in this world you all can't hang. And that's
Speaker 2: not our fault, that's yours. Get better, and if you
Speaker 2: don't get better, well then expect to get dominated. And
Speaker 2: I make no apologies for that, because that's the game
Speaker 2: that we're in. You have heterodox ideas. Test him, and
Speaker 2: if you prevail, good work. And if you lose, Each
Speaker 2: Shit Douglas Murray, James Lindsay, Sam Harris constantin Kiss Him.
Speaker 2: I got a stuff in my episodes with each Shit. Anyways,
Speaker 2: I'll see you guys, So please quick reminder before we
Speaker 2: get out of here, Mike Lindell and his employees want
Speaker 2: to personally thank you for your continued support of my pillow.
Speaker 2: They have a big allotment of their bed sheets that
Speaker 2: were earmarked for the box stores this spring. Well they
Speaker 2: did digged again. The box stores didn't come through, so
Speaker 2: they're going to pass the savings on to you. Now
Speaker 2: there is no middlemand so you're going to get wholesale
Speaker 2: prices on their famous Giza Dreams and per Kale bed sheets.
Speaker 2: Giza Dream Queen's size normally one thirty nine ninety eight,
Speaker 2: your wholesale price sixty nine ninety nine. It's like basically
Speaker 2: half off. Come on, so go to my pulo dot
Speaker 2: com and use promo code lockdown. Free shipping options are available.
Speaker 2: This allotment won't last long. When they're gone, they're gone,
Speaker 2: so remember go to my pulo dot com and use
Speaker 2: promo code lockdown. Get you some cozy, be sexy as
Speaker 2: hell like Mike and Dell and the unbelievable Giza sheets.
Speaker 2: Get you some cozy you.
Speaker 7: All those snoops and Nosey Parker is sitting in their
Speaker 7: homeland security funded centers of excellence, telling us day after
Speaker 7: day we must think as they say and vote as
Speaker 7: they say, or else we're traitorous, pudin loving fascists and
Speaker 7: enablers of dangerous disinformation. Motherfucker, I'm an American.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Liberty Lockdown.
Speaker 5: It's gonna your park, home to liberty and compan Yeah,
Speaker 5: it's on Wold.
Speaker 2: Where did it come from and where did