Dave Smith and Robbie the Fire Bernstein dissect their contentious debate with Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan, critiquing Murray's reliance on credentialism and semantic evasion regarding Ukraine, Israel-Palestine, and pandemic lockdowns. They argue that Murray's refusal to engage substantively on NATO expansion or regime changes exposed his lack of expertise, while the hosts champion questioning the expert class amidst rising internet censorship. Ultimately, the discussion suggests that true critical thinking requires challenging government narratives on coups and Gaza rather than accepting authority-based dogma, even as the hosts reflect on the mixed audience reaction to their rigorous scrutiny. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Debating Without Expertise00:14:36
What's up?
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
A special episode, a late night episode.
Of course, I'm Dave Smith, and he is Robbie the Fire Bernstein.
How are you, sir?
I'm doing well.
I'm so close to being done with having to take Adderall and put together these Porch Tour dates.
And I'm very excited to be done with it.
Mobile Alabama and Pensacola, Florida is the start of the tour.
And you can find that at porchtor.com.
Nice.
Awesome.
Make sure you guys, if you're in the area where Porch Tour comes, go out and see one of the shows.
This has become legendary at this point.
People tell me I hear all the time I'm on the road.
Oh, I went to the porch tour.
It was crazy.
You brought me in the middle of the woods and did a ceremony of some sorts.
And then it saw the best show of my life.
And then I passed out and woke up, you know, blood coming out of my ass.
And I don't know how many more, I don't know how many more purchases I have left in me.
I don't know that I got another year of taking Adderall and coordinating dates.
This might be the last one.
Anyway, so I just, I just got home today, spent the day with the family.
It was very nice.
I've been on a crazy stretch of just traveling nonstop.
And of course, the last thing that I did was, well, I was out, you know, we were in Boston.
Then I went down to Austin, did a solo episode with Rogan.
Then I went and did the Nashville Comedy Festival, hung out with Kid Rock.
Did he get a word?
Kid guy.
Talking about tariffs.
Dude, he couldn't have been cooler.
Awesome guy.
And no, we didn't talk tariffs.
I was just trying to angle for, you know, you try, you don't, you talked to Kid Rock to get a meeting with Donald Trump.
Dave, what makes you even think you should have an opinion?
Well, okay.
So then let's get to it.
Then the thing that I did, well, it just came out today.
And we did it yesterday.
So I figured we'd do an episode kind of giving my thoughts on this debate.
I'm exhausted.
I've been doing a lot of traveling and I, you know, been getting not so much sleep.
So this might be a little bit of a shorter one.
But I did think maybe we would just, you know, talk about it a little bit.
I could give my thoughts, my recap of it.
And you, I know you watched it, so you could give me your thoughts on it as well.
It was.
Am I allowed to give my opinion?
I mean, I watched it and I have thoughts, but where do I get credentialed?
Well, were you there?
But were you there, though?
Were you live?
I've never stepped foot in the Rogan studio.
So I guess you haven't.
Yeah, unless your feet touch the ground, you don't really absorb the information.
Yeah, you shouldn't really talk about it.
And I'm not arguing that you shouldn't talk about it.
That's not my point.
My point isn't that you shouldn't talk about it, but you shouldn't talk about it.
And probably there should be experts who talk about it.
And that's not any.
Okay.
Anyway, you know, I kind of, I, my assumption is I know it's sometimes it almost seems a little, you know, douchey to do these recap episodes, but I don't know.
It's, it's just, I think this is probably going to end up being the biggest thing that I've ever done.
I just have the feeling that this debate, I think me and Douglas debating would have been a big numbers show anywhere, but then you put that on Rogan and it's like, holy shit, this is going to be a big, you know, a big episode.
And And people love debates like that.
So it was, you know, going into it, it was like, okay, this is going to be a big thing.
This is, I'm, I was very much looking forward to it.
I'm a bit, I was fairly confident about how it would go.
I'm happy with how it went.
It's, it's, I think it's great.
Um, I'm a bit shocked at how crazy it was and in the way, I'll say this, right?
This is an interesting me and Douglas both, whatever side you're on.
One of the really interesting dynamics I thought of the debate that stuck out to me was that, and I think even if you're like a Douglas Murray fan and you think, oh, he, he smoked me or whatever, which most people seem to not think is the case, but some of his, you know, he's got a lot, a big fan base and I have a big fan base.
And so in those debates, there's always some people who are just firm on one side.
The interesting thing that we could all acknowledge is that me and him debating would have been way more vicious on both ends on any other platform.
It was only because it was on Rogan that we're both.
So the whole time, both of us like want to be going more vicious than we are, but we're both kind of holding back, which just made for like a strange and kind of funny dynamic to the debate.
You know, I know that what Rogan wanted was to have like a civil exchange of ideas and not have it turn into like a vicious food fight.
And so I was like, not going to disrespect that.
And I understand why on that platform, it, it should be a little bit different than it is on Piers Morgan or something like this.
This is for long form conversations.
So I go into it with that attitude.
And I also think that's kind of why I didn't, you know, there were areas I probably could have gone a little bit harder on him, but I also look, I'll say this and then I'll shut up and let you talk for a little bit and you could tell me what you think.
But I really, I left there with the feeling, I would say even a half hour in to the show, I just, I think the reaction that we're getting, you know, I've had a lot of debates where the reaction is overwhelmingly that I won the debate.
In this particular case, it's just that he lost it.
Like it wasn't even that I beat him in the debate.
He started out with a 40 minute struggle session for Joe Rogan that just contained probably the longest stretched logical fallacy I've ever seen anyone open a debate with.
Just a naked appeal to authority, completely unclear with what he was saying.
He literally, he came in.
So in this struggle session with Joe Rogan, I couldn't make this up.
This is barely before I presented any thought or argument or opinion.
I think it was before that.
He comes in with this long structure that is an appeal to authority, an appeal to expertise.
You're having these non-experts talk about issues that experts should talk about.
And I'm not saying they should be censored and I'm not saying they shouldn't talk about it, but they're talking about it and they're acting like they're experts.
How are they acting like they're experts?
Because they're talking about it.
And when they're talking about, it was just the most ridiculous argument, the most pompous elitist, but essentially telling the host of the show and the entire audience, your opinion doesn't matter.
Like it was just a strategy to me that was like, you want to make everyone think you're a pompous asshole?
It was wild.
In there, sandwiched in this appeal to expertise, he trashes Daryl Cooper and Ian Carroll, whose names he doesn't even know, and admits that he's never consumed any of their material before.
Yet he's trashing them and then claiming that you can only talk about these issues if you have expertise.
Then when he's asked, does he have expertise?
He goes, well, in some things, do you talk about things you don't have expertise in?
Yeah, all the time I talk about things I don't have expertise in.
Okay, well, why can you do that?
You're not even understanding my point.
You know, it was just like the most wild thing.
And it just became clear as the show went on that Douglas Murray came to do anything but debate me.
Like that was the theme of the entire show.
He was there to do every single thing except have an exchange of ideas with me.
Everything.
It was from, it was either.
I'm going to go on, you know, the long appeal to authority or I'm going to play ridiculous semantics games with you.
Like when I say, we are at war, you'll say, we are we at war and you're not at war.
Your military is having an action and you're not just contradicting himself constantly.
The things he like instead of ever taking on my argument, he would think it was a big blow to be like, you haven't been there.
You haven't been there.
You don't have expertise.
You don't, it, it's so bizarre because it's like this would be, look, I'm not saying I would agree with it, but at least it would make sense if Douglas Murray refused to debate me and then made a video about why he wouldn't debate me.
And in the video, he said, because he doesn't have expertise and because he hasn't been there and because, okay.
But once you agree to the debate, you can't just say, I have expertise and you don't have expertise.
You can't spend 40 minutes on that.
It's like, demonstrate it, motherfucker.
If you've been there and that gives you some greater insight, then demonstrate that and win the argument and counter what I'm saying.
He would never, I mean, the entire thing, it was straw man.
He would argue against what other people are saying.
You know, if I said, oh, the NED and the USAID poured $100 million into the Maidan protests in 2014, he'd go, you know, sometimes libertarians speak as if everything that happens in the world is done by America and really there are no other actors and nobody else has agency.
And I'm like, what?
No, all the people there have agency.
Also, the U.S. poured $100 million into a street push that overthrew a democratically elected government.
Like what?
No matter who I'd say, dude, his big like blows that he tried to land were, I'm not an expert, but I present myself as an expert.
And then I said, I don't claim to be an expert.
And he said, see, that's the problem.
I haven't been there.
I haven't been to Israel.
So therefore, I don't know.
Can't comment on it.
And then at the end, what I, I literally cited that the supreme commander of the NATO forces and the four-star general, Wesley Clark, said that the plans to overthrow seven different governments came from Paul Wolfowitz.
And he said, I shouldn't say Paul Wolfowitz because that'll make people hate Jews or something like that.
I can't mention the deputy defense secretary.
Anyway, I don't know.
You could tell me what you thought of it, but it was a, it was, I don't really think I particularly won the debate.
I think he just showed up trying to do anything he could not to debate.
It was transparent.
People could see through it.
It was smug and condescending.
And that's why the reaction is what it is.
That's kind of my thoughts.
First, it did an excellent job.
It was a fun watch.
I knew that this was happening for a while and I was very excited for it.
And that was a good recap there.
To hop into the Paul Wolfowitz thing, just because it's the last thing you said.
And then maybe we could address some of the others because they were all just such fascinating points.
But let's start with the Paul Wolfowitz one.
You mentioned the name and it was so not the point of what you were trying to address.
I think you guys were having a conversation about the regime changes in the area and in the agency.
And you were trying to say, no, America's clearly had an involvement.
And you said that as an aside and you scoff, oh, and you're like, well, why is that part funny?
And then he circled it.
He circled it back into an argument with himself about the detail that he picked up, which was the guy's name, and then saying, well, what you're doing is bad for the Jews because it creates this narrative that the Jews run the world, blah, blah, blah.
And it's like that was a minute side point from the bigger thing that you guys had been arguing with.
He managed to circle himself into his own argument, which I thought was.
It's all just like when you see, and I know, look, there are a few people out there I did see who are like the hard, you know, look, I mean, with all of these things, the hardcore Israel supporters are, some of them are just locked in and they think somehow that was a really great point when he told me I haven't been to Israel or so, you know, like, but which is ridiculous.
It's, it's objectively a non-argument.
I thought you crushed him on that one and it actually got kind of dropped.
But I think you can tell me if maybe I miss if I misheard this because it kind of moved quickly.
He had said that you need to be there.
You had a great point about the Nazi Germany thing, but then you had a secondary point, which is, weren't you there at the beginning of the Ukraine war and said we could win it?
Which is, well, then I thought that was such a bombshell of you were on the ground.
Oh, yeah.
You're doing the on-the-ground reporting and you got the story wrong.
So what is being there do if that just gives you actually a bad take?
Dude, all of them, listen, all of it, it's objectively, they're non-arguments.
They're just non-arguments.
You get in a debate, in the spirit of a debate, you get zero points for that.
You haven't been there.
Okay, fine.
So what's the point?
Grapple with my argument.
I'm sitting there the whole time like, let's debate this.
He's like, let's debate Daryl Cooper and Ian Carroll, two people I know nothing about, admittedly, don't even know their names, admittedly have never consumed their content.
That's what he starts with.
And oh, by the way, you have to be an expertise in the subject matter that you talk about, you know, while demonstrating none of it.
But the idea, look, number one, the appeal to authority obviously is a logical fallacy.
On top of that, Joe has had many experts on many different subjects.
Douglas's issue, look, his issue isn't the proportionality, like he said, or that Joe Rogan doesn't have enough experts on.
I mean, listen, like he, he, uh, he didn't complain.
I brought up, he was like, whoever you had on, who's on this side?
And I brought up Coleman Hughes and like some other Coleman Hughes is not an expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but he doesn't seem to have a problem with what he said on the show.
He's not, he's going, oh, you've had more, you've had way more people who are critical of the war in Ukraine and critical of the war in Palestine than those who support it on.
What does that mean?
Joe Rogan is an obligation to be a 50-50.
What type of equity bullshit is this?
Do you think Douglas Murray is upset that Joe Rogan had more pro-Trump people than pro-Kamala people on?
Because he did.
Is he upset about that?
No, because he agrees with that.
He agrees with it.
So if he agrees with it, he wouldn't have a problem.
He's just, he just wants more people spouting his shit on there.
But it's just such a weird thing to start the show complaining about.
But then also, look, there are, look, the fact is there are an unlimited number of experts.
Not an unlimited number, but a large, large number of experts on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Many of them are on the pro-Israel side.
Many of them are critical of Israel.
Like it's not the case that you can't, and many people who have been to Israel, you know, agree with me.
Many people have been there agree with Douglas.
It's just a non-point.
It's nothing.
You get zero points for that.
And then, of course, every time I would make, I mean, he was just evasive about everything.
The Advantage of Questioning00:09:46
So if I go like, if I were to say, you know, like on whatever, one point I said to him, he was like, you know, the war wasn't over, Ukraine entry into NATO.
And I was like, okay, well, you got to admit they said forever that that was their brightest red line.
And then there's all these people at the top level of our intelligence who said, you know, when they say this is their red line, I think they really mean it.
I think we better not flirt with crossing this red line.
And then we kept flirting with crossing the red line.
And he'd be like, oh, so now you trust the head of the CIA.
As if, like, there's some contradiction.
Like, yeah, now I love the organization that is the CIA.
I'm just saying even the CIA head himself admitted they all say this is the brightest of red lines.
And I think they mean it.
And I think this might lead to war.
Like, you're not taking on the argument at all.
And then he'd go, well, it wasn't about NATO expansion and say something else about how Putin wants to constitute the Soviet Union.
And I'd say, okay, well, the head of NATO literally said that Vladimir Putin sent him a draft treaty saying, just put into writing that you won't bring Ukraine into NATO and then I won't invade right before he invaded.
And he'll go, the war was never about that.
And then there's always this feeling that it's about the Americans and it's always about what we're doing.
And it's not, it's like, you didn't counter the art, you know, like he's just not, he was there to do anything he could do except grapple with any of the arguments because, you know, on some level, he knows the shit is indefensible.
I mean, I don't know what to say.
And so I think it in a weird way, I ended up, I think I ended up just collecting kind of an easy win on it.
I mean, I'm glad people are telling me I did a good job.
I'm glad people feel that way.
But it just seemed almost like, oh, he's just kind of hanging himself.
I mean, think about like that.
He came in and picked a fight with the moderator and then essentially the entire audience.
It was like, Jesus Christ.
And I just think that whatever, at least from what I've seen of the reaction, and I do tend to like, you know, I try my best to not like live in the YouTube comments, but on a show like this, it's kind of impossible for me to not, you know, when you do this on, it's not like if I do a show in front of my audience where I kind of, you know, I know my audience knows me very well and I know them very well.
And at this point, the Joe Rogan audience knows me, but it's not the same.
And it's such a huge show that you're like, oh, like, I'm kind of interested how people responded to this.
And it was, I mean, the second I looked through the comments, it was like exactly what I said after the show, exactly what everyone there, because he like left right after.
And I asked a bunch of the people who are there would like watch it like, hey, what'd you guys think?
Brutally honest.
Like, what'd you think?
And they were all like, oh, he just killed himself like right away.
And I was like, yeah.
And then that's what every single comment was.
Every comment was just like torching him for this shit.
He couldn't even figure out what he was saying.
It felt like for the first like 40.
And he took 40 minutes.
He took like 40 minutes of the thing and just dragged it into this struggle session.
It was so wild to sit there watching.
I'd love to take on some of the logic of the arguments he was putting forward.
So the first one is, we're not experts.
And so if we aren't experts, we should be very easy to dismantle.
Yeah.
And if anything, we're round one.
And if you can't get through our questioning or your questioning, then there's no even reason to have to escalate it to having a conversation with an expert because, wow, this is the degree by which the expert class is lying about a topic that someone is dumb as me.
Take COVID, take green energy, take a lot of these topics that the expert class told us we weren't allowed to question.
Take the track record of this show.
It's, if anything, it's showcasing the degree by which the expert class is lying and abusing that title that they fall apart under questioning and they need to appeal to authority and go, Hey, we can't have other people questioning this stuff or not.
No one else is supposed to have an opinion.
We need you to trust the experts.
That's the only way that society functions.
Well, then if you guys are the experts and we're not, you should be very comfortable to hop into the ideas, have the arguments and dismantle them.
And if you're unable to do that, maybe you shouldn't have the expert title or maybe you're abusing it.
Yeah, but also like, you know, it's right.
And he made, he would make some arguments or like that were things that, yeah, neither me nor Joe would have disagreed with.
Like what he was saying the thing where he was like, okay, I understand the experts have discredited themselves, but that doesn't mean we need to turn over every single stone or just have everything.
And you're like, yeah, sure.
Okay.
That's why you have to be judicious about it.
But like, now let's be judicious.
We're here to talk about the issue.
Let's see if you have an actual argument.
Like it was enough.
Like it almost felt like that whole thing, like what I was saying before when I was like, it would kind of make sense if he had refused the debate and then was saying why he refused the debate.
And it was like, oh, this guy's beneath me.
He's not an expert, which by the way, I thought I saw Sager and Jetty, who I love, he posted today.
And he's like, he has a bachelor's in like English or something, which I didn't even know.
He's like totally just not an expert on anything.
So it's the weirdest argument to be making.
But you just.
I'm drinking more tea than you, Dave.
Yeah.
So, so, you know, well, he's, but like, he's making this argument.
And there is something about it that, um, and I'm not saying, like, again, it's like he's coming into a fight.
It's like we've agreed to fight.
And then before like, it's just like when the bell rings, he's like, well, let's just do like, I just want to tell you for 40 minutes, like, I'm such a better fighter than you.
I mean, it's crazy that I'm even fighting you.
Like, this is just kind of ridiculous.
Like, why would I fight someone like you?
And I'm like standing here with my gloves up, like, yeah, okay, but like, are we, come on, right?
I think we're going to fight now.
And well, you can show me if you're better than me at this.
And then once it comes to that, it's like he has nothing.
It's always so shocking.
Like, they just have nothing.
The same way I felt after the Dennis Pregue.
He didn't have one like real argument.
There wasn't anything that I said that it was like, oh shit, he took that on and really knew better than me.
They'd be like, okay, you know, the World Bank said that the embargo in 96, which wasn't as severe as the full blockade that's been around it since 2007.
They said just for the one year of it, they said it caused a 40% retraction in the economy of Gaza.
And I go, you know, the Great Depression was a 30% contraction.
So we gave them a Great Depression one year.
Now you've had this blockade on them since 2007.
What do you think that's done to the economy?
And his response is, oh, so you trust the World Bank now.
Very convenient.
Like, is that really taking on the argument?
Okay, maybe their estimate isn't perfect or whatever.
Who's like, do you know, obviously?
You've also never seen the border crossing.
So why would from analytics like that even be able to complement your analysis?
Right, exactly.
I mean, it's just, it's just totally ridiculous.
Like just complete non-arguments.
You'd only embrace these tactics if you had nothing.
But I do think there's also, and I do, I think part of the reason why like that part, that clip, actually, Suarez, you want to see, you could, if you want to bring that up, maybe we could play that clip because I think this one was, I saw was getting shared a lot.
And I think it was one of the moments it's, you know, I kind of felt like in a weird way, it was a little bit similar to the Cuomo debate dynamic where, like, when I debated Chris Cuomo, I had like this huge, it's, by the way, um, Suarez, if you go to my Twitter, it's a Chief Nerd posted it.
So it's, I retweeted it somewhere, but if you want to grab that, um, but uh, you know, I had this huge advantage when I debated uh Chris Cuomo because it's like the entire audience that we're talking to already decided they agree with me, not you on this.
You know what I mean?
Like it's, we're talking about the Iraq war now.
It's everybody agrees this thing was a mistake.
There's no like, you know, it's just, it's as unanimous as an issue can get.
And even though, somewhat ironically, even though like Donald Trump was the president through 2020 and was the, you know, the buck stops with him, he was the guy who made a lot of the terrible calls.
Yet in our very interesting political climate, only five years later, Donald Trump's entire base is with Bobby Kennedy on the health stuff, not with, you know what I mean, any of that shit.
Like everybody's rejected the COVID stuff as being bullshit.
And so in the wake of that, the biggest, like, the biggest thing that we've ever like collectively lived through, and there's this huge unanimous consent or damn near close that this unanimous agreement that, okay, yeah, all the experts got this wrong.
All of this was bullshit.
And all the mantra of trust the science and only listen to the experts was all just bullshit so that they could propagandize, propagandize us with lies.
For him to even be attempting to make that argument, I just have this entire, I have this huge advantage just because like the entire Rogan base is just like, oh, yeah, but that's everything we just rejected.
You're making the exact argument that we all just saw was complete bullshit.
So I don't know.
I think it was just, again, it was kind of handed to me.
Okay, yeah, let's play the clip and then we could we could discuss a little, I guess.
I do also think that one of the bigger kind of the bigger picture dynamics to all of this is that we have, at least since 9-11, been in a state of perpetual war.
Playing the War Game00:14:55
And all of these wars have been disasters.
They have been so many lies involved in selling all of them.
I mean, the whole Iraq war, the whole war in Afghanistan, just lying the whole way through.
I mean, I remember literally having conversations with Green Berets in the middle of the war in Afghanistan.
And they're like, George W. Bush is telling you that the army we're building up there is really successful.
This thing's going to fall in a week without us.
And then all through the Obama administration, it's just like lie after lie after lie with disastrous wars.
And so this does create a fertile ground for people to say, I wonder if they were lying about all these wars.
Again, I'm not really trying to argue about World War II.
Let's pause it for one second.
I'll go.
I'll be, I'm sorry, I just got to run and open a door.
I'll be right back.
Anyway.
Okay.
So, sorry.
Where were we here?
Okay.
So I was talking about how they lied us into all these wars.
It's created fertile ground for people to believe they're lying about other things.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Ridge Wallet.
Ridge Wallet, they love these guys.
You got to get a Ridge wallet.
I love it myself.
I use it all the time.
You don't need the old school, big, clunky, leathery wallet.
It's throwing your spine out.
It's not cool looking.
The Ridge is unique, slim.
It's modern design, holds up to 12 cards plus cash, everything you need.
It's made with premium materials like aluminum, titanium, and carbon fiber.
They just look awesome.
There's over 50 colors and styles to choose from, and they're all really cool.
Check them out.
All Ridge products have a lifetime warranty.
This is literally the last wallet you'll ever have to buy.
There's a reason it has over 100,000 five-star reviews.
So lose your old wallet and grab the Ridge.
They also have air track attachments.
So you'll always know exactly where it is before panic mode kicks in.
And right now, Ridge is having their once a year anniversary sale.
Get up to 40% off at ridge.com slash P-O-T-P-10.
That's ridge.com slash P-O-T-P10 for up to 40% off.
All right, let's get back on the show.
Here, let's keep playing.
Interesting question is whether you're busy watering it.
Well, should you not talk about mistakes that were made overall?
Absolutely.
Okay, you should.
Absolutely.
Right.
All four going back and looking at mistakes.
So what are you, what is your argument then?
It's a very weird thing to go back, zone in on a man, say this one thing is a mistake and should characterize him, and you ignore everything.
You're taking him out of the way.
Pause me for a second.
Just to be clear here, what Douglas is arguing about.
So it had started on Daryl Cooper.
whose name Douglas says he doesn't know.
He literally goes Darren Cooper, Daryl Cooper, and then something like that.
And then Joe asked him at one point if he had ever consumed any of his work.
He says, no, I don't need to.
I don't know anything about him.
He's talking about one line he said on Tucker Carlson's podcast.
Then he's saying the problem with Daryl Cooper is that he takes a guy in Winston Churchill and judges him off one thing and doesn't look at his full body of work.
That's what he's arguing.
Does anybody see a problem there?
$10 for the first person who can point out the logical contradiction in that argument.
Anyway, it's just unreal.
Here, let's keep playing.
When you're talking about Daryl, who's done, what was it, 30 plus hours?
So odd.
30 plus hours of me, you do that in a week.
Yeah, it's a very, it's a very different.
It's a very different.
He's not doing a podcast like talking to people.
Again, noisy.
What a stupid point, Paul.
For a second, like, what a stupid point.
Like, if I, if I, let's say I read a book on tape, which is really kind of what Daryl does with these things.
If I, if I sit down like with the effort to script out like a book, that is a different thing than like what me and you are doing right now.
And just count the hours that we've done this and then compare it to that.
That's like a written presentation, an oral presentation for 30 hours.
Do you know, like, do you not see the difference between a 30-hour oral presentation going deep in depth on a topic and all of the players and all of the histories and what started every war and how the people suffered and what both sides, you know what I'm saying?
Like that.
It's a giant book.
Yes, it's a giant book.
It's not having a conversation with people, like, which is a challenge as well, but like it's a totally different thing.
All right.
Anyway, let's keep playing.
In the archives, Clear.
Come on.
I mean, this is, he is not the historian of our era.
He's not claiming to be.
This is the thing, Joe.
This is like punching jelly.
No, but you can't.
You don't want to dance through his work.
I'm saying, because I don't need to consume endless versions of a revisionist history.
I understand that.
The revisionist history.
If you listen to his work, it's not revisionist history.
He's basing it on historical.
Yeah, I know.
Okay.
So this is my point about Jelly.
It's a shape-shifting thing.
Comedian or historian?
He's not a comedian.
Historian or podcast?
Would-be historian or actual historian.
You say he doesn't claim to be a historian, but he's pumping out tens of hours of Dan Carlin.
He doesn't claim to be a historian either.
You see my point about the move.
Pause it.
Pause it for a second.
Exactly, Joe.
But why doesn't he have a problem with Dan Carlin?
Oh, because Dan Carlin isn't telling the truth about Israel.
That's all it is.
It's just, it's nothing but a tactic to get the guy who's arguing the point you don't like rather than fucking addressing any arguments.
Let's keep playing.
Weird jujitsu move.
Where you say, hang on, you know all about this as well.
You say, I'm not a historian, but I'm going to spend my time talking about history.
I'm not a journalist, but I'm going to spend my time talking about this thing.
I'm not an expert on this, but I'm going to spend my time talking about this thing.
It's a weird move, yeah?
No.
You don't think.
No, i'm a free American.
I can talk about what I like to.
I've noticed you can.
But so what's the point?
The point is, what are you pushing?
What are you watering?
What am I pushing?
Yes uh liberty, free markets peace prosperity, not getting in another stupid, catastrophic war which we're on the precipice of right now.
That's what i'm pushing.
What are we on the precipice of?
Well, I think you weren't you just talking about it the other day.
Everyone I hear on the inside says we're about to attack around.
I think you just said something about that the other day.
Am I wrong about that?
I thought I saw in one of your interviews that you did.
Possibly.
No.
Okay.
That doesn't mean we are on the verge of a war.
I mean, you keep the we being in wars.
There's a very big difference between a country having a military that's engaged and a country being at war.
This country has not been at war for 25 years.
You have not been fighting for the American homeland for 25 years.
Yes, we haven't.
That's true.
We haven't had a war on our shores.
We've been picking on third world countries halfway around the world.
Well, you haven't been randomly picking on them.
I mean, Afghanistan, you went.
I didn't say it was random.
Yeah, right.
Okay.
It wasn't like you sucked.
Just pause it for a second.
Like, dude, it's just, this was the whole thing.
It's every point.
He's, it's just garbage.
Like, everything he's, it's just, I don't know.
Do I even need to like point this out, Rob?
It's just crazy.
It's like the look, by the way, there's another, the contradictions are wild, but there's enough, how pedantic to stop over, we've been at war.
And I go, I go, yeah, no, I'm not suggesting the homeland's been attacked.
I'm saying we've been picking on these third world countries.
And he goes, you haven't been randomly.
I didn't say it was random.
Obviously, what?
What is this?
All right.
Keep playing.
Watch out for this next contradiction.
Myanmar or something.
We went to Afghanistan to find bin Laden and take revenge for 9-11 and stop an attack like that happening again on the American homeland.
That is very different from a country being at war.
Yeah, that's a total mischaracterization of the war in Afghanistan.
It's one thing to say that might be an accurate characterization of the special operations mission in late 2001, but then we thought, then we thought a 20-year regime changed war against the Taliban.
Because you got dragged into the quicksand of war.
Pause it.
Okay, fine.
Pause it.
He starts the thing by objecting to me saying we've been at war and ends it by saying, because you got sucked into the quicksand of war.
Oh, so you just use the term you in the same way that I use the term we and then use the term war in the same way that I use the term war after that was your objection.
He literally starts and then just completely contradicts it at the end.
I didn't even, I'll tell you, I didn't even notice that one live.
It wasn't until I saw Chief Nerd posted this that I noticed that.
But I was like, oh, you literally ended it by saying you got sucked into war.
So what the fuck are we talking about here?
Anyway.
The we you thing.
I don't even know if I'm thought it wasn't a war.
That was too much.
So I'm saying he says he's objecting to me saying we've been at war because it's like, no, that's not really we.
But I was like, yeah, but that's the way people use the term we, you know, like referring to your government's actions.
Okay, fine.
But then at the end, he goes, you've been at war.
So it's like, oh, you also implied you, like talking, you know what I'm saying?
You're using you implied and I'm using we implied.
Whatever.
Let's keep playing.
Oh, I said it was a war.
It's your, it's your use of we as if you're personally like suffering this war.
Yeah, you're taxing.
When I say we, so we pay for it.
Okay, fine.
So would you mean if I went back and corrected you on every time you've used the term we to refer to your government or something like that, like if I were to say, oh, we just imposed tariffs on China, would you point out that I didn't and it was the Trump administration?
You take it obviously very personally and that's your right to do so, of course.
I'm just trying to make sure we're accurate here.
What do you think I'm taking personally?
Judge that, the American wars.
Sure.
Yeah.
I think they've killed hundreds of thousands of people and cost my country $8 trillion and degraded my country very much.
And there's a very good argument to make on that.
I'm still slightly bemused about this move from I'm an expert on this and I have views to I'm a comedian.
I've never claimed to be an expert on anything.
Can you just pause again?
This is the problem, Joe.
It's so funny to go, that's a great argument and people should really have that discussion.
It's like, that's what we're here to do, I thought.
But why don't you do it then?
So what's the other side of it?
Give it to me.
Present the argument.
That's just so wild.
It's so wild.
It's just, I don't know why any, again, it's, and, and the reason, look, like I said, like the comments have overwhelmingly just been like, yeah.
And again, as you can see here, it's really not anything I'm doing.
I mean, I'm there and I'm me and I'm arguing my points, but it's just, it's all the stuff he's doing that's just like, this is too easy to see through.
This is garbage.
And I did notice it's like, I got a lot of comments.
Great point.
But why do I have to hear it from a peasant?
And why do I even have to address it?
I'll say this.
And this is kind of how you measure these things in a way, because there's always a certain percentage of people who have like their feet dug in who aren't going to move.
Like I said before, when you have guys with a big enough audience, there's enough of their hardcore fans who no matter what are going to say, yeah, they won.
And I do got to say, I think some, in a way, I think some low IQ people are kind of fooled by his bravado and the just the it's all delivery and performance, but no substance at all, nothing.
But I got a lot of people who were saying to me, man, I actually was kind of a Douglas Murray fan until this.
Like they just, he just laid it on so thick that it kind of exposed like, look, man, all of this, it's not, it's so obviously evasive to just write, like you said, Rob, admit like, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, what you're actually saying has a point, but let me move back to some other.
And then this claim again, like, it's, I mean, this, this must have been said so many times.
You present yourself as an expert.
I'm not an expert.
I'm just talking about these things.
You're allowed to talk about these things.
Okay, great.
So then what's the problem here?
Well, the problem is you go back and forth from expert to comedian.
It's like, well, what do you mean by that?
I mean, look, here, let's keep playing and then we'll, we'll kind of get into that, that point a little bit more.
I mean, if, if, if, if somebody you have to claim to be an expert on something to have an opinion on something you don't have to be.
You don't have to be.
So this is like, I'm not a historian, but I'm pumping out history.
But wait a minute.
We're not an expert, but I'm talking all the time about it.
But you're not even talking about specifically on what he just said.
No, I'm saying this is my point about this.
You say I'm not an expert.
So it's a solution.
God bless Joe Rogan because he's really, he is trying to keep it civil and be as nice as possible.
But he's just like, that sure does seem like the thing you're saying doesn't at all address the very reasonable thing that he just said, like that you even admitted was reasonable.
So like, you got anything for that?
And it's just no, anything except arguing any of the wars, anything except actually putting up a debate, putting up a grappling with anything I'm saying.
All right, let's play the last little bit.
To not talk about it?
No, it's to have more experts around.
Well, the expert class hasn't done a great job.
I know.
This is follow the science.
But you know what?
I just said to you, I agree.
I know the problem.
During all of COVID, I will put my track record against any of the expert class on COVID.
I'm glad to do that.
So should I have just shut up?
Should I have shut up by opposing lockdowns and opposing vaccine mandates until that was the argument every time?
That's the entire argument that you're making.
Let the experts down.
He's not.
And he has the nerve to say that me and Joe were like jelly.
It's like, like, dude, you couldn't pin him down on anything.
Anything he says, he won't just stand for.
And you know, look, I'm sorry.
This, this thing to this claim, which people try to make, right?
I mean, he's the only one I've ever had actually like try to make this in a debate, but I've seen other people like say it online and stuff.
But the idea that it's like, hey, look, you're just a comedian and you present yourself as this expert, but then you always have this like parachute, like, oh, but I'm just a comedian.
First of all, which Douglas later in the debate directly accused me of, like, that's what he said.
And it's just like, I don't know how many times I have to say it to him.
He has to be like a drunk woman and just pretend he hasn't heard it every single time and keep saying it again.
There's really no contradiction here.
I don't put myself out as the expert.
Engaging Beyond Comedy00:05:08
I never sit here on the show and say, I'm the, in all of the issues that we talk about, okay?
Rob, like all the big issues that we've been known for, it is, doesn't it always go without saying?
And I think I probably repeat it quite a bit.
I say the words, I'm not an expert quite a lot, actually.
I make that very clear.
Obviously, when we were talking, is there any confusion?
Does anybody who listens to this show, does anybody you think who listens to me on Joe Rogan, if I'm talking about the wars and whatever country, if I'm talking about, if I was talking about the COVID, COVID, does anybody think that I'm claiming to be a virologist or an epidemiologist or somebody who has studied this my whole that is the expert on the issue?
Am I ever?
No, every time I'm going there, what I do on this show too is I always bend over backward to flood people with the experts that have informed me and with the experts who I think are getting it right.
And yeah, like I said, I'm a free American.
I'm allowed to have opinions on things and make arguments and be like, this guy's case is stronger than this guy's case.
And no, I'm not an expert in any of the things that we talk about, but I am right about just about all of them.
And I have, and me and you, Rob, I'm sorry.
We've been right about all the major issues over the last few years.
I'm sorry.
It's just the facts.
That's the truth.
And then when it's this thing, it's like, I also have been doing stand-up comedy for like 20 years and I tour all around the country and do stand-up comedy.
I do both of those things.
I talk on a podcast about my views and I also do stand-up comedy and people who come out and see the shows enjoy them and have a very good time.
I make a nice living doing both.
There's no contradiction there.
And as for this thing that it's like a parachute, has there ever been a time in all, okay, there was one time.
One time, literally, it was when I debated Sam Cedar.
I was very green.
This was a long time ago.
This has got to be Jesus Christ.
10 years ago at least.
I think over 10.
I think maybe closer to 15, I think.
But regardless, it's like around 15 years ago.
And it was a phone call into the thing, whatever.
I just did a bad job.
I had a bad, you know, I had a bad debate.
And then I do think at one point in that debate, I was like, look, dude, I'm not the expert.
I'm just a comedian, but blah, blah, blah, I think this.
And I remember people giving me shit for saying that.
And I think that's the only time I've ever said it.
Has there ever been a time recently where like, I've made a point, like, I really believe this.
Someone made a counter argument to that.
And then my response was, well, hey, I'm just a comedian.
I don't know what I'm talking about.
No, I never do that.
So there's nothing here to what he's talking about.
It's like, he's basically like, he doesn't say, it's just a pure argument for credentialism.
He doesn't think I should get to be on huge shows making these points.
But you know what, Douglas?
You're not in control of the world because there's a free market of ideas to some extent.
And you don't get to decide that.
And this is the way it is.
I am here on this show with you.
The thing is, once you're here on the show with me, you got to actually engage.
Have an argument, have some idea.
You can't just sit here and talk about how you should, it shouldn't be me here.
Joe shouldn't be having us on, he should only have people on who agree with you.
Meanwhile, on the other side, we are like quite happy to have everybody on.
Let's have the debate.
Um, so yeah, anything else?
Uh, anything else that you uh that stuck out to you that we should uh we should bring up?
Oh, it just on that point, it's the fun thing about experts is they can correct us.
I could stand up in front of a mathematician and go, two plus two equals uh four, and I'll be like, Well, that was right.
And then if I said something really stupid, he'd go, That was wrong.
And guess what?
I might not be an expert in American immigration policy, but I could tell you that during the Biden administration, they were clearly pulling something to get as many people across the border as possible.
And when they said, Hey, we need to legalize 5,000 people a day before we have the authority to close the border.
I don't need to be an expert in United States law to go, that sounds like bullshit to me.
And you know how many topics we did that for all of COVID?
We've done that for hundreds of topics to go, Hey, I'm listening to the argument that the expert class is putting forward the information that the experts want us to believe, and I'm calling bullshit.
And yes, and guess what?
If it was as dumb as me standing up in front of a mathematician and going two plus two equals five, it would be really easy to correct us.
But the expert class is a very good uh, has done a very good job of lying and shilling for the regime, which is what leaves space for non-experts like us to have platforms and comment on things to just go, Hey, I think the entire expert class or a large majority of the expert class is lying to us.
Or sometimes just to sit down and really cipher through a lot of the information from the expert class and go, Wow, there's a lot of people who are lying about this, but that John Meersenberger guy seems to be making some really good arguments about the Ukraine war.
I've been reading all the coverage and everyone's been lying to me and telling me that we're going to win this war and we just have to support it and that Putin's going to take over all of Europe.
Vicious Messaging and Voices00:02:34
And I don't know, that just doesn't sound right.
And then you keep reading the information, you keep seeing that we're not winning the war, that none of that information is true.
And then you find the other experts who are like, You still listen to them.
You're like, I kind of like this expert, and you rehash that information.
I don't know, kind of doing a service of, you know, going through everything and just putting forward your critical reasoning.
So I don't really, I just don't get the it.
I mean, it's blank.
It's obvious what he's doing.
It's this appeal to authority that only people like me who want to spew my talking points should be allowed to have a voice.
And so if you're not spewing exactly what I think people should know, which we don't really want to have to contend with other people's arguments about, then you shouldn't be platformed.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's right.
That's that's all exactly right.
And, you know, I will say that there's, there's something to it.
And perhaps, you know, like there's always, whenever you do these debates, there's always like, oh, I should have said this or I should have said this.
And, you know, the thing about it is, is like, I feel a little almost like, man, I, you know, I should have gone a little bit harder and been a little more vicious at times.
But at the same time, I think Joe was happy that it went this way.
And so I, you know, and I, that may, I don't know.
I got a lot of people like messaging me saying like they're, they were, They thought it was great that I was so like patient and so like was it to not get frustrated and lose my shit.
Um, and then other, I got other people messaging me, like, oh, I wanted you to fucking smash him and blah, blah, blah.
And I will say, even though the ones who are complimenting me, you know, I, I, I want to agree with the people complimenting me, but my heart is totally with the people who are like, you should have been a little more vicious because I'm like, I, but it is just, um, I guess the thing that's so kind of infuriating about this, this obvious debate tactic, which is again, is a tactic to avoid the debate, to come in there to do anything except debate with me, is that you immediately come in,
you know, it's like, so we kind of live, as everyone knows, we're kind of broadly in this new world where, okay, the kind of the dominant internet censorship culture kind of faded away in a remarkably short period of time.
Like we literally went from a time where like it kind of looked like the handwriting was on the wall that a show like, you know, any dissident show was eventually going to get kicked off of all the major platforms.
And, you know, there was a time where like people were being debanked and being, you know, banned across every single platform.
Evaluating Conspiracy Conjecture00:12:20
And at the same time, the Biden administration was trying to install a ministry of truth.
And there was kind of like that.
And now that's kind of Elon bought Twitter.
Trump wins a big election.
Like that's all kind of like receded.
And now you have a little bit more of an open, you know, discourse.
And of course, when that happens, the dissident voices, the voices who hate the regime, they get, they get more of a chance to get their voice out there.
And so you get a lot more of this stuff bubbling up.
And this includes people who are just like against the policies of the regime.
And it also includes people who are conspiracy theorists.
Some of them, you know, are more on point than others.
But there's something about like the role that people like Douglas Murray play and the trick they use to come in and go, like, the first thing I want to talk about is I want you to feel bad about yourself for the fact that I think the conspiracy that you thought is wrong, or you haven't called out this person who has this conspiracy or this person who has that conspiracy.
And it's like, dude, come on.
Like even what he admitted there about COVID, like he admitted there was a giant conspiracy that.
And what was that conspiracy?
That the fucking thing, dude, that the fucking pandemic that the entire corporate media and the entire media class used to install totalitarian lockdowns was a fucking lie, that they had made the goddamn virus and then lied to cover it up and then instituted totalitarianism and then gave giant banker bailouts and corporate bailouts and then forced a bullshit jab on millions of people.
I mean, like the fucking, the current president of the United States of America, who is, I think, the most popular political figure in America today, was framed for treason by his own deep state.
They tried to smear him as a traitor to his country.
Then they tried to throw him in jail.
And then coincidentally, nothing to do with that at all, but the sniper did get a clean shot at his head from 130 yards away.
And, you know, whatever.
It's just that that has nothing to do with anything.
And sure, he had been in a couple of BlackRock commercials and there's no data on any of his phones or whatever.
But yeah, his place had been professionally swiped, but whatever.
I'm saying that part's unrelated completely.
But anyway, is it?
And so in this environment where there is this just like, you know, also like there was a freaking pedophile ring that can't must be, there's a pedophile ring that involves all the most powerful cultural and political figures in the United States of America.
And the details of it have to be redacted for national security purposes.
You know, like, and then your response to that is to come in and just counter signal against anybody who's a conspiracy theorist.
Anybody out there who might be a little sloppy the way they're putting dots together.
Rather, you know what I'm saying?
Like, there's just something about that that's like, and then not just that, but then to like try to shame other people for not also counter signaling them.
Like, hey, motherfucker, it's totally reasonable for me to say, all right, you know what?
I don't agree with a lot of the conspiracy.
As I say on my show, sometimes if a conspiracy comes up, I go, yeah, I think people are jumping to conclusions there.
I don't think that's right.
People know what I say.
I say what my views are.
But no, I don't have to spend all my time counter signaling when other people who hate the government class like get it wrong, maybe, or go a little bit too far.
Because like, I could just, it's totally reasonable for me to say, no, I'm going to focus on this criminal regime and my outrage for them.
And then especially when like, you know, the policy, again, the policy that Douglas is advocating is so much more evil than pushing like one of these conspiracy theories.
And of course, that's why he doesn't want to actually defend that.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is My Patriot Supply.
You've heard me talk about them before because I trust them when it comes to my family's well-being.
And I just got word they're doing something they've never done before.
Right now, you can get the best-selling mega three-month emergency food kit supply for the same price as the standard kit.
That's more than $360 of real beef, real chicken, farm fresh fruits, vegetables included at no extra cost.
Even better, the kit now gives you 2,500 calories a day, more than any other emergency food supply I've seen.
And let's be honest, when things go sideways, you're going to need more than just survival.
You need strength.
You need energy.
You need real food.
Look, this is something that for me personally, after the COVID insanity, I will always make sure I have a supply of food.
I get it from MyPatriot Supply.
It's a great company.
Go check out my website, preparewithsmith.com and claim your mega kit while this offer lasts.
That's preparewithsmith.com.
All right, let's get back into the show.
That's why he'd like to.
And look, I will say, I think he, in a way, made an effort.
And to the extent that he was successful, it's that we only really talked about the war for a pretty short period of time, considering how long the podcast was.
But when we were talking about that, he didn't land one blow.
He didn't take on one point.
It was always just this stuff.
And then the problem is just that his tactics were so transparent that it just seems like people saw through it.
It's just, you know, it's just, you can't, if you watch this at all with an open mind, you're going to be.
And that's why, look, the reality is that I'm getting, like I said, I've been flooded with people saying like, you know, either like I actually used to really like Douglas Murray.
I lost a lot of respect for him on this.
I came in neutral, but yeah, he just didn't put up a fight.
I got a lot of people who's saying, I still disagree with you on the issue, but like, yeah, he really didn't argue, you know, he lost the debate on his bullshit arguments.
And I'm sure there are some people who like have their feet planted, aren't fans of his and think he won the debate.
I saw a couple of people posting that, yeah, he exposed Dave when he showed that he's never been there or whatever.
It's just too dumb.
But you're not going to see anybody who like was like, oh, I was a huge Dave Smith fan.
And then this debate changed my mind about that.
So that's kind of how you measure these things.
You try to move the people in the middle.
I guess I was able to do a decent job of that.
Again, like I said, I think he lost a lot more than I won.
But that's, I think that's, that's all.
Any other thoughts, Rob?
I got one other thought.
I might not articulate this in the best way.
And I don't know, maybe it's a little bit too complicated.
So I don't want to steal any shine from your brilliant performance.
And listen, there were very flagrant tricks that he pulled.
There was the appeal to the authority right off the bat.
Well, if you're such an expert, why don't we discuss the ideas?
There was the, well, if you've never seen it, you can't have an opinion.
Just to speak to how much nonsense that is, I'm in New York City all the time.
I don't see an immigration problem.
If I was just going off of what I see, I'd go, there's no immigration problem here.
But I can then read an article about the cost that it's done to New York City and it's clearly a problem.
So I actually have better information from what I've read than from what I've seen.
I mean, that's just one example, but that like, that's just such a, that one's stupid.
Also, the argument of like selectively picking from government sources, you know, like, I don't know, if during COVID, the New York Times said, hey, the Johnson and Johnson shot is bad.
And I go, look, even the New York Times is telling you that this one's bad.
And you go, oh, well, suddenly you believe the New York Times.
No, I think the New York Times has been shilling a narrative the whole time.
And when even they're going to concede this point, that's when I'm going to go, look, that's how flagrant this is.
And so there's a bit of a flip on that one.
And then there was also just a lot of just wasting time and pulling little finicky, oh, we, we, you know, like that kind of, that kind of stupid thing.
There was one other thing that stuck out to me.
And maybe you can better articulate this than me, but I feel like on some of this top, like some of these topics, all that you're really left with, because the government does a good job of not leaving a clean track record of its own crimes.
Like even look at Pat Fauci post-COVID.
I said that.
I said that.
I was a recommendation.
I was passing this to that.
Like, so you take the situation in Syria in which he was trying to make the case that we weren't involved or that's, you know, why you look at it up.
It was a smaller factor or something.
Now, I can't, I'm not an expert.
I can't point to specific proof of the fact the United States government managed to overthrow Assad at the end of the Biden administration.
But the fact that there was Ukrainian stuff over there, that Israel stepped in, took over military bases and the relationship that we've had in the past working with groups such as Al-Qaeda in the region while saying the moderate rebels.
Yeah, I can't prove to you that that was America, but I think there's.
Also, at the very least, if you arm and back a group and they try to overthrow the government and it fails, and then years later, they try to throw the government and it succeeds.
Even if we don't have the proof yet, which we might well get in the future, we'll say that there was direct American involvement in the second time.
You still backed the group the first time.
Like it was still your intervention that ultimately led to this outcome.
And of course, this is the game that they play a lot, but like the whole point, as like everybody who studies this shit knows, right?
The whole game of CIA-backed coups is always to like move the needle enough with as little a footprint as necessary, right?
So like maybe there's a an uprising, but the government is stronger and could put it down.
But like if you send some weapons in, that'll be the difference between them taking over the government or not.
And then you could sit back and go, oh, it was just a little bit of weapons that we sent in.
And it's like, yeah, but the point of sending it in is to make the difference.
That's the whole game.
State it a little bit differently.
And I'll bring, I'll give another example.
If we can only trust the expert class and we can only criticize government if there's direct government evidence, how do you ever question government policy or if it's in our interest?
And so another example would be there was a long discussion about, you know, Israel's tactic in terms of what it's been doing in Gaza.
And, you know, I've said it a lot.
I actually don't know the history of the situation, but I look at what's going on there and I just don't think you can kill civilians in the way that the Israeli government has been doing so.
And so he's trying to walk the line of, well, although they're doing it, they don't intend to do it.
And now all insert conjecture once again.
I've heard of programs like Daddy's Home, which they're specifically waiting until someone goes back into a building.
I'm looking at all these homes being bombed.
And then he wants to say, well, that's because of the booby traps after the fact.
Well, I've even read stories of, and once again, conjecture, I've read stories of the Israeli government sending Palestinians in to set off the booby trap.
I don't know if that's true or not, but I've certainly just seen the Israeli government lie about, oh, the hospitals are made.
It was a Horetz piece where they spoke to a couple different IDF soldiers.
So it's, you know, again, like you never know for sure with these things, but it seems like a pretty like.
But just to take it as a given with all the death that's happened in the area, at the beginning of the war, I just remember this example where they bombed that first hospital and they said it was a main base and they were pointing to the tunnels.
And then it turned out that Israel had the tunnels.
And then when they said, look at the military gear, it was less than I've seen in police raids in New York City on gangs.
So like there might have been a presence there, but to say it was the main base.
And then to just say, well, I should just give it as an absolute given that Israel's working in a very moral capacity.
So sure, I'm working off conjecture when I go, firstly, I think that this death is outrageous.
And yes, I also just can kind of deduce, I think they're lying about the morality that they're handling it in the most honest.
And firstly, just telling someone that they can't be in their home and then just sending them off with no resources to return to empty rubble.
Like, I don't even think that's acceptable.
But there seems to be like, how do you criticize anything if government works with the expert class and you need an expert class?
And then government doesn't keep perfect records of its crimes.
So at some point, you have to kind of evaluate the conjecture of the situation.
And so if you're, and then if you're just going to label that as conspiracy, which I would just say it's more just critical thinking, then how do you possibly criticize government from his perspective?
Millions Disagree on Morality00:02:04
Yeah.
It's, you know, look, the argument obviously is ridiculous, but it's, it's essentially he just tried to bring the Sam Harris argument there to scoff and say, no, we're, we're above you.
We're smarter than you.
We're better than you.
We'll be the ones who decide.
And it's just like, you know, look, this obviously the argument is elitist and I think wrong.
It's also just been widely rejected.
And it's, you know, to take that ridiculous argument to like the Joe Rogan podcast audience just seemed so crazy to me.
It's almost like, you know, we disagree on so much.
Like if you take the broader, like, say, Joe Rogan's entire audience, you're talking, you know, millions and millions and millions of people.
They have different points of view on a lot of different things.
You know, there's a lot of different people who are Democrats and Republicans.
There are, there are people who are liberals and conservatives.
There are people who actually have probably like wildly left-wing views and wildly right-wing views who listen to Joe Rogan's podcast.
But like, if there's one thing I feel like that there's just like consensus on is that we don't believe that.
You know, we're not here because like, oh, only the expert class gets to talk about issues.
That's the whole like concept of the show is like people, interesting people having interesting conversations.
So yeah.
Anyway, it was quite an exhausting trip.
It's been a wild run.
Quite a run.
I think I got a week.
Joe Rogan's in a comedy festival all in the span of about five days.
Yeah.
And a fun weekend in Boston right before that, too.
So I got, I think I got a week off now, but I'm going to enjoy it.
So I'm going to go get some rest.
Thank you guys very much for tuning in.
And we'll be back to normal schedule coming next week.
Sorry about the schedule has been a little inconsistent with the podcast, but you know, I've been all over the place.