Milo Yiannopoulos critiques radical feminism’s influence on laws like California’s "yes means yes" and Obama’s wage gap claims, calling them misleading. He argues men’s rights activists (MGTOW) and feminists both distort reality, while defending Trump’s countercultural appeal. The episode exposes tensions between identity politics, free speech, and systemic critiques—from education debt to climate change skepticism—revealing how outdated institutions clash with modern digital-age scrutiny. [Automatically generated summary]
This episode of the podcast is fueled by Caveman Coffee.
Caveman CoffeeCO.com.
Go check it out.
Awesome fucking coffee.
All sorts of cool shit.
MCT oil.
Groovy items.
Cool mugs.
Go there.
Enjoy it.
That's the only coffee we drink around these parks.
Anyhow.
We're also brought to you by, we've got a new sponsor, Pond5.
What Pond 5 is the world's largest marketplace for royalty-free media.
Means if you work in any creative field, you need video, music tracks, sound effects, shit like that.
Photos.
Pond5 has the biggest selection and the best pricing.
You pay for the stuff once, you get to use it forever, royalty-free.
Go to pond5.com and enter the promo code Joe at checkout to get 25% off any order.
You can also get 50 free video and audio files, which you can use forever for anything, as many times as you want.
If you're in the media industry, this is a no-brainer.
And if you're not, everything is digital now.
So just grab the stuff, save it on your computer.
So go get the free files, no credit card required, and it takes 30 seconds to grab the stuff at pond number5.com and enter the promo code Joe at checkout.
That's pond number5.com and enter the promo code Joe.
We're also brought to you by Dollar Shave Club.
Dollar Shave Club, I used one of their razors this morning.
Actually, I didn't use it today.
When did I use it last?
Fuck.
I'm lying on these goddamn podcasts.
I had an errant hair.
Okay, here's the deal.
I did use it today, but I only use it on one weird hair that I found on my cheek.
I was like, what the fuck is this hair doing up here?
And I shaved that.
But when I do shave, I use those razors, but I'm a lazy bitch.
I only like to shave once a week.
Milo, who's on the podcast today, was telling me he went to a barber shop and got one of those fucking straight razor shaves.
Had some stranger dangerously close to his face.
I think he just likes that.
I think he's into danger.
Not me, folks.
I like a good, goddamn solid razor.
The best razors I've ever used, for sure, are dollarshaveclub.com.
They're the best razors, and they're way cheaper than anything that you're going to get at.
If you bought a similar razor at one of those drugstores or something like that, it would cost much more.
What this guy's doing is he's selling them all directly through a warehouse, cutting out the middleman, and giving you the best shit.
Also, that Dr. Carver's shave butter, that fucking stuff is fantastic.
It's so much better than shave cream.
It's got a lot of other cool things.
One wipe Charlie's, butt wipes for dudes.
Yes, you heard me, Jamie.
God damn it.
You can get, just, it's so simple.
You get it sent to your house.
You don't have to fuck around.
You don't have to go to the store.
You're always going to get it.
And it's about a third of the price for fantastic razors.
Don't wait.
Stop fucking around.
Join the millions of others who have figured out the smarter way to shave.
Join Dollar Shave Club right now.
Go to dollarshaveclub.com forward slash Rogan.
That's dollarshaveclub.com forward slash Rogan.
Best goddamn razors you ever going to get.
And all sorts of other cool items as well.
Dollarshaveclub.com forward slash Rogan.
We're also brought to you each and every motherfucking episode by Onit.com.
Ooh, that's right, bitches.
O-N-N-I-T.
What is Onit, Joe?
What are you talking about?
First of all, get on it, bitch.
Jesus.
Onit is a total human optimization website.
What that means is, as a company, we are trying to provide you with all the stuff that we use to optimize our body, our mind, the stuff that we find that is excellent and effective at cognitive enhancement, like alpha brain, enhancing your endurance, like Shroom Tech Sport, fantastic strength and conditioning equipment, like our award-winning line of kettlebells.
Who gave you the award, Joe?
I did.
I gave us the award for having the coolest fucking kettlebells on the internet.
The primal bells.
We got zombie bells.
We got fucking werewolves.
We got all kinds of cool shit.
We got great sandbags and battle ropes and all sorts of stuff for functional fitness.
The Extreme Kettlebell Cardio Workout DVDs.
We sell that too by my friend Keith Weber.
Keith just came out with number three.
Gave me a copy.
That's right, bitch.
You don't have it.
I do.
Coming out soon, though.
And it's hard as shit.
Keith's stuff is also, it's real simple.
Like, all you need is like one kettlebell and you will get a fucking brutal workout.
You won't believe it.
You're like, I can't get a brutal workout with a 35-pound kettlebell.
You really can.
With one 35-pound kettlebell, it will kick your fucking ass.
Great foods, great snacks, great supplements.
Go to motherfuckingonit.com, O-N-N-I-T.
There's also an Onit Academy.
There's a link at onit.com that has all sorts of motivational videos, workout tips, and diets, and articles on the science of exercise, physiology, and all sorts of other cool shit.
And then there's a real Onit Academy, an actual gym that is in Austin, Texas.
If you're looking for a gym and you're in Austin, Texas, you're in luck, fuckers.
I guess it was somebody just, I get a lot of interesting stuff tweeted at me.
And I read one of your Breitbar pieces.
And I was like, check this motherfucker out.
And then I found out that you're gay and you're a part of this gamer gate, but you were on the side of the people that were not the ultra progressives.
And then you were in these debates against these radical feminism chicks and shutting them down.
Yeah, you're not supposed to be fairly buttoned down and conservative and fair.
Well, also factually correct.
Like all the stuff that you, the thing that I'd seen, you gotten in this argument about why certain women gravitate towards certain jobs and men gravitate towards jobs.
And this idea that a lot of this is just cultural.
A lot of this is something that we're pushing upon young men and not young women.
And you were like, well, this isn't the case at all.
Yes, or black dick, you know, one of those things.
Any of those subjects, you know, it's hair or, you know, the men that I'm into.
It's very, very difficult for them to beat me for one simple reason, which is they've never been questioned.
They've never been called on any of this stuff by anybody serious or anybody who doesn't conform to the progressive rules of identity politics.
So when they come for me, their usual response from a feminist to anybody bringing facts or a serious counter-argument is simply to dismiss them as a sexist or a bigot or a misogynist.
It's really tough to make that allegation against me.
I love women.
All my friends are women.
I don't have a dog in the fight, sexually speaking.
I don't care if, you know, I won't want to bang them whatever size they are, however they behave.
So they don't have that over me.
It's very, very difficult to come up against a guy that you cannot make a convincing argument of bigotry against.
Once you start to hit the radar, you get calls from friends who say, so this person emailed me trying to check you out.
This happened to me about a year ago.
So I sort of hit, I've been a journalist for 10 years.
I've done some good stuff, broken some big stories, but I never really kind of crossed over entertainment into the mainstream.
It just started to happen about a year ago.
And I started to get emails from friends, and they were saying, so what's going on here?
People keep emailing me, asking me about you, like trying to ask, back in 2011, did he really do this?
And what I realized is when they recognise you as a threat, when they identify you as somebody who could do them damage, they start going on maneuvers, trying to find out everything about you, trying to find out what the worst stuff they have on you is so that they can dismiss you as a bigot or a sexist or a neo-Nazi or whatever they can come up with.
Anything they can grasp at.
Because their strategy is to dismiss the speaker by attacking the speaker's credibility, because that way they never have to even consider the merits of the argument.
They haven't been able to do that with me, which is why feminists now refuse to debate me on TV because they know they'll lose.
They can't bring out, they've got this battery of dismissal tactics that they've amassed over the last 30 years.
And they've got so complacent because they've never had a sassy gay person come up and say, you're talking bullshit and you're hurting men.
And here are the facts.
They've never had it before, so they've never built up an arsenal to fight it.
So this is why I win and why I'll keep winning because they don't really know how to deal with an argument on its own merits.
And in any case, of course, the facts are on our side.
And they're not very good at looking at the momentum of their actions.
They just think that they're right because this is what they've been saying for so long.
And I think that's one of the most horrific things about these conversations that these women get in with you about because when they're talking about what they think are social constructs, things like gender identities and the way people be, and when you shatter that with the facts, they're looking for some other weapons and there's nothing there.
That's why people like Christine Hofsomers call them gender warriors, because these aren't people who want any kind of social justice, as they say.
These are people who just hate men.
They hate men.
They want to hurt men.
They don't want equality for women.
They want superiority for women, whether it's architected into the education system or affirmative action or whatever it is.
They don't want equality.
They want superiority.
And fundamentally, a lot of this, these crazy extremist progressive third-wave feminists, today's version of feminism, it basically boils down to misandry.
And it takes a gay guy, because it's so dangerous for men to even broach this subject anymore.
And any man with a mainstream job puts that at risk by even talking on the subject, no matter what his opinion is.
It takes a gay guy to go on Sky News in the UK and say, I'm sorry, the facts are not on your side, and what you're doing is damaging to women.
It's, to me, really an indictment on debate in our public square that it is so dangerous for a man to even express an opinion on this subject that it takes a fag to go and stick up for heterosexuals.
I mean, you know, if other men could say this, they would be, but they can't because they risk their careers.
There's a lot of doxing and going after people and a lot of anger when it comes to all this stuff.
But I think what you have in many cases, when you see this kind of like disjointed, illogical sort of way of thinking, I think you have people that are assholes that find a cause that gives them the green light to be an asshole.
I think no disrespect to any particular church, but I think it's reasonable to say 50 years ago, if you were a bully, if you were a sociopath, you wanted to take out on other people, you wanted to wreak harm on the world that you thought would hurt you, a reasonably good way of doing that would be to join the clergy.
And many people did.
And I think most of us who are religious, who have religious families, know stories like that.
These days, you're better off getting a job at Gawker.
If you want to bully somebody, if you really want to hurt them, if you have some sort of internal chaos or damage and you want to impose order on the world outside because you feel so confused and broken and messy, the best way to do it today is to become a social justice warrior.
Because not only do you get the same kind of status in society the clergy would have done 50 years ago, but you also get media platforms.
You get money.
You get approval.
You get applause.
And if you layer on these new tactics of fake abuse and fake harassment and these terrible men coming for me on the internet with stuff, you can make quite a lot of money too.
It's kind of like, so in the old days, you'd have patrons of the arts, and they would be a prince or some rich guy, or maybe a little later in history, it would be a mercantile patron, in the way that many industrialists and bankers still give a lot of money to their local opera house or something like that.
So Patreon is a way of turning that open into crowdfunding.
So your patron becomes a load of people, all of whom give you a little bit of money.
So it's, in theory, quite a respectable and interesting way of funding the arts.
In principle, there's nothing wrong with it, but it seems to become colonized by people who are raising money on the basis of sympathy rather than anything they actually create.
So what I've noticed in my reporting on this is the vast majority of people begging for money on Patreon, as far as I can tell, I'm sure Patreon will tell me most of the money on their platform goes to creative projects, but as far as I can tell, it's people bleating for sympathy, fishing for empathy.
There's a lot of women on there claiming to be, you know, claiming that their lives are being ruined by men.
You actually look into it.
I can't find the tweets they're talking about.
And it's a way for, I mean, there's this And I'm going to remember it wrongly, but it's something along the lines of, every day on the internet, some goony beard man promises to be nice to a social justice warrior in the hope of a wank or the hope of a blowjob or something like that.
And it's these guys who just sort of throw a fiver or throw a tenner a month, $20 a month to this video games developer who's never produced anything in her life, but claims she's getting harassed and claims she's getting threats.
It's a very, very weird psychological dynamic.
And I think it's quite...
And most of these women are not really to blame.
These aren't horrible sociopathic warmongers.
These aren't people who really hate men.
They're just a bit miserable.
And they've reached for the nearest victimhood script available to them because we live in a culture where victimhood is the most valuable currency that you can amass.
And so they go out, they advertise what a terrible life they have and how awful people are to them on the internet.
And they ask men, mainly it's women asking for money from men, effectively for sympathy dollars.
It's incredibly demeaning.
It's incredibly to the human spirit, aside from anything else.
You're basically telling these women that they have more value as whingers and liars and gender warriors than they do as creators or mothers.
I've coined a term for this quantum superstate feminism.
And it is feminism that exists at once as aggressor and victim.
It is simultaneously and at all times aggressor and victim.
And it describes these women who go out lobbing shit at people and then instantly turn into damsels in distress when they see their own language returned in kind.
Quite often returned at greater volume because what they're saying is ridiculous and offensive and people get annoyed about it, perfectly reasonably.
And also if you create an environment in which it's fine to say anything you want about men, it's fine to say kill all white men.
It's fine to publish articles in mainstream new media publications about how to hurt men and all the rest of it.
Well, I think what they're doing is taking at face value this demand for us to treat women, I say us, for them to treat women just like they would their buddies down the pub.
Well, if you've ever actually been to a pub when you're hearing men like out playing snooker or whatever, they're fucking awful to each other.
I think part of the problem is that they sort of become feminists in reverse, and they use the same tactics.
They like to charge police.
They also, I mean, it's amazing.
You go on some of these communities in Reddit, and you read some of these blogs, and they're sort of, you know, they're like fainting couch men's rights activists.
Okay, so I have a friend, Julie Bendle, who's very, very funny.
She's a lesbian.
She's basically this dyke feminist.
She hates men.
She made this joke.
And it's kind of like the sort of joke I would make.
She said, you know, we should put all men in internment camps.
They could have visitation once a month.
You know, we'll have guards and they could just stay in camps until they learn how to behave.
If I'd said that about women, the whole manosphere, as it were, would be like applauding.
They'd think it was hilarious.
But because she said it in a similar level of jest, you know, suddenly it was this disgusting, outrageous thing.
You know, feminists says men should be put in concentration camps.
And I was like, bitches, really?
Are you fucking kidding me?
This is exactly what feminists do.
You are taking a joke, like, you're taking a joke, you're pretending to take it seriously, and then you're starting an outrage circus about it.
Isn't that what this is supposed to be like fighting against?
You know, I'm in this because I'm like a cultural libertarian, as my colleague Alan Bukhari puts it.
You know, I believe in classical liberalism, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of expression.
You know, I don't care what you believe.
I just want you to have, I want to be able to interrogate your ideas in the public square.
But, you know, this outrage circus that so many men seem to be getting involved in, and the way they treat, you know, they call circumcision male genital mutilation.
I think these circumcised girls like Bertha's, they're just weird.
But I think I'm in the minority here.
I'm sorry to offend you, but I think I'm in the minority here, but I just can't imagine why any man wouldn't want lots and lots of really good blowjobs.
You know, look, there's absolutely a bunch of horrible shit that happens to women on a daily basis.
I mean, every time you see these fucking Cosby stories, these women that are coming out of nowhere about Bill Cosby, when women talk about worrying about being drugged, and if you don't know anybody that's actually happened to, or someone close to that's actually happened to you, that danger doesn't seem real.
But you see this Bill Cosby thing, and you're like, not only is it real, it's like, here's the guy that was America's the voice of morality for a generation.
Naturally, well, yes, but we should be working out how to solve and prevent these crimes better.
And the way to do that is not to stage a moral panic in the media, pointing fingers at innocent people.
And when you, as was clearly the case with Rolling Stone, sort of sweep under the carpet facts or omissions that throw doubt on your story, because you think this is just something we should be talking about anyway.
Whether the specific case, whether we have the details around the specific case, what happens is when these rape stories or whatever it is get successive rape stories get repudiated and debunked, it undermines confidence and trust in anyone who makes that complaint.
Anyone who says, this happened to me.
In the back of their head, I think perfectly reasonably, people are thinking, oh yeah, another one.
You know, it's not a nice thing, but this can be the effect of immoral panic in the media.
It damages the real victims the most.
And that's why I've written about this stuff in the past.
I think it's also why it's really important to tell the truth about statistics.
Now, feminists always have a complicated relationship with the truth.
But I think if we extrapolate out, it's going to be like 50 women in five gets raped within a second of stepping on campus by 2025.
It gets worse every time.
It's based on ridiculous studies.
I mean, the way this thing started, I think, Christina Hoffsommers at the American Enterprise Institute, who I always cite because she's so fantastic, and so on.
She's clever, and she does have some problems with contemporary feminism and gender warriors.
She does a great series, The Factual Feminist.
I'm sure a lot of you have seen already.
But she sort of tracked down the original study for this, which was a sample size of about 70 people and an adult education college, which is so completely alien in character.
I mean, these people are like 20 years older.
And of course, adult education colleges, there is a different set of social issues that go along with adult education college than 20-year-olds, undergrads, what do you call them, freshmen, doing a regular degree in college.
Sample size was ridiculous.
The university was atypical.
And this has been extrapolated out to this feminist myth that just won't die, like the gender pay gap as well.
But in some universities, it is part of the university's conduct code that unwanted sexual advances, that means me saying, you're really pretty, can I buy you a drink, constitute sexual harassment.
Now, this is just, you know, you have to close down every nightclub in the country.
It's just extraordinary bonkers, you know, crazy stuff.
And this is, you know, 30 years of unchallenged feminism, which is why I do what I do, because I think it matters.
I think it's important.
I talked to a guy who's 20 years old, you know, our age, right?
I don't know how old you are, I guess, you know.
Okay, fine.
So, I mean, like, you know, you're maybe my dad's, almost at my dad's generation, but anyone your age, even right down to my age, I'm 30.
It would have been a bit ridiculous for us to say that, you know, society is architected against men.
You know, when we were growing up, it just wasn't the case, and there's no point trying to pretend that it was.
But I speak to boys all the time, and I've interviewed so many of them now, of about 20, who do go through life experiencing this extraordinary sort of architecture against them, whether it's being whacked on Adderall at school, or more women, you know, getting into university for no good reason, or women, in a Cornell 2015 study, showed that women have a two-to-one advantage going for a STEM job in academia, so being discriminated against because they don't have a vagina.
20-year-old boys do have some serious problems now.
And we risk not just one, but many lost generations of boys.
I call this this exodus.
I wrote a big two-part about this that I think a lot of people were very nice about and seemed to go down very well.
Yeah, there's some really serious stuff to address here, which is one of the reasons I do what I do, because I think that's what journalism is supposed to be for, speaking up for people who don't have a platform themselves and that the establishment has lost sight of and doesn't care about anymore.
But it's why I think it's important to tell the truth about statistics.
You can't help victims if you lie in your first sentence about what the problem is.
And there is not a systemic, problematic gender pay gap in the United States or in Europe.
There is not an epidemic of rape culture on campus.
There is not a problem in universities or with not enough women going into STEM, into science, technology, or mathematics subjects.
All of these things have subtle and sophisticated explanations that when you take into account human nature and the different choices people make and what women want to do, you realize that this stuff is bunk.
This stuff is based on a misunderstanding between earnings and pay.
can't take all the men in society and all the women in society and do like a two two stage calculation and say right well there's 77 as much money on this side right right that's not what people mean when they say there's a page when you say that it's a page where you say that it's a And that's the phrase they use, to admance, Implying that women get paid less for the same work.
That's the implication that they're making through all of this, because they're confusing earnings with wages, right?
Earnings with pay.
What actually happens is men work longer hours.
Even when you control for children, men take fewer holidays, they take shorter holidays, they work longer hours, they make more money for their firms, all the rest of it.
Men just work harder.
They have longer careers, et cetera, et cetera.
Women prefer, whether or not they have children, to have a more balanced life.
Well, the reason I do it is that, the reason I phrase it exactly like that is that I don't want to, you know, let's not open up this whole not all men stuff that the left does, because that is the route into this sort of social conditioning argument, yeah?
Again, I think your generation, my generation, sounds ridiculous, but I speak to 20-year-old boys all the time who are saying, I can't be bothered with women.
You know, there's this movement, MGTOW, men going their own way.
No, the number of female suicides, I mean, it's different statistics, different countries, it differs slightly, but the female numbers aren't really changing.
Women are getting more unhappy decade after decade, but they don't actually commit suicide.
They never go through with it.
When they try, they fail.
They can't even commit suicide properly.
Women are so incompetent, they can't even kill themselves properly.
But it's even that they can't see that it's not about feminism.
It's not about masculinism either, if that's a word.
It's about just people not being full of shit.
People not, you know, just not crying victim when you're not really a victim.
Not pulling the fucking fire alarm on a guy who's that Toronto thing where the guy was, they totally misrepresented the position of his book, misrepresented what his position was on women, period, and on men.
And he was just essentially trying to highlight various issues some men have, and they were calling him to sorry.
And then sometimes it's just, you know, you deserve to die.
Two out of ten.
You know, come on, you can do better than that.
No, but this is what they do.
This is what they do.
They insult and ridicule and demean and try to discredit the speaker.
And if they can't do that, they will do some other kind of silencing or no platforming or whatever so that those opinions can never be allowed.
They do not want those opinions ever aired in public because those opinions and the facts that underpin them, the reasoning that underpins them, which is what people go to these talks to hear, is so dangerous to the feminist narrative, which is basically based on feeling and not fact, based on bigotry and class and gender hatred, not any kind of sensible analysis of the way the world works.
I've got so many invitations to universities for the next six months.
And this isn't an advertisement to any feminists listening, but I know this is going to happen.
And the talks go on anyway.
It just takes up a whole day of your life instead of an afternoon.
But I know it's going to happen.
I'm speaking at university, I'm speaking to USC Republicans next week.
I'm speaking to a bunch of UK and US universities over the next six months.
And I just know what's coming.
It's just so extraordinary.
I'm like a harmless gay dude.
I crack dick jokes on Twitter and I do Sky News now and again.
And if I'm the scariest opponent that they have, they've got real problems.
I like that you find it horrible because it shows to me that chivalry is not dead.
And you have a decent respect for women and for speaking about women properly.
And I like that you're offended by, well, offended, but I like that you find it distasteful to speak of women in that way because it speaks well of you.
I think what feminism has done has made it very difficult to be nice about women because they've created this environment where there's so much hate and bile and ridicule hurled at men.
Men feel like they've got to respond in kind or just check out entirely.
During that process, during that process, you still have sexual needs.
So he had not accomplished any of those goals.
So he was not attractive to these women.
And because he wasn't attracted to these women, I witnessed, over the course of knowing him for several years, I witnessed this misogyny grow inside of him.
And it was based on the interactions that he had with women were all negative.
The interactions he had with women, he came away feeling bad about himself, feeling rejected.
And so he started to project that they were the root cause of this issue.
I think you're dealing with a lot of the same thing with these feminists.
I think the problem is that society has been architected in such a way that those outcomes, those rejections, are now not just the norm, but almost enforced by a woman's need to reject a man and to say, you know, look at this stuff, you know, unwanted advances of sexual harassment.
And when it starts in California, it spreads elsewhere.
Every big American university has a ridiculous code of conduct that's got this stuff embedded in it.
And it comes from the, you know, the, yes, it comes from the crazies.
I admit, I willingly admit that most women are wonderful and they don't buy into this shit.
And indeed, of course, in just, what is it, in just two years, from 28% of women down to 18% of women identify as feminists.
Fewer than one in five women call themselves feminists because they see what we see, which is that these feminists are all misendrist, lesbianic, crazy people.
Fine.
But those misendrist, lesbianic, crazy people are affecting laws in this country and in my country.
They're affecting conduct, codes of conduct at university that dictate a man's entire future and a woman's entire future for that matter.
And the happiness and good sexual health and the destination of the species, the way that men and women interact with each other is becoming poisoned by these people.
You grotesquely underestimate their influence if you write them off as a few mad crazies in student unions.
Look, he taps into, you know, look, you and I are both, you know, obviously I don't have a fraction of your reach and extraordinary audience and fans, but we're both in our own ways kind of countercultural figures and very popular countercultural figures.
And I think that, you may not like this, but I think Trump taps into a similar vein of frustration and suspicion and hatred of the establishment, of the political media classes.
I think you and I both benefit from the business.
I think you and I both benefit from some of the same instincts that make people quite like Trump.
They don't like Trump because they believe what he has to say about taxation, because they know he's inconsistent on that.
They might like what he says about immigration, but they don't necessarily like the fact that he was a funder to Hillary and all he got out of it was her showing up to the wedding.
They don't, in many cases, particularly like the way he speaks about women, and I think Carly Fiorina was magnificent in that debate.
But what they do like is the fact that he doesn't give a shit, doesn't apologise, and gives such a gigantic, brilliant, bloody nose to the establishment that has drifted so far from ordinary people.
You and I are both net beneficiaries of that same frustration.
And that's why I like Trump, because I think broadly, look, I don't want him in the White House, I'll be honest, okay, don't tell anyone this.
But, you know, I don't want him in the White House, but I do understand why people like him.
And the instinct that people have to like him, that sort of sense of mischief and gadfly-ishness, the reason people want to vote for him, because it makes the establishment, Republicans, so angry and they don't understand it.
I totally get that.
And I have a lot of sympathy for those people.
I agree with those people on a lot of points.
I agree with them entirely about the failings and corruption of the media and political establishment generally.
I totally agree with them on all that stuff.
So I wouldn't call myself a Trump fan, but I am a fellow traveler.
When it comes to American politics and American education, I think there's some parallels to be drawn.
And I think one of the parallels is that any of these ancient systems that were established back when the world was completely different and didn't have the internet, they are no longer valid today.
They're just not.
And we're clinging to these old ways of operating that if you try to propose them today, no one would buy into it.
No one would buy into American universities today.
If you tried to propose the whole educational system as it is today, where you put people out of college, when you release them, they are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt with no fucking jobs to be seen.
The reason it's wrong isn't that it's anachronistic, because there are things that are not strictly justifiable with logic, which nonetheless work best.
I just think, you know, for example, the monarchy in England, you can't make a plausible, rational argument to establish a ruling monarchy in the United Kingdom today.
It means we don't get a European-style president with his retinue of jaguars and all of the kind of pomp and circumstance and nonsense that goes with that.
Well, the British people understand, and Americans understand this too, actually, the importance of significance, the binding power and the value of tradition and institution and history.
And it's something that progressives hate, all of the assumptions on which these things are based.
They hate all of the effects of them too, which is generally to...
And people come from all over the world because they instinctively understand this too.
My point, which is a serious point, is that just because it's anachronistic doesn't make it wrong.
There are problems with the university system in America, but I don't think just because you wouldn't construct it like it's constructed today, that means you shouldn't do it at all.
There's a scandal a few years ago, thousands of people dying in some hospital, and the Labour government just didn't give a shit or didn't do anything about it.
This is not a glittering utopia.
Fine, there are some problems with the American model in healthcare, but trust me, you do not want the NHS.
And the way that Obama is pushing America to be more like Europe, I think it's going to hasten its decline as a world power.
We have seen your future, as my colleague at Breitbart, James Dellingpole, wrote a book, I think he called it Obamania, We've Seen Your Future and It Doesn't Work.
And it was a sort of a love letter to the United States explaining that we've seen where Obama wants to go because we're living it.
You have a manifesto and you try and see as much of your manifesto through as you can, and people hold you to account for telling what any one person really truly has in that position.
The whole point of the way the United States is structured is to limit the power of the president.
You have all of that built into the system, and that's all good.
But he does have a huge influence on what people talk about, how they talk about it.
He makes decisions about foreign policy and war, which is one of the most important things that a nation can decide about itself, is who it's going to fight.
He does make those kinds of decisions, and those kinds of decisions matter.
No, but the president has the executive authority to launch whatever.
I'm talking purely in practical terms, right?
This guy can send planes to places, right?
But everything we've seen from Obama suggests that he wants to take a sort of weird, progressive, socialized, pseudo-European approach to domestic policy, healthcare, taxation.
And this scares us in Europe because we looked up to you guys.
You know what it was?
America, for me, as a European, and your viewers are going to pick holes in this, I'm sure, but for me, Britain is probably the greatest country in the world because it didn't invent democracy or property rights or any of those great values that now the world basically revolves around.
But it was the best at spreading them.
England in particular spread democracy, property rights, freedom around the world.
And everywhere that Britain has been is a nice place to live.
And anywhere that Britain hasn't been, you wouldn't want to go to.
And America's sort of the distillation of the highest and best values of Britishness, freedom and democracy and free speech and all this kind of stuff.
America was America's, like, you know, this petri dish.
What will happen if we take the very best of British values, the stuff that we've spent centuries propagating around the world, making the world a nice, prosperous, you know, fair place to live?
What will happen if we take them and we cut all the crap out and we make a country like that?
These values that Britain spread to India, spread to the bits of the Middle East that Britain went to that are nice places to live now, where women can dress how they like.
Kuwait, for example, not a terrible place to be.
Where Britain didn't go, Saudi, not a place you'd want to be.
Anywhere that Britain has touched has become better for it.
Look at Japan.
They wear our suits, they talk our language, they wear our suits.
And this is Britain's influence on the world, no other country.
Nothing else can touch it.
Not Portugal, not Holland.
Nobody else can touch Britain for just sheer global influence.
Australia, Canada, all the places Britain has touched are dramatically better as a result.
But for me, the sort of highest distillation of those values that Britain was spreading around the world was always America, and Obama is tearing America away from those values.
That's what I don't like.
That's why I said he was a terrible president.
That's why I struggle with him in that office, because he seems to me to be profoundly, and I know this is something that sort of crazy right-wings on the internet always say, but he just seems to me to be profoundly un-American.
Well, because effectively, the stuff he says about harassment of, you know, he's bought into this harassment nonsense.
The stuff he said about net neutrality, the stuff he said about the rape campus stuff, all of these things are satellites of the free speech argument, right?
No, it's about the government regulating the internet.
Net neutrality is about the government regulating the internet, having control over what private companies can do, about the relationship that a private company has with its own customer, right?
You have a service from, I don't know what your private providers are called, Comcast or whatever.
You know, your relationship with Comcast is a private business arrangement between you and that company, right?
Net neutrality is about the government trying to intrude on that relationship and dictating what kind of business arrangement you can come to with Comcast.
And it's going to say, Comcast, you cannot offer this package of services.
You cannot suggest to the customer that there might be a higher tier service for people who pay more, just like, you know, you can get a better car if you pay more, or you can, you know, get anything else in life.
If you've got more money, you get a better version of it, right?
You can't do any of that.
We're going to insist because we've got this crazy idea that the internet is some kind of utility, you know, like water or something.
We're going to come in here and we're going to regulate and control the relationship that you, a private company, have with you, a private individual.
That is at its essence a free speech argument because of what happens when you start regulating that traffic.
The internet traffic that is split down, some of it's for Netflix, some of it's for email, some of it's for whatever, the way in which certain things get, you know, what it wants to do is say that all traffic is neutral, that it's all equal.
But do you not see that people would be concerned with the government being able to throttle internet away and put power into corporations, have them have the ability to decide how much bandwidth goes to the corporate system?
Do you think for a second that if the government is given the power to regulate how an internet service provider delivers its packets of data to consumers, they're not going to then start to wonder what's in those packets and then start to say, well, actually, you know what?
The net neutrality thing was fine.
Like it was a really good idea and we loved it and we were really happy to bring that to you.
But actually we've decided that this kind of data is more important.
So we're going to let you do that.
Or indeed we're going to insist that you prioritize this kind of data.
There's an argument that insisting that all packets of data on the internet are treated equally favors new startups into the market because they don't have to compete with incumbents who have privileged access to high-speed products.
We should allow private companies, private, you know, to sell and do and have whatever influence they want over the internet.
And if, you know, look, the market works in these situations.
Look what happens when ISPs try to manipulate Netflix traffic.
Customers complain and they have to stop and they have to put it back again.
You know, the market works so well for internet stuff because everybody on internet is so vocal.
They're online already.
They complain about it.
It takes two clicks.
The market works brilliantly for this stuff.
Why allow the government to come in and dictate to private individuals and private corporations what their business relationship should look like and the nature of the services that they provide or the money they provide one another?
Well, there's a large argument against net neutrality.
There's a large argument online that we could spend hours going over the pros and cons of each side of it.
But I think ultimately people have a distrust in large corporations and a distrust in the government.
And either one of them having control of what has been like the one thing that's empowered people in this country is the ability to put out a message and to get information.
And the fact that you could do it now just because it could be throttled.
This is the government getting involved in what ISM is.
Women can do in excited.
What you're saying, people don't know.
People don't know.
The UN is saying that, and this is wacky, crazy stuff, right?
This report from the UN Broadband Commission, the UN Broadband Commission, this is what we have in Europe.
This is why I don't want you to become Europe.
Please don't become Europe.
What we have in Europe is the UN Broadband Commission is specifically set up to find ways, it is paid for by European taxpayers, and its purpose is to find ways of regulating the internet.
That is what it's for.
It has a brief to find ways of cutting down on internet freedoms.
One of the ways it's found to do that is to get a load of batshit crazy feminists in to say that people who ridicule or criticize them on the internet are in fact guilty of harassment and abuse.
And as a result, internet services should be almost pre-screened.
Words should almost be pre-screened before they ever appear on the internet.
Just the most crazy bullshit.
Only a European can come up with this.
And this report came out and it was full of holes and we examined it.
I think ours was the first report that went into detail about this.
And I read about it once or twice.
And then I wrote about it a second time.
And I think the headline was, am I the only responsible tech journalist left on the planet?
Anyway, so what they want to do is sort of like pre-brief all of this stuff, pre-check it.
And if they don't, they want to clamp down ISPs.
What you're doing right now is you're saying it's okay for the government to get involved in this kind of regulation of the private relationship that ISPs have with their customers, but it's not okay for the government to get involved in this kind of regulation.
I mean, the UN thing is essentially a Trojan horse, right?
I mean, that's really what it is.
That's what was so disturbing about it, is the idea that the UN could get in and get involved and somehow or another punish social media websites and make them responsible for what the users post.
Like if you post some inflammatory, ridiculous shit and they let it get into their neck.
Never.
But if you did, if you went on a fucking late-night cocaine-fueled Twitter rampage and you typed a bunch of ridiculous shit about women with no like some women are there, oh, just women.
No, I mean, look, there's actually an interesting discussion around this, and it's that it's about comment sections and commenting what people are allowed to say on the internet.
There's this huge trend at the moment, and almost every progressive publication has either closed their comment section or indicated that they might.
In the early days of the internet, you had these tech-savvy progressives, disproportionately based on in coastal cities, who said, because the only people they knew who used the internet were like them, were hipsters and coastal types, who said that the internet was going to create this extraordinary and amazing new world where everyone could express their opinions and it was going to democratize knowledge and democratize power.
And the presumption they made was that everyone on the internet was going to be nice.
Well, most people aren't very nice.
And most people particularly aren't nice.
And I mean that as a compliment, by the way, because I hate nice people.
This was based on a presumption that everybody on the internet was going to be like a Twitter employee or a Gawker blogger.
Yeah, yeah.
So they come up with this idea, you know, this great internet, social media, social is going to be the new thing.
The Guardian's going to throw its newsrooms open to the public on the assumption that Guardian readers and people who live in North London, which is something like Portland or Brooklyn or whatever, ish, sort of.
No, it's more actually sort of like posh-rich liberals, but it's not quite, it's not directly comparable, but sort of like roughly like that.
You know, they were going to be homogenous, nice, polite lefties with the correct opinions about things.
Actually, what's happened is it took longer than I anticipated, but what's happened is that ordinary people now can open Twitter accounts too and aren't sufficiently technologically educated to do so.
And what all of these progressive media companies are discovering, the mics, the Voxes, the BuzzFeeds, the hawkers of this world are discovering, that most people don't agree with them.
They are just, they've never, I know, it's shocking, but most people don't believe you should kill all men.
Most people don't believe that white people, that black people can't be racist.
Look, it's impossible to believe those things in good faith because you have to lie so much to yourself and to others in order to make those arguments.
It is one long practical joke, that side.
It is just a gigantic piece of satire.
I'm convinced it's funded by the Koch brothers to discredit liberalism.
If you trace the Salon money back far enough, you will discover the surname Koch because it is the only explanation for how badly Salon discredits progressivism.
It is the only explanation.
Just today, they published another editorial from this fucking paedophile, you know, who I wrote about, and he wouldn't even dare bring my name up because he's too scared to get into it with me because he knows he'd lose.
He published this thing about how I'm a paedophile, I don't act on it, right after I'd exposed a paedophile, Sarah Nyberg, and Gamergate, right?
And it went all over the world, and it was this huge story that I wrote.
She was backed up, and all the social justice warriors doubled down and protected her because she was on message, basically.
She had the right politics, so they stuck her to the kiddie fiddler.
This is the state of the modern left.
Directly after that, with coincidental timing, Salon publishes this thing by a pedophile saying, oh, I'm a pedophile, but I don't act on it, which is precisely the defense that this person has used.
So I respond, and I did a very good piece, and I urge all of your listeners to seek it out because it really is excellent journalism.
Yeah, it was called something like, This is why the left, this is why liberal, this is why progressives stick up for pedophiles.
It explains why pedophiles can get away with this stuff and why progressives and liberals back them.
They make excuses for them, as Salon just did today.
Today, they gave a space to this guy who is a pedophile about whom there is horrific stuff online, which hasn't come out yet, which you should watch this space for that because I know Steven Crowder knows about some of it, and so do I. Excuse me.
And I did this piece, and everyone came out and said that it was really supportive and it was really great, and that I'd help people to get through their own experiences.
And everyone was really sympathetic, except the right-wing hate machine, meaning me, although he didn't dare mention me by name.
Except the right-wing hate machine had the temerity to say, we think Peter Philly is wrong.
And why is Salon giving a platform to this guy when there's so much dirt on the internet suggesting that he has physically touched young girls, for example?
And by we, I mean people who actually wanted to find out what the science said, to continue to invest in things that are now unfundable, certain bits of research that don't agree with the progressive consensus, which you now can't get funding for.
Well, so the transgender question is complex and difficult.
And for example, Johns Hopkins doesn't do the surgeries anymore.
The guy who used to run it there is a very outspoken critic of transition surgeries.
This is not the best treatment pathway.
They all end up killing themselves anyway.
There's by most metrics no improvement in suicide rates.
My view on this is, you know, we're probably going to look back in 30 years and wonder how we could ever have been so cruel as to allow somebody with a psychiatric delusion to start hacking at themselves to make reality conform to their own delusions.
But by we earlier, what I meant was people who want to be science-led on this.
And instead, what the left very, it was there on the cover of Time magazine.
The trans thing is the next civil rights frontier.
They very clearly articulated, they gave us all the clues we needed to work out how they were going to fight this one, right?
And we just didn't pay any attention at the time, or some people didn't.
They set it up as the next gay or the next bisexual or the next lesbian.
It's just the next frontier in the civil rights struggle.
I'm telling you, pedophilia is the one after that.
Don't you think that if you are a person and you are of sound mind and body and you have a desire to be a woman and you've had this desire your whole life, but you were born a man.
Shouldn't you be able to do whatever the fuck you want to do?
I mean, if ever you needed evidence that the trannies are mentally ill, it's tranny campaigners.
I mean, the transgender lobby are nuts.
The reason journalists don't want to write about this stuff or don't want to enter the dangerous territory is that what they are on the receiving end of afterwards is just, I mean, I've had it.
But you should give people have the ability for the option to opt out.
And they shouldn't, I mean, what are we going to do?
So any man who wants to be a women's MMA fighter, we're just going to basically give him a gold-lined pathway to the championship because no woman's going to want to get in a ring with him and have her jaw broken.
That's not okay.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to say if you weren't born a woman, you don't get to fight in a women's competition.
The aggressive progressives, and these people who you dismissed earlier as fringe nut cases, they have entirely dictated what you're allowed to say on that subject.
And if you don't say the right thing, from what an analysis is.
I'm not a big fan of people I care about and love joining the army, going over and killing people overseas, unless it's absolutely necessary, of course.
But I'm a big fan of, I think a lot of people would benefit from fucking boot camp.
There was a University of Rome, I believe, did a study on homosexuality, and they had a theory that the reason why people became gay was a variation on the X chromosome.
And so there was a disproportionate amount of homosexual men that were birthed from women that were promiscuous.
No, so I started to bring home black guys instead, and that she was upset about.
No, I think it was just that she was just coming down and there were just these black guys with cocaine and pills out on the breakfast table at the same time.
The technically correct way to describe his or her accomplishments as an athlete, the technically correct way to do it is to use the new name and the new pronoun.
You know, one of the guys he competed in the Olympics with believes that this whole transition to him becoming a woman had to do with taking steroids for the Olympics.
Right, this is where you were going to go, isn't it?
There's something that feminists always say about transgender, particularly the male-to-female transgenders, why do they always choose such classically feminine looks?
Why don't they become what we want, which is a sort of genderless, fat, blue-haired, armpit hell brigade?
Like, if you're going to go trans, what they want is you become genderqueer.
They want you to become, you know, some sort of ludicrous, asexual disaster of a human being.
Men who become women become women, like very stereotypically women.
And this is interesting because this is a sort of physical manifestation of a psychological problem for feminism, and it is this.
If you accept that people can be born with the wrong brain, that a man can be born with a woman's brain, or a woman could be born with a man's brain, that goes a long way to destroying 40 years of gender politics and gender theory, which says that all sexuality and all gender is socially constructed.
Then that's why men behave like men do and women behave like women do.
If you accept and you put on the cover of Time magazine or Vanity Fair a person who has had the wrong brain in the wrong body and when they transition they take on new characteristics, new forms of behaviour and all the rest of it, you are admitting that some of these qualities are innate, are biological, that there is such a thing as a male brain and a female brain.
This is something that feminists have been denying for decades and it is incredibly damaging to the feminist project, to the idea that everything is because when they want to break down the gaps between men and women, they want to make girls play with action man and boys.
They want to rise boys up as princesses.
What they're suggesting is that all gender is taught, that it's a social construct, that we teach boys how to be boys.
So we should teach boys to be nice instead of violent.
This is the toxic masculinity thing.
What transgenderism demonstrates quite clearly, if we accept it as face value, as progressives have asked us to, is that there is indeed such a thing as a male brain, and there is indeed such a thing as a female brain.
That being the case, ordinary people have them too.
And that explains why, for example, there aren't as many women in STEM subjects.
It explains why men have certain behavioural characteristics.
And all of this stuff that feminists have been telling us is just society and patriarchy and conditioning.
Hang on a minute.
You can't hold these two beliefs simultaneously.
You cannot believe both of these things in tandem.
You have to pick one.
The reason that some people on the quiet are quite enthusiastic, on the political right are quite enthusiastic about the transgender thing, is they know it unravels the feminist project and it unravels two generations of crazy progressive feminism in one fell swoop because it demonstrates, by their own admission, what total bollocks the idea of constructed gender is.
This woman I told you about, the concentration camp woman.
She's a turf.
Or she's accused of being a turf.
These people who say that transgender women are not women because they haven't had a woman's lived experience.
In fact, all they're doing is acquiring the victimhood mantle by which they sort of admit the whole jig, you know, in the courts of this.
In order to be a turf, you have to sort of admit that there's such a thing as female privilege.
And what they're basically saying is, as a transgender person, you can never acquire the full degree of female privilege because you can't claim your oppressed victimhood status and get special dispensation.
You can't do any of those things because you're not a real woman.
You never had a woman's experience.
We don't want you.
I love them.
I love them because they're just the most brilliant example of this dysfunctional, fucked up, left-on-left violence.
It's wonderful.
Or this sort of house of cards of ludicrous theory that's totally internally inconsistent.
This is one of those times in which it just implodes.
I wrote about this in another great piece that your listeners just...
It's called Minority Wars.
And my point in this was that if the last 10 years have been about setting men against women, and fine, you think men should just man the fuck up, and I know you're entitled to that view.
I take a slightly more compassionate view of this stuff.
If you believe that the last 10 years, I think most people do, the Progressive Project has been to set women against men, the next 10 years is going to be even worse.
The next 10 years is going to set sexuality against sexuality, race against race, gender against gender.
So you're going to get Hispanics versus blacks in America.
Hispanics, for example, that's interesting because Hispanics don't have the guilt about slavery that white people do.
So when Hispanics are running cities like Baltimore, the policing is going to be brutal.
You can support black people, as indeed I do, with my body, in many cases, and nonetheless not think that Black Lives Matter is the best thing for black people.
So anyway, he comes back after all this reporting and says, oh, well, the man, they're right about everything, except the man on my birth certificate is not my real dad.
My mum had an affair.
Like, throws his mum under the bus.
Since my mum was a slut 30 years ago, effectively.
And I'm not getting any more into it.
I've never asked about who my dad is.
I don't know anything about him.
I've never asked in 30 years who my dad is.
Mm-hmm.
Okay, all right, fine.
Carry on.
The only thing I know about him, for absolute sure, I don't know his name.
I don't know who he is.
I don't know where he is.
But the only thing I definitely know about him is if he's black.
Now we're in a situation where Sean King has pronounced Sean King innocent, but you're not allowed to ask any more questions, and you've just got to take his word for it.
You know, this is why it's so damaging to Black Lives Matter, the fact that all of their figureheads seem to end up either being lunatics or being white.
What is wrong with this movement that no authentically black people seem to be able to lead it?
Like, okay, look, I have my moments with Mariah Carey.
But no, the way they behave, the music they listen to, how they dress, how they speak, and worst of all, which really fucking annoys me, it drives me absolutely crazy, the way in which gay people have now become such bullies.
They're using all the tools against other people, Christians, the bakeries, all that kind of shit that used to be used against them.
Gay people have become the worst kind of sanctimonious bullies.
And it makes me ashamed to be homosexual.
When I see the way that they bully other minorities, the way they bully religious minorities, and I think 50 years ago, this was gays.
When I see the way that gay people behave, when I see that couple, that gay couple who went to Memory's Pizza, Memories Pizza, if you'll remember, was the Christian baker who said, you know, probably wouldn't, we'd rather not K to your wedding if that's okay.
Huge media outrage because some idiot troublemaker on the left had gone basically gone outrage shopping, called up everybody in Indiana and said, will you K to, will you K to, will you K to?
Finally found somebody who said, I'd prefer not to.
And they go to Memories Pizza, and they pick up pizza, and they start parading around on stage how they got Memories Pizza at their wedding, those nasty Christians who don't want to cater gays.
And I thought to myself, and then they sort of sent these pictures to the press or whatever, and I thought to myself, what a nasty, vindictive, bitter, soulless way to treat your own wedding or your vow renewal or whatever.
You turn it into this triumphalist, bitter public political stunt.
And I thought it was so cheap and so classless.
And it represented everything that's wrong with the gay establishment today.
And it was just, I just saw that and I thought, God, I hope people don't think that about me when they know I'm gay, you know?
These preening, bitter, spiteful, nasty queers.
And I thought to myself in my head, you fucking idiots.
Like, you are doing so much damage to the public view of homosexuality.
You know, making people think that this spiteful, bitter behavior is how we all behave when we get a taste of power.
Because, of course, how we judge people, you know, one of the ways we judge people is how they behave when they're in power.
And now gays are the establishment, you know, quite a lot of people.
I think what's happening is you get a bunch of people who are unhappy that know that they can have an impact by doing a something, and they know they have a green line.
Well, they're obviously unhappy, although I wouldn't behave like this, but what I do And the gay something is we can protest in this fashion and we will get a pop.
But they've been given carte blanche to go after religious minorities because the media establishment and politicians and all the rest of it continually give the signals.
So she probably shouldn't be in her post because she can't perform the functions of her job.
Her beliefs, if she refuses to issue those licenses, and that is the law, she can't be in her job.
But you know what's interesting?
She's these days the example of a conscientious objector.
She's an example of somebody sticking out for their beliefs or their political opinions or their life choices or their faith or whatever in the face of the law, in the face of public opinion, and in the face of received wisdom, the consensus, all the rest of it.
She is doing what gay rights campaigners were doing 50 years ago, and I think it's very telling.
Now gay people are molly-coddled and protected.
And I've been a beneficiary of that.
I've seen it in action.
The way that now they can turn around and bully religious minorities solely to feel better about themselves in this horrible, bitter way that they do.
And lesbians are the worst, by the way.
The way they now do that to people who have faith, to religious people, makes me feel slightly ill.
Even if you take the view, let's say Ludwig Feubach, right?
Even if you take the Feubachian view and say, I don't believe in what any of these religions say, but if we look at what they have in common and what that says about the human spirit, what we aspire to, what we consider most important.
So for example, Christianity, we might consider self-sacrifice and love the most important things because self-sacrifice and love are the two central instincts that run the red threads that run through the Christian canon, run through Christian literature, run through Christian history.
If that was the voyage, is this, okay, I don't believe in this stuff, but this is an essential human artifact of human culture and history because it teaches us more about ourselves than anything else.
It teaches us over centuries as it has evolved to teach us what we find most important.
And different religions in different places are fascinating because they illustrate the different emphases on those core values of love and charity and self-sacrifice that different societies place on things.
Now, I'm not asking you to believe that when you take Holy Communion, you are ingesting the body and blood of Christ.
That's not going to happen.
But what I am suggesting is you shouldn't be such a dismissive asshole about such an integral, rich, beautiful, and crucial part of human history that teaches us so much about who we are.
No, what I'm saying is, even if you only believe their stories, these are the most important stories that the Western tradition, the Western tradition.
The most important stories that have ever been told.
Even if you believe that, they say something deep and profound about who we are and about what we care about most, about our anxieties, about our beliefs, and about our sympathies, the way we relate to one another, the way that we talk about it.
I'm presenting one reason why you should be less flippant and dismissive about religion, because you are too smart to be that much of a cut about religion.
unidentified
I'm flippant and dismissive about it because I can't believe it's still here.
The reality is we're talking about myths, and we're talking about people that believe those myths so much that they won't let people get married because it goes against their myths.
Most of our laws are based on religious prescription when you get down to it.
Most of the way society is mostly the whole society is based on what's ultimately religious prescription.
My point is simply and only that if you're going to be a flippant asshole, at least acknowledge that, first of all, half the population does take this stuff seriously.
And second of all, this is important stuff that tells us about who we are.
And I think it's beneath you to be so flippant about it.
It's very flippant and cruel and vindictive and spiteful and horrible about crazy feminists because they're crazy and because what they do is ridiculous.
I don't think, whether or not you're an atheist, that religion is ridiculous.
Don't you think that people understand what's good and what's that?
Listen, if we're going to have a conversation, we can't keep talking over each other like this.
When someone's trying to make a point about something that's complex like this, if you think that the only way for a person to have ethics or an understanding of each other or compassion for each other is to rely on ancient myths that are easily scientifically disproven.
I said that the specific set of values that you have is influenced more than you would like to admit by your Judeo-Christian human rights.
It's influenced by the things that I think all of us have.
I mean, look, I think that some of what we would call morality obviously comes from natural revulsion, which is more like biological, right?
This is some of the prescriptions against, perhaps against murder, perhaps against child abuse, that kind of stuff, right?
That comes from a sort of natural revulsion.
And it may be an evolutionary biological imperative.
There are certain things that we just know we shouldn't do, right?
And that's our body saying, ugh, no.
Like the smell of rotten food, or stuff like that.
But there are other things that definitely come from the Judeo-Christian tradition that has defined most of what we consider to be right and wrong in the West.
And I think our society is the better for it.
And I think that our society is better than elsewhere in the world.
So generally speaking, I'm an outlier because, I mean, as you all know, gay people generally test higher for IQ than the rest of the population.
And lots of evolutionary biologists will suggest that people with high IQs tend to engage in dissident Or unusual habits and practices in general, because that's where Mother Nature does her experimentations, where she tests the limits of the species.
So people with very high IQ are more likely to be homosexual, goes the evolutionary biology argument, because it's in those very smart people that the sort of transgressive dissident stuff is tried out by Mother Nature.
So I would say I'm probably an outlier there as a very smart homosexual.
You know, I'm not typical of sort of mains, of the kind of bulk of the species.
From the evolutionary perspective, it could be natural variation.
From the Christian perspective, it could be some Christians believe that you get these things in life as tests, and they don't judge the sinner, they judge the sin.
And what they mean by that is you can be gay, but if you act on it, that's when you become a sinner.
Well, like, nobody that's holding the signs, because most of the ones holding the signs, the militant homosexuals, are the ones that chose to be gay to get at people.
LSD is very different than dimethyltryptamine, though.
Dimethyltryptamine is a visionary hallucinogen, extremely powerful one.
That's what ayahuasca, that's the active ingredient in ayahuasca.
The idea is that that's what Moses was doing.
That that's why the burning bush, the literal translation of what that is, is smoking DMT.
He's getting a DMT trip, and that's why God is giving him these ideas about how people should behave and what is divine, to be kind to each other, to not murder.
Well, you know, John Marco Allegro, the guy who was one of the head scholars that was deciphering the Dead Sea Scrolls, after 14 years of studying, he was an ordained minister, but he was also agnostic because he started studying religion and realized it was all bullshit.
But he wrote a book called The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross.
He believes that the entire origins of Christianity was based around fertility rituals and the consumption of psychedelic mushrooms.
But if you do look into it, you've got to assume that fascinating, spectacular psychedelic experiences would be interpreted by the people who had no science, no books, no knowledge of what's going on with the human neurochemistry as being something that was divine.
I'm here in my country and you've never seen a 15-year-old girl at any point in your life, however old you were, you've never seen a 15-year-old girl you thought was hot.
And you see, this is the thing, you see, progressives are starting to police homosexuals' language.
You know, I've got this theory, right?
I believe that pedophilia is the next progressive rehabilitation drive.
But I also think that straight, sorry, that homosexual white guys are going to be put back into the establishment bucket very soon.
If you look at some of the whining editorials coming out, like The Daily Beast, there's female columnists on The Daily Beast who will publish things about, say, on your Grinder profile, this app that you use to pick up guys nearby, which is basically just a sea of torsos and you just pick who you want to get the fucked by.
But of course, you know, some progressive columnist has finally, like, five years later, has cottoned onto this and decided to make a thing about it and say, it's problematic that gay people express racial preferences when dating.
Of course, it isn't.
We all have racial preferences.
The OKCupid data actually shows us which races and which genders come out on top and come out the bottom.
So like Asian women do very well, black women do very badly, and the sort of league tables of hotness of men and women.
Anyway, so they're starting to police the language now and police the sexuality of homosexuals.
I mean, there was me thinking we were sliding dangerously close to tolerance and understanding, and now progressives are starting to police the sexuality of homosexuals again.
Sorry, of white gay men on the basis that they have almost like the ultimate male privilege.
They are smarter and richer and better looking and sassier and all the things that feminists hate because feminists are none of those things because feminists are disproportionately poor and ugly and unlovable.
And man, there's very few people I've ever had on the podcast that brought so much hate with them.
But he is a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, a tenured fucking professor up there who believed that HIV did not cause AIDS and that what HIV was was a weak virus that only existed in the bodies of people that already had compromised immune systems.
And he said the correlation between partying and party drugs, crystal methadrine, and all this different shit that you're going to be able to do is to do it.
And of course we do, rightly so, because it's what tells us mostly about how the world works, apart from obviously from the transcendental bits that actually matter.
But it tells us so much about how the world functions, like what's going to happen if I do that.
Science tells us all these things.
And so we have this, I suppose, appropriate reverence for scientists.
But what I think we always forget is just how mental and fallible and in many cases unintelligent so many of them are.
I care about facts not being, you know, not whether somebody lumps me in with the wrong group of people.
I've never cared about that.
I don't care what people think about me.
I care whether my argument is sound or whether I'm right.
And also whether I'm funny and entertaining and people like me.
But I don't care if somebody, you know, but people write guys like us off all the time, right?
They said, you write me, I was a misogynist, self-loathing, homosexual, as you did today wrongly.
People do this all the time.
And it's just another way that the left has of delegitimizing the speaker because they don't like the arguments.
Rather than attack the argument, you call the speaker self-loathing.
Rather than attack the argument, you call the speaker, you know, a bigot of some other kind.
Or you pathologise.
You say that if you're a gay person with these opinions, you must either have some psychological problem and get that you need therapy, or you hate yourself and you're self-loathing because of your religious upbringing, all the rest of it.
You don't allow that person the dignity of having opinions that don't correspond with their sexuality.
That, I think, is cheap, and it ignores the messy and complicated reality of human sexuality and who people are.
I don't care if somebody thinks that I'm a self-loathing homosexual.
What I care about is telling the truth that other people seem to be reluctant to do.
Gay people, the gay establishment certainly doesn't tell the truth about a lot of things.
They don't tell the truth about Born This Way.
They don't tell the truth about HIV.
They get very upset when you dare to tell.
I wrote this column, like, you know, gay people, if you want to start donating blood, because most gay people are banned from donating blood, you know, or at least it's very difficult in the UK and I think the US too.
And I wrote this column, so gay people are complaining that they're not allowed to donate blood, and they say that it's evidence of homophobia or whatever.
I said, if you want to be able to donate blood, stop being sluts.
The reason the NHS doesn't let you donate blood is because gay blood is so disproportionately more likely to have diseases in it.
if you want to be allowed to donate blood, stop sleeping around.
But that wasn't the point.
My point was to get at the whiners and the winges and the social justice worlds and the handwringers.
My point is, I don't care if somebody says, you know, you're a self-loathing homosexual.
I know it isn't true.
It's a cheap debate tactic, and it really has no meaning outside of the facts of the argument.
So I don't care about being lumped in with crazy people.
If my arguments are sound about a particular issue, I'd rather I wasn't.
But, you know, you say to me, well, you come and you say, I don't believe in climate change.
And in my head, I think, oh, God, you're like a crazy info wars conspiracy theorist.
You're an Alex Jones type, right?
Who probably thinks vaccines are a conspiracy by the government.
I find that absurd.
And in any case, I don't really mind too much because I think ordinary people, I think many of your fans and certainly mine, are a bit tired of having labels applied to them by other people.
I think people are a bit tired of being told what they are, told they're bigoted, told they're misogynistic, told that there is something else wrong with them or that they have the wrong opinions about things.
I think that 97% of climate scientists agreeing on climate change is in the same category of immortal myth that the campus rape culture statistic is.
It's one of those sort of unquestioned, it's become a fact meme, you know?
It's one of those things that's uncritically reported.
And it's been repeated so many times that people don't even feel the need to ask for a citation anymore.
So for example, when you hear the stuff about the rape statistics or the pay gap, people take it, it's such an established part of accepted statistic now.
People have stopped bothering to ask for evidence to justify it.
Well, you would know probably better than a lot because you were actually there on the front lines and you watched people actually fuck with evidence and omit things and add things.
Well, what was the when you were there and this was all going on, like what was the philosophy behind it?
You know, and this is when right-wingers sometimes sound a bit conspiratorial and a bit crazy, right?
When they say, oh, it's all a construction of the liberals.
Like, 97% of scientists is a construction of liberals.
Oh, just get out, right?
I understand how that conversational moment comes to happen.
But all I can tell you is that it was climate change for me as an observer, for the scientists concerned, it was primarily a political project.
It was a lot to do with the sort of UN global guilt about poverty and the third world.
Climate change was this issue that was going to fix everything, right?
It was going to fix poverty in the third world.
It finally addressed the sort of white guilt they all feel and gave them all a real reason to feel bad about being who they are.
It gave them that sort of terrible, you know, it gave them the justification to beat up on capitalism, which they all hate.
It gave them the justification to beat up on the Western way of life.
And James Denningpole, my Breitbart colleague, wrote a book about watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside.
And his point was that his thesis is that dressed up in the language of environmentalism and climate change concern is actually just socialism, anti-capitalism, and sort of this weird anarchic desire to see the developed world burn on the part of very politicized scientists.
And I have to say, based on what I saw, he's right.
I always find it very disturbing when people bring up this whole fracking thing and they're very dismissive of it.
That one freaks me out because there's absolute evidence that they've poisoned a lot of wells, that there's areas that people can't live in anymore, that it's leaked into river supplies.
There's absolute evidence of that.
And then people are like, well, but look how cheap the gas is now.
I'm like, it doesn't matter.
If you fuck something up to the point where it's useless 100,000 years from now, it doesn't put out cheap stakes.
I wanted to persuade UKIP, which is the closest thing we have to equivalent of the Tea Party.
I wanted to persuade UKIP in the UK, who were banned from the Pride March, because, of course, the leftist homosexual establishment are nothing if not ruthlessly intolerant of Conservatives.
It was much more difficult for me to come out as a Tory than it was as a gay person.
I think what we all do, all four of us, is we say things, we gin up our jokes and our rhetoric and our provocation to get attention and to draw attention perhaps to people who are unnecessarily offended by things that they shouldn't be offended by to idiots.
But in the course of doing so, we do tell the truth and what we really believe in.
Now, you may be the sort of least.
On that spectrum that probably starts with you and ends with Trump, you're probably the least trollish, but you still do it.
Go to cavemancoffeeco.com and get your fucking coffee free gone.
Go to pond5.com and enter the promo code Joe at checkout to get 25% off any order.
You can also get 50 free video and audio files, which you can use forever for anything, as many times as you want.
So go get the free files, no credit card required, and it takes 30 seconds to grab the stuff at pondnumber5.com and enter the promo code Joe at checkout.
That's pond number5.com and enter the promo code Joe.
Thanks also to Dollar Shave Club.
Ooh we best motherfucking razors you ever gonna buy ladies and gentlemen.
Ship to your house, take out all the hassle and save a lot of money.
A third of the price, fantastic razors, dollarshaveclub.com.
Go to dollarshaveclub.com forward slash Rogan and check it out.
That's dollarshaveclub.com forward slash Rogan.
Thanks also to onit.com.
Go to O-N-N-I-T, use the code word Rogan and save 10% off any and all supplements.