All Episodes
Previous Next
July 29, 2022 - Jimmy Dore Show
56:20
20220729_TJDS_20220729_Podcast_-_72922_3.03_PM
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Come see our stand-up comedy.
We're gonna be in Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Indianapolis, Louisville, Cincinnati, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Detroit, lots more.
go to jimmydorkomedy.com for a link for all our tickets.
Hey, this is Jimmy.
Who's this?
you Jimmy, this is President Joe Biden.
Oh, Mr. President, how are you feeling?
You were sick for a while there, right?
Yeah, man.
I had COVID.
Ah, so I understand.
But I've now tested negative, and I'm feeling much, much better.
Well, that's good to hear.
Well, I for one agree.
And so does my wife, Jill, who luckily has tested negative throughout this entire period.
It was nice to see my wife again.
Kamala Harris wasn't so thrilled, I gotta say.
Who?
Kamala Harris, the Vice President of the United States.
Oh, right, right, right, right.
Okay.
Yeah, you should have seen her face when she found out I tested negative.
I haven't seen a sour puss like that in a dog's age.
Is that so?
Yeah.
See, if I die, she gets to be president.
Like, automatically.
Yeah.
From doing just nothing, just being around or whatever.
Sort of a ridiculous system, really.
Anyway, so we have this long-standing gag in the White House where she pretends that she wants me to die so she can be the first woman president.
Uh-huh.
And boy, talk about committing to the pit.
Not only did she make a sour puss, but she tossed an entire file folder of papers in some poor age's face and stormed out of the room.
I was like, damn, we got a regular Meryl streak on our hands.
Wow.
I hope they weren't important papers.
They were not.
We all picked them up, and it turns out they were just items for her vision board.
One piece of paper just said be present on it.
That's another funny bit she does.
She acts like she doesn't actually do anything important.
She commits to that bit, too.
Interesting.
Was your case mild or severe?
Oh, Jimmy, I was lucky.
Very mild case.
Mild symptoms.
Cough, fever, chest pains, fatigue, insomnia, discombobulation, confusion, moon downing.
All-pervading sense of dread.
Schniffles.
Temporary nut allergy.
Coffee flatulence.
Phantom vertigo.
Gender dysphoria.
Fear of water.
Night terrors.
Opioid addiction.
Viscosity and thermal breakdown.
Priapism.
Vapism.
And mild lower back pain.
I was one lucky duck.
Wow, it sounds awful, honestly.
Yes, I was in the throes of agony, Jimmy.
I can't lie anymore.
And dealing with all this in utter solitude was a living nightmare.
I'm a changed person.
My mind has been rewired because of this ordeal.
Really?
How so?
Well, it was the visions.
The hallucinations.
Hallucinations?
You know, like a fever dream.
But these were so vivid.
COVID was trying to show me something.
What did it show you?
It showed me the America that would have been had I not become the president.
And Jimmy was a horror scape.
In this bizarre universe, COVID is still running rampant.
Yeah, but it is still running rampant.
You yourself just got COVID.
That's why we're talking about it right now.
Right, but COVID had to give me COVID in order to show me my vision.
It doesn't count.
It wasn't just a specter of never-ending COVID that I saw.
Oh, yeah, what else?
Runaway inflation.
Gas prices through the roof.
Regular Americans unable to make ends meet.
Crumbling infrastructure.
A doubling down on the police state.
Continued inaction on climate change.
A border crisis that has only worsened.
Women stripped of their rights, endangering their lives.
Dogs shitting inside.
But, Joe, you are president, and that's what's going on literally right now.
Huh?
Yeah, you just described Biden's America.
This is what a Biden administration has given us.
Everything you just said.
But no, the vision said it was not Biden.
Where did you see this vision?
On the wall of my bedroom, a glowing rectangular window opened up and showed me this bizarre world.
Well, what's on that wall right now, Joe?
A mounted television.
Yeah, Mr. President, you simply watched the news while you were sick.
Those weren't visions.
Come on, man.
Come on.
No way.
I was hallucinating.
You ain't telling me Humphrey Bogart made me ex-Benedict in real life.
Okay, that may have been a hallucination.
God damn it.
That may have been a hallucination, but I assure you, the rest of what you described is real, and it's bringing real misfortune to everyday Americans.
Well, then I've already screwed up.
Yes, I agree.
I guess I should try harder to use my powers to help everyday Americans.
Yes.
So are you?
Am I what?
You got to try harder?
Oh, man.
Some of these symptoms are still lingering.
Ah, this fatigue.
It's still bothering me a bit.
Uh-huh.
Jimmy, I think I need to go lie down and rest these old bones some more.
But yeah, okay.
To be continued, I'll put a pen in this convo.
We'll circle back eventually, revisit this.
I'm sure we will.
You take care, Mr. President.
Oh, how nice.
This just did.
Kitty Carlisle has offered to make me blueberry pig.
Good night.
Good night.
Establishment media sets on its fighting.
So good luck.
Watch and see as a jack dog.
Comedium speeds and jumps the medium and hits him head-on.
It's the chimney tour show.
So I remember when Tom Cruise did this video.
He did this interview with Matt Lauer, and he was against using psychotropic drugs, right?
Listen to it.
Here we are today, where I talk out against drugs and psychiatric abuses of electric shocking people.
Okay, against their will.
Of drugging children with them not knowing the effects of these drugs.
Do you know what Adderall is?
Do you know Ridland?
Do you know now that Ridland is a street drug?
Do you understand that?
The difference is not against her will, though.
Madam, this one's asking you a question, Matt.
I'm asking a question.
I understand.
There's abuse of all of these things.
No, you see, here's the problem.
You don't know the history of psychiatry.
I do.
All it does is mask the problem, Matt.
And if you understand the history of it, it masks the problem.
That's what it does.
That's all it does.
You're not getting to the reason why.
There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance thing.
I'm saying that drugs aren't the answer, that these drugs are very dangerous.
They're mind-altering anti-psychotic drugs.
And there are ways of doing it without that so that we don't end up in a brave new world.
Yes, there are abuses.
So Tom Cruise is saying, there's a way to treat people who have depression and other problems without using these psychotropic drugs.
Jimmy.
Spoiler alert, he was right.
But we're going to, because there's a new study out.
But go ahead, Kurt.
What?
Okay, when this first came out, because I remember, I'm around Conan, they made fun of Mayor McChees, and he was going, you're being McGlib.
And I remember hearing this plate a lot.
The part that stuck out to me that I don't remember from hearing hundreds of times was him mentioning Adderall and Riddlin, which are children's, I mean, our speed.
It's funny when that clip went around, they kept Adderall and Riddalin's name right out of it.
Yes.
And they only focused on the part he said after that.
And I never noticed that until just now.
And he was right.
He's right about this.
Let's keep going.
And yes, maybe they've gone too far in certain areas.
Maybe there are too many kids on Riddlin.
Maybe electric shock is...
Turn the kids on Ritalin.
I'm just saying, but aren't there examples where...
He's just saying, hey, maybe, hey, maybe there's too many kids on Riddlin.
And Tom Cruise stops him.
Too many kids on Riddlin.
Like, do you hear what you're saying?
Riddlin's a street drug.
Tom Cruise sounded crazy back then.
And everyone, yeah, I mean, remember that interview when Tom Cruise looked like the lunatic?
Who would have thought Tom Cruise would be back on top as an A-list war propagandist?
And Matt Lauer would have been banished to Cuomo Island.
Who would have thought?
A bald disgrace.
All right, there's more to this.
Works.
Matt, Matt.
You don't even, you're glib.
You don't even know what Riddlin is.
If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt.
Okay?
That's what I've done.
So he keeps bringing up a chemical imbalance.
He goes, you have to read the research papers to know what they're...
He's making...
He's doing his own research.
Yeah.
He's actually reading.
You're supposed to be glib.
And you're not supposed to do that.
You're supposed to be glib and just repeat what Big Pharma says.
Hey, maybe speed's bad for kids, but that's what Matt Lauer is saying.
Hey, maybe, maybe.
Here we go.
And you go and you say, where's the medical test?
Where's the blood test that says how much Riddlin you're supposed to get?
It's very impressive to listen to you because clearly you've done the homework and you know the subject and you should.
And you should do that also.
Just knowing people who are on Ridland isn't enough.
You should be a little bit more responsible in knowing.
I'm really prescribing Riddlin, Tom, and I'm not asking anyone else to do it.
I know some people who seem to have been hurt.
But you're saying, but this is a very important issue.
This is a very, you know what?
And you're here on the Today Show, right?
And to talk about it in a way of saying, well, isn't it okay and being reasonable about it when you don't know?
And I do, I think that you should be a little bit more responsible in knowing what it is because you communicate to people.
That was, you could have put that today about vaccines, COVID, lockdowns, natural immunity.
You could do that all day long.
And regular people know more about it than the news people.
And regular people know more about it than a lot of the doctors do because regular people are actually reading the papers.
They're actually reading the research papers.
So like when I went in to see my neurologist and I brought up the fact that I was vaccine injured, he didn't know anything about it.
And by the way, didn't want to.
He didn't want to.
Didn't want to know anything about anything.
That's the most glib part of all.
And so, and here, so here is Tom Cruise, who actually read up on psychotropic drugs.
And he says he's talking about there is no chemical imbalance.
And I remember when I saw this, I thought Tom Cruise was crazy because I was.
He was blown away.
I remember thinking, what a maniac.
But they didn't play the whole thing like this.
No, they played.
He was mean to Matt.
He made Matt Lauer feel uncomfortable.
And I remember thinking Tom Cruise was off of his nut because I was on one of those drugs at the time.
I was on Lexapro.
Oh.
And I thought that if I stopped taking it, I would die.
You know, I would freaking want to kill myself.
And turns out he was right.
Well, why am I talking about that interview?
Well, because of this.
This is a new paper, a new study, the serotonin theory of depression, a systematic umbrella review of the evidence.
So they did a systematic umbrella review of the evidence.
And who were they?
These are researchers from the University College London.
They conducted what they call an umbrella review of past meta-studies, and they did systematic analysis of depression's relationship to serotonin activity.
And it included tens of thousands of participants.
I think that comes from the hill.
So here it is from this paper.
It says, our comprehensive review of the major strands of research on serotonin shows there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with or caused by lower serotonin concentrations or activity.
That's exactly what Tom Cruise was just saying.
He was saying there is no chemical imbalance.
And now this paper is proving it.
I've heard other people say it and thought they were kooky for saying it.
I've heard other people say that there's no chemical imbalance.
I thought for sure it was.
So most studies found, most studies found no evidence of reduced serotonin activity in people with depression compared to people without.
And methods to reduce serotonin availability using tryptophan depletion do not consistently lower mood and volunteer.
So when they got rid of serotonin artificially, when they did that, they lowered people's serotonin levels.
It didn't lead them to have a bad mood.
So they're saying there isn't a connection between serotonin and mood.
That's what they're saying.
And that there's no evidence of that people with reduced serotonin is present in people with depression.
Just what Tom Cruise was saying 17 years ago.
Tom Cruise, almost two decades out in front of the rest of the goddamn medical profession.
Oh my God, did he do his own research?
Did he actually read?
You're not supposed to read in this place in this post-Trump era.
It's bad if you read.
You're just supposed to listen to other people, like Rachel Maddow and Dr. Fauci.
Complete criminals, and Matt Lauer.
Come in, make yourself comfortable.
Let me hit this button and lock the door.
What I always thought was funny about Scientology's Avendetta against psychiatry is that Scientology, they weren't wrong about the history of psychiatry.
They just can't believe that an industry can get away with that much.
And they get so much flack for body thetans.
They have a museum dedicated to the horrors of the psychiatric industry.
The museum is accurate.
It is.
And it's on the right.
Critics of Scientology will say that.
Yes.
The chemical imbalance theory of this is from the study.
The chemical imbalance theory of depression is still put forward by professionals.
And the serotonin theory in particular has formed the basis of a considerable research effort over the past few decades.
The general public widely believes that depression has been convincingly demonstrated to be the result of serotonin or other chemical abnormalities.
And this belief shapes how people understand their moods, leading to a pessimistic outlook on the outcome of depression and negative expectancies about the possibility of self-regulation of mood.
So what this, I think what this is saying, this is my pothead comedian interpretation of this, is that because people have this belief that has been given to them by big pharma, it now affects them to the point where they're going to have a negative mindset about that they'll ever be able to self-regulate their mood without a drug.
So it kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you make someone believe this thing, then they're going to believe it and it's going to have a bad outcome.
Yeah.
Oh, you know, the only reason that they stopped doing lobotomies was because they found that drugs could do it.
Yeah, that's true.
When they invented those antipsychotics.
That's when they finally stopped with lobotomies.
So the idea that depression is the result of a chemical imbalance also influences decisions about whether to take or continue antidepressant medication and may discourage people from discontinuing treatment, potentially leading to a lifelong dependent on these drugs.
This review suggests that the huge research effort based on the serotonin hypotheses has not produced convincing evidence of a biochemical basis to depression.
This is consistent with research on many other biological markers.
We suggest it's time to acknowledge that the serotonin theory of depression is not empirically substantiated.
This is now 30 years later, 17 years after Tom Cruise blew the whistle on this.
Finally, science is coming around to tell you.
So you know how they came to this conclusion?
You know how they came to this conclusion?
They didn't trust the science.
They didn't have faith in the science.
You know why?
Because they're actual scientists and they know that you don't trust science.
You don't have faith in science.
You question science.
And that's what they did.
And people who questioned it were called crazy.
And now it's confirmed.
Just like you were crazy if you thought the virus came from a lab.
Just like you were crazy if you thought Fauci was lying.
Just like you thought it was crazy if you thought vaccines could hurt your immune system.
You're crazy.
You question science.
You don't have faith in science and you certainly don't trust it.
It is always difficult to prove a negative, but I think we can safely say that after a vast amount of research conducted over several decades, there is no convincing evidence that depression is caused by serotonin abnormalities, particularly by lower levels of reduced activity of serotonin.
Who said that?
The guy who was the lead author of that study.
Or the woman.
Oh, Joe, I'm sorry.
You're right.
Woman.
Sorry.
Thank you, Kurt.
Oh, my God.
I almost got canceled.
Joanna Moncrief, the study's lead author.
Look at that.
Lady getting out of the house, huh?
It wasn't chemicals.
She just needed to get out and do some studies.
Not empirically substantiated.
So that means, so when you see when it says it's not empirically substantiated, there's no data to back up this stuff.
That's what they're saying.
And this idea that everyone has gone with for as long as I can remember, there's never been any freaking data to substantiate this.
Is this how everyone felt when it turned out that lobotomies weren't medicine?
I wonder if it was all at once.
You mean we shouldn't cut out their frontal lobes?
Do you think big lobotomy was like, let's like ease off lobotomies, like hydrocarbons?
Big, big lobotomy.
But there are still people out there.
This was today on Twitter.
Why, no, you don't have to hand it to Tom Cruise for his bat crazy thoughts on medication.
What was bat crazy about it?
They're still doing it.
Isn't that amazing, Kurt?
Dude, Adderall and Riddland, I don't remember him even saying that in the old one.
I'm blown away because that's obviously when he goes to street drug, that's back when I was trying to get it as a street drug.
Yeah.
But look, listen to these people.
This is amazing.
Why, no, you don't have to hand it to Tom Cruise for his bat crazy thoughts on medication just because he's sitting across from Disgraced and Enabled Abuser of Women, Matt Lauer, in an edited clip.
Stop and think before you smash tweet.
Well, Andrew Donaldson, I think the moron is you in this situation because of your knee-jerk to go along with the crowd and your inability to think for yourself or even to analyze what you just saw.
You're glib is what you are.
Tom Cruise called it.
That's right.
Another one right underneath.
And now a nice lady does it.
She says, if you're now defending Tom Cruise for his anti-science views, what was anti-science about his views?
You mean he read the science papers and he knew more about it than you and Matt Lauer combined?
You mean that?
And it turns out he was right.
Turns out he's right.
There was half a dozen people.
What's that?
Hashtag defend democracy.
If you're now defending Tom Cruise for his anti-science views, please note that polio has returned for the first time in 100.
She's blaming Tom Cruise for polio returning.
What does that have to do with Tom Cruise telling you that psychotropic drugs are harmful to children?
What does polio have to do to that?
Yeah, really?
People just like to pull shit out of their ass to just hate on someone that the group told them to hate.
So they were told on Twitter to hate Tom Cruise.
And so they did.
And nothing that they say makes any sense whatsoever.
They're just and but look at the people liking it, though.
This guy got 80 likes.
So it just goes to show you people like to be moron in unison.
Well, that's what Twitter is for.
That's what it's for.
Polio vaccine was.
So then someone responded: hey, polio vaccine was back in the day when vaccines were really vaccines.
Back then, only radicals would deny an effectiveness of a vaccine.
This fiasco, government and big pharma deals, has obliterated trust most people had in vaccines and their legitimacy.
But he also didn't look up polio vaccines because there was no radicals who were against it.
It was a new thing.
The big pharma company screwed up the first batch.
That's right.
And got people.
And that was the birth of not trusting it, which I never knew about until very recently.
I don't think people know about.
Right.
I don't think people know about that either.
I got it when it was perfected like 20 something years later, you know.
Well, there was a batch of polio vaccines that got out that were not right.
They accidentally somehow got live polio in it instead of like the dead nomadovirus.
I can't remember the name of the company, but this was an article once again that was kind of going at Trump because he said we're going to have a terrific vaccine ready in a few months.
And they were like, not so fast.
We got to take it.
Be careful.
And it was because Trump was pushing.
So when Trump was president and pushing the vaccine, you were allowed to be vaccine skeptical then.
And they were.
We showed you how Joanne Reed on MSNBC, she did a whole segment on you got to be skeptical of the vaccines.
And if Trump pushes it, I ain't taking it.
As Kamala Harris said, I'm taking horse paste.
That's right.
If they say take it, I'm getting horse paced.
So research.
Oh, that's it.
Okay.
So that's the whole thing.
So it turns out Tom Cruise.
Tom Cruise was right.
I'm genuinely shocked how when I watched it, I was like, this doesn't sound so crazy.
What he said.
It didn't sound crazy at all when he said.
But they make at the time, I thought he was.
And that's what makes me realize.
So when people see a clip of me and someone tells them I'm being anti-vax and crazy, they believe it.
Just like I believed it about Tom Cruise until I had to go through my own experience with Big Pharma.
And now I know he was right.
And by the way, now he's by the same fucking science confirms what he said 17 years ago.
Also, go ahead.
He looks better than all of these people at age 60 or whatever.
Yeah, he's sick.
Look what Matt Lauer looks like now compared to what he looks basically the same.
Matt Lauer looks like he just went through chemo.
He should have Robert Schimmelmail.
Yeah, he looks like Robert School.
Matt Lauer should have been getting hairplugs back then.
That's what that you got to attack it early.
2005.
You can't let it go.
And are you going to look like he looks?
Now, this is the, this is, I'm writing a new book.
It's called The Advice for the Shallow.
And what I'm telling you is get your hair plugs early.
That is shallow.
But I bet if I wrote a book like that, it would be a bestseller.
Yeah.
Kurt, let's write it down.
Maybe you could just start selling it now.
I'll help you write a book.
Can we advise for the shallow?
Can we pre-sell?
We could do pre-sales like Jenkin did of a booking.
Check that book out.
I understand he's actually written it.
There's like a date now for it to be released.
Oh.
Yeah.
He's such a clown selling a book he hasn't written.
It's called We're Coming For You or something?
Then they got the nerve to say that I'm the money-grubbing grifter.
He's selling a bookie even, bro.
For fucking money.
Holy shit.
Hey, you know, here's another great way you can help support the show is you become a premium member.
We give you a couple of hours of premium bonus content every week, and it's a great way to help support the show.
You can do it by going to jimmydoorcomedy.com, clicking on join premium.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business, and it's a great way to help put your thumb back in the eye of the bastards.
Thanks to everybody who was already a premium member.
And if you haven't, you're missing out.
We give you lots of bonus content.
Thanks for your support.
This appeared in The Guardian.
This story was a network of Syrian conspiracy theorists identified.
They identified it.
And this guy did it.
This guy, Mark Townsend.
That's who there he is.
This guy here, he identified them.
He identified them.
A network of what?
A network of more than two dozen conspiracy theorists, frequently backed by a coordinated Russian campaign, sent thousands of disinformation tweets to distort the reality of the Syrian conflict and deter intervention by the international community.
New analysis reveals.
And who does he said that was the biggest one?
Well, journalist Aaron Mate at the Gray Zone is said by the report to have overtaken independent journalist Vanessa Beasley as the most prolific spreader of disinformation among the 28 conspiracy theorists identified.
So you got Beale.
That's right, Beale.
So let me talk to Aaron Matza.
Let me bring in Aaron here.
Now, Aaron, this article that was written by this guy is based on what?
Is this based on something?
It's based on fiction produced by a U.S. government funded think tank called the.
And the Guardian didn't mention this, that the think tank is funded by the U.S. government, the same government that was a major belligerent in the Syria dirty war.
And the Guardian also doesn't mention that the study put out by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue contains zero evidence for any of its claims about me.
Nothing.
It doesn't even accuse me of saying anything wrong.
It notes a couple of times when I've said stuff about Syria and especially the OPCW cover-up scandal, which we've talked about a lot in your show, Jimmy.
But they don't even say that I've said anything false.
They just list that I've said certain things and then assume that what I'm saying, I guess, is this information.
But they don't even actually say that what he said was false because they can't.
What I'm saying about the OPCW scandal in Syria is based on internal leaks from the OPCW, which show a massive cover-up of an investigation that found no evidence of a chemical attack in Syria.
And because those leaks are so damning to their narrative and they can't actually deal with the content of those leaks or dispute anything I actually say, they have to call me a conspiracy theorist and accuse me of spreading disinformation, even though they can't even identify a single example of this alleged disinformation on spreader.
So the Guardian then writes that bullshit Article based on that report and pretends that they had evidence of you spreading misinformation while you didn't.
And they didn't even reach out to you before they printed this whole article saying stuff about you like that, calling you the biggest spreader of misinformation on Syria.
They don't even, so the first thing you do as a journalist is you're supposed to reach out to the person you're profiling, and they didn't do that.
And so you actually, now here's the juicy part of the story.
This is why I really want to cover this.
Not because you're being smeared by another pro-war news outlet, but because you got him on the phone.
And so Aaron calls this guy up to ask him, hey, why didn't you do the bare courtesy of calling me or interviewing me or asking me for a response before you printed this?
And he won't answer that question.
And he won't answer the straight question of, can you name one piece of disinformation that Aaron has spread?
He won't answer that question either because he doesn't have there isn't.
It isn't there.
So, but watch how he tries to dodge like a complete coward.
Watch this.
Hey, Mark, it's Aaron Matte calling.
How you doing?
Hi.
Good.
Quick question for you.
Why didn't you contact me before publishing in The Guardian that I'm the leading purveyor of disinformation on Syria?
I was in a report.
He said it wasn't a report that we were reporting on.
Now, that's not true, right?
Aaron?
Or is that true?
Did they say that in the report that you're the biggest spreader of disinformation?
Yeah, the report says that.
Like, those words are in their report.
But the point of being a journalist is you don't just print claims because someone says them, right?
You print claims if you have evidence for them.
And there's no evidence at all in this report.
And there's no evidence he can thus point to when I challenge him on this.
And of course, he can't defend not calling me first before printing that because he was trying to defame me.
The point of his article was to defame me.
It wasn't to publish anything factual or real.
Yeah.
I mean, his article is what we call propaganda.
And the point of propaganda often is that when you see that person's name again, that you get a weird feeling, icky feeling, and you don't want to have anything to do with them.
And that's very successful.
They've been able to do that to a lot of people.
And that's why people, when you mention Julian Assange's name, people think about, oh, is it?
I heard he's a jerk.
Or I heard.
Right?
That's what they say.
I'm not kidding.
People go, yeah, I think he's creepy.
I've seen people who host news shows say that.
Like, that's got nothing to do.
That's called them repeating propaganda.
And that's why they do that sort of propaganda.
So people think those things.
And that's what the point of this article was to make people think that about Aaron.
But it's very juicy and fun to watch him confront this guy.
So let's watch it again.
You got an email anyway, Ricardo, Mr. Williams, no, I didn't get an email.
So then his deflect is to say, I think you got an email asking for your comment.
No, you didn't.
Aaron never got one, but he keeps trying to say that he did.
Here we go.
I did send an email and I got your auto reply.
So I'm calling you now.
And also, can you tell me why you also, okay, okay, so can you also tell me why you didn't identify a single piece of disinformation that I've spread?
I think you've got a response from our reading sentence and says if you want to add something to the piece, then go for it.
I did not actually get a response.
No, I didn't.
So he just said, I think you got a response from our editor asking you to respond.
That's what he said, right?
Yeah, he's saying, I think you got a response from editor saying, if you want to add something to the article, then go for it.
Which, first of all, is not true.
At that point, I had not gotten anything back from the Guardian except for an auto reply saying that Mark Townsend was on vacation, which obviously he's not right now here.
And he's saying, and he's saying, if you want to add something to the piece, then go for it.
But he's not answering the question of, can't you name for me a single piece of disinformation that I've spread?
Which he will not do the entirety of this call.
Or the answer of why didn't you contact me before you printed this article?
Yeah, no.
So will you not explain, Mark, why you didn't contact me and why you didn't name a single piece of disinformation I've allegedly spread?
I mean, it's pretty simple.
Can you explain that for me?
Well, why didn't you do it when you wrote the article?
He said he will get one soon.
I mean, an explanation of A, why he didn't contact him before he wrote the article, and then of what some of the misinformation.
He said he'll get it to him soon.
Like he couldn't tell him right then why he didn't contact him and he couldn't tell him what the misinformation was.
But let me give me some time to put that shit together.
No, you already wrote a whole article on it.
He sounds like he's like, hey, man, I just work here making smear articles.
What do you think I'm going to write all the stuff that I put in the article?
Hey, man, why are you coming down on me?
I just write the articles.
Can I ask you why you didn't articulate when you wrote the article?
Because why not?
You yourself have complained.
You yourself have complained at the home office.
So this is him before on Twitter being upset that the home office wrote an article that included him and didn't ask him for comments.
Oh my God about that.
Here it is, right?
So he says the home office never contacted me before sending this outrageous tweet.
Neither did it speak to any of the sources in the article or make any attempt to do so.
And now he's doing the exact thing to you and he's just bluffing it off like you're gonna you'll get an email.
Don't worry.
You'll get an email later after he already published the article?
Yes.
So that's the that's the ultimate irony here is that we have this receipt on him doing the exact thing that he just did to Aaron Matte.
Okay, here we go.
And Jimmy, what's funny is like he has really high standards according to this tweet.
Wow, you want someone to contact you before they tweet?
Before they tweet.
Yeah, this is a tweet.
So what about a whole article in a supposedly serious newspaper calling you a conspiracy theorist who spreads this information?
Should we maybe contact that person too?
And apparently not.
No.
I don't do a lot of due diligence on a lot of my tweets.
Try to get a response before I publish them.
Where did I go to tweet school?
Where's the handbook on tweet ethics?
Okay, here we go.
This didn't contact you before they tweeted about one of your articles.
So I'm asking you, why didn't you contact me before writing such a consequential claim about me?
It's pretty simple.
Why not?
As I said, you're getting an email.
Do you think it's fair journalism?
You should have done it already.
No, I haven't gotten it.
It's been over a week.
So I'm calling you now.
You should be writing very shortly.
So, Mark, can you name me right now?
Can you, Mark, Mark?
That email should be arriving very shortly.
It's stuck in email transit.
The email, the email truck that's carrying the email got a flat tire, and that email is stuck right now.
But it should be revived.
I understand that they have AAA and it's out there to fix that tire.
And that email should be arriving any moment now.
Okay, here we go.
He can't even answer why he feels a certain way.
No, that's what you.
Hey, I smear a lot of people, dude.
Okay.
Why didn't I contact you?
Duh.
Why do you think I didn't contact you?
This is British media, right?
Okay, here we go.
Can you name for me a single piece of this information that I've spread on Syria?
Can you do it right now?
Can you name for me?
Can you name for me?
Go ahead.
I'm going to meet some.
He goes, I've got a meeting.
He's supposed to be on vacation.
He just got Aaron just got an auto reply From his email saying he's on vacation.
But now he can't, he can't name one piece of misinformation Aaron has said.
Why?
Because he's late for a meeting.
Okay.
He returned from his vacation right to a meeting.
What's that?
Right.
He got back from his vacation and then a very long meeting started.
Immediately.
Can you identify a single piece of disinformation that I spread on Syria?
Okay, no.
You can't.
Look, I'm going to touch you some.
This email books blue complete disposition.
So, sorry, Mark, you took the time to write a whole article about me.
Can you not answer a couple of questions?
Just give me a straight answer.
Well, you called me the leading purveyor of disinformation.
100,000 were told.
So that's it.
So that's all we have.
So that's fun.
That's fun here.
Let me show you who that guy is again.
Just I like to show his face.
Mark Townsend.
So that's what a guy who does pro-war propaganda and smears truth tellers.
So that guy's like has he has a hand in killing a lot of people.
Like that's not hyperbole.
Like he's an important link in that chain to discredit people telling the truth about it.
So your government can continue to slaughter people for nefarious reasons.
And so he'll run cover for that and he'll smear truth tellers.
So he's on the wrong side.
Boy, you thought like American, you know, like, I don't know, Daily Beast reporters were repulsive, but there's somewhere he's British where it's like extra apple polisher.
Yeah.
Yes.
What a little shit.
You should be that email should be roving shortly.
It's a, it's what?
Either you sent it or it didn't.
If you sent it, it'd be here.
You didn't send it?
It should be arriving shortly.
You send it?
No.
No, we didn't send it.
So that was fun.
And that's what happens to people who tell the truth about Syria: you have the garbage outlets like The Guardian, who Guardian, again, used to do good work and sometimes still does, but most of the time does garbage work and is a mouthpiece for the military industrial complex and the security state.
What happened to The Guardian, Aaron?
It was sometime after the Snowden era.
The Guardian worked with Len Greenwald and did a lot of really good reporting on the Snowden leaks.
But afterwards, they got a lot of pressure from the British security state.
They were pressured into destroying their own copies of the Snowden leaks by the British intelligence service.
Literally, agents from the British government came and helped destroy the hard drives containing the Snowden leaks.
And ever since then, they've just gotten, they've gotten rid of people who actually take journalism seriously.
They publish people like Luke Harding, who is a complete Russia gate fraudster.
Recall, he's the guy who I interviewed about his book, Collusion.
He couldn't provide a single piece of evidence for his, which is that there was a Trump-Russia conspiracy.
And they published people like this guy.
And on the OPCW Syria cover-up scandal, which is so damning to the dirty war narrative, this narrative that was required to justify billions of dollars in spending by the U.S. and its junior partner, the UK, and their allies in funding sectarian death squads in Syria to overthrow the Syrian government.
A major part of their narrative is that Assad is free.
Say that again.
You just froze for a second.
The biggest what?
A big part of the narrative required for the Syria dirty war is that Assad is this diabolical dictator who commits chemical attacks on his own people.
And every time there has been a serious allegation like that, all the evidence points in one direction, and that is that these were false flags carried out by sectarian death squads in Syria.
One attack in 2013, that was an actual chemical attack.
All the evidence shows that was carried out by the quote-unquote rebels.
That's why James Clapper went to Barack Obama and said the evidence here is not a slam dunk that it was Assad.
He chose his words very carefully.
That was a reference to Iraq WMDs and what the CIA said about Iraq back then.
And that's why in Douma, the story I've been reporting on, when the OPCW actually got on the ground for the first time and did their own investigation and weren't relying on U.S.-funded groups like the White Helmets, they found no evidence of a chemical attack in Douma and then had their evidence covered up, censored, doctored.
And we know that because we've gotten leaks from it, which I've reported on extensively.
And because outlets like The Guardian don't want to do their job of doing journalism leaks, they want to smear people who do.
And I don't know what's going on internally, but that's just what they are now.
They also built, you know, anybody who's a target of the national security state, they will vilify.
They've ignored the OPCW whistleblowers.
They've attacked me for covering them.
Julian Assange, they vilified him.
Jeremy Corbyn, they took part in the campaign to destroy him.
So that's just the state of the Guardian.
And it's sad because, yeah, as you said, they actually once used to be a somewhat credible newspaper.
Used to have John Pilger used to work for The Guardian, right?
Jonathan Steele as well.
People with integrity, people have done real journalism.
And they've, at least on these foreign policy issues, they decided to completely abandon it.
Yeah, they've really gone to shit since Snowden.
That's for sure.
And that's too bad.
But I was way out in front of you on the serious story.
I was dying.
I was first to that one.
I don't ever get credit.
I don't even get credit for that.
They give awards to you, not to me, because, you know, I swear.
You can't be giving journalism awards to potty mouths.
And I get that.
I get it.
You got to get, you know, that profession.
They still gave the people in the New York Times a Pulitzer Prize for their job covering RussiaGate.
Now, they covered it 100% incorrectly.
And even after a review of that Pulitzer Prize being awarded, they said, yeah, we're going to still give it to him.
I'm not making any of that up.
Am I, Aaron?
No, you're not.
And what's funny about that, so they did this review, right?
So if you do a review, that means you've written a report, a couple reports to conduct your review.
They will not release those reports.
My colleague, my editor at Real Clear, has asked for those reports.
They won't release them.
So if you're confident in your reporting, you think it stands up after a review, why don't you just release the review?
They won't do it for obvious reasons.
So it's nice to get awards.
It is nice.
And I've gotten awards and it's nice.
But every time you get one, you have to remind yourself it's bullshit.
And, you know, I mean, awards are nice.
They are nice.
And it's nice to be recognized.
But, you know, it's your work that has to speak for itself or not.
They give lots.
They give awards like that.
They give a Pulitzer Prize to the New York Times for lying.
And then they do a review of it.
They find out they were lying and then they lie about them by lying.
And that's the award-winning Pulitzer Prize journalism.
Is the specific award for most compelling lie?
They should give that out.
They should give that out.
They also won.
The New York Times also won.
I'm pretty sure they won an Emmy somehow or some kind of.
For their stupid show on Hulu?
No, for their, they did some.
I don't, they won some kind of crazy award like that for the Syria stuff, right?
Didn't they?
Because they imagined they technically imagined the crime scene of the chemical attack.
They didn't go there.
They didn't investigate it.
You can't do in court anymore because everyone agreed that it was absolutely not evidence of any yes.
Right?
Didn't they win an award for that?
I don't know if they won an award, but certainly people take that seriously.
They did an animation of the Duma site where the alleged chemical attack happened.
And people like, remember when the middle-aged McCarthyites, the young Turks, attacked me over going to Syria.
They cited that New York Times animation video as somehow dispositive when literally like it's an animation and they're trying to rebuke the actual inspectors who went to Syria and went to that site and did their own investigation.
Somehow the New York Times animation team has a better sense into what happened in Duma.
As you look, it's ridiculous.
Can I just say, as Mike McRae said about the New York Times recreating the crime scene in an animation, he said, you know, I hope if I'm ever accused of a murder, I hope someone imagines the crime scene.
But this is what's so amazing about the story, Jimmy.
It's like you have this trove of leaks from inside the OPCW.
For journalists, this should be a gold mine because it is.
There's so much there.
And instead, the New York Times has been forced to revert to creating imaginary crime scenes with animation rather than looking at leaks from the inspectors who actually went there on the ground and who are really experienced at doing this.
These are experienced chemical weapons inspectors.
They're the ones who actually did the investigation.
And the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, CNN, MSNBC, The Intercept, Democracy Now, all these outlets across the spectrum have completely ignored the whistleblower's existence.
It's the biggest case of manufacturing consent I've ever seen because the implications are so huge.
You have the compromise of an organization to justify U.S.-led military strikes on Syria to falsely accuse the Syrian government.
You're also covering up for the real criminals because there were dozens of dead bodies filmed in Duma.
And if they weren't killed by a chemical attack, which is what the insurgents said, that means that these people were killed in some other ways and the insurgents were involved.
So all these people, including the Guardian, this guy Mark Townsend, when you said they have blood on their hands, they do because they're helping to cover up an investigation into how these people actually died.
If you don't want to listen to the OPCW inspectors, then that means you have no concern for how these dozens of people in Duma actually lost their lives.
And that's what's most criminal about all of us.
I would say criminal.
Yeah.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that the people who smear you are doing it in a criminal fashion for sure.
And they're doing it to enable war crimes.
They're doing it to enable slaughter of people for clandestine reasons.
That you're being lied to by the government while they're murdering people in another country.
And guys like Mark Townsend were uncovered for the government murdering people.
That's what's happening.
And he's doing it in such an obvious way, a pothead comedian in his garage can debunk it.
*Bell rings* Hey, this is Jimmy.
Who's this?
Jimmy, this is Er Pacino.
Ah, hi, friend of the show, Al Pacino.
How are you doing?
Living my best life, thriving.
While many of my colleagues, my age, are dropping like fucking flies.
I'm doubling down on living.
Getting out there and simply existing in the ether, saying fuckers to the universe.
I see.
Do you mean anything specific by this, Al?
Actually, I do, Jim Chair.
I'm taking a page out of your book.
Oh, really?
How so?
I am going on tour.
Oh, exciting.
Al, where are you going?
I am going to Scotland.
It's part of a larger UK tour, but I'm most excited about Glasgow.
I'm going to Glasgow fucking crazy.
I bet.
So you and me, just a couple of old road dogs.
So when you go on tour, what is your thing?
Your shtick, your spiel.
Well, Steph and I go to comedy clubs and we do stand-up.
Stand-up comedy?
Nice.
I love it.
For how long?
I do about an hour myself.
You stand up there for an hour and tell jokes?
What the fuck?
You're making this way harder than it needs to be, my friend.
Or the tickets to this.
$2,000?
No, they're a little more reasonable than that, Al.
I'm not sure I understand here.
I assume you are touring with a theater company, doing a play or a one-man show.
You're an actor after all, right?
Hell no.
Are you crazy?
It's called a night without Pacino.
People pay a bunch of money just to ask me questions while I sit there.
Really?
Is this a casual thing in an intimate setting?
Hell no.
I'm Al Pacino, goddammit.
This is at a fancy hotel and it's black tie only.
Three-course dinner, an orchestra playing.
The fucking works.
It's 145 pounds a ticket.
Not dollars.
Pounds, baby.
Pounds.
That's a lot of money.
That's going into my damn pocket.
Just for answering a bunch of dumb questions about the Godfather.
This is how you tour, baby.
I guess fans can at least get a picture with you.
Of course.
I love my fans.
I lovingly avail myself to them and their camera phones.
£499 sterling per individual, $7.49 per couple.
That's like thousands of dollars.
It's outrageous.
What?
Am I lowballing myself?
How much do you charge?
Nothing.
I don't charge money for fans to take a picture with me and Steph.
What?
My friend, you are leaving money on the table.
Otherwise, I'll be a Jimmy.
I'm telling you, being famous is just a license to mint money.
Al.
This is disappointing.
You're just milking your fame for a little extra cash.
Yeah, but I'm doing it to rich British people, so who gives a shit?
Point taken.
I'm looking forward to going to picturesque Scotland, though.
Land of the Irish.
No, that would be Ireland.
What's the difference?
Well, they're different countries.
They're separated by a sea, Al.
Wait, Ireland and Scotland are different countries?
I can't keep track of all these men of gone parts of Europe.
People are pale.
It's raining.
Barely any buildings.
Usually I'm the one who makes mistakes like this.
Okay, right.
You're right.
But the people.
I hear they're the salt of the earth, hardy, with a rich history of violence and bloodshed.
And I imagine, generous and hospitable.
I don't know that for sure, but that's what I'm banking on.
Actually, Scots are notorious for being stingy, famous for it.
What?
Yeah, like the stingiest people in Europe.
What?
They're like, they're like the stingiest people in Europe.
Are you telling me that I booked a money-milking tour?
A tour designed to milk money out of freckled simpetons too naive to know the value of the money in their wallet in the stingiest place in Europe.
I'm afraid so, Al.
How come nobody told me about this?
God damn it.
I'm going to string this goddamn fucking agent up by his ankles.
Welcome to touring, Al.
Is this how it goes?
People that you trust and take a cut of your money, absolutely fucking up their job.
Yes, Al, that's exactly how it goes.
Well, this has been a giant mistake.
So I gotta go halfway around the world and hopknob with a bunch of haggis breaths, guilt wearing clear skins, and not walk off with a shameful amount of ill-gotten cash.
What have I done to deserve this?
Why, so business gods, hast thou forsaken me thus?
Hey, easy with the Scot bashing.
My friend Mike McRae is a Scottish descent.
I don't give a fuck.
Fuck him and his stingy ass too.
And any of these goddamn sheep fuckers are listening to the live feed right now.
Fuck them.
But I take it all back if they come to my Glasgow show and pay their attention to you and me, Albert Sino.
From the Godfather Saga, the Irishman, Sea of Love, that movie where I'm the devil, and many more.
Well, sir.
Well, sorry you're bumping into a bit of a learning curve here, but we gotta go, I'm afraid.
Jimmy, please, I need to know more about these pitfalls that can happen to you on the road.
There's just too many to go into now, but just a few.
Don't sleep with fans, tip the staff.
And if the club owner is a woman, she already has a deep-seated problem with men to begin with.
So watch out.
All right, I'll do my best.
Wish me luck.
Now, I gotta go work on my act of sitting down and answering softball questions.
All right, good luck, Al.
All right, good luck.
All right, good luck.
All right.
Hey, become a premium member.
Go to JimmyDoorComedy.com.
Sign up.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business.
Don't freak out.
All the voices performed today are by the one and only the inimitable Mike McRae.
He can be found at MikeMcRae.com.
That's it for this week.
You be the best you can be, and I'll keep being me.
▲
Export Selection