Ian Miles Cheong, whose work Donald Trump and Joe Rogan shared, dismisses the controversy as unintended while criticizing mainstream media’s ivermectin misrepresentation and Fauci’s shifting COVID-19 policies. He mocks U.S. military competence amid China’s hypersonic advances and Biden’s cognitive decline, urging conservatives to counter progressive groups like DSA via local elections—citing Florida’s anti-CRT efforts. Rejecting online political "bloodsport," he argues constructive action over manufactured drama, though platforms still exploit him for engagement. The episode frames conflict as a cultural dead-end, suggesting real-world combat might replace hollow digital battles. [Automatically generated summary]
Ian Miles Chong is a writer and commentary you've seen on Rebel News, Postmillennial, OAN, and more.
His content was famously shared by then President Donald Trump, which of course caused many problems, and Joe Rogan as well.
The always controversial, for some reason, Ian Miles Chong joins me.
How are you, Ian?
I'm good.
How are you?
I'm doing well.
Always good to see you.
It's so much fun researching you just for topics to talk about.
There's so much drama surrounding you.
And I'll get to some of that later on.
Oh, God, I hate the drama.
I hate the drama.
I don't court it on purpose.
I swear to you.
I'll take your word for it.
What I want to talk to you first about is a bit of drama with Joe Rogan, the CNN thing, top of mind for a lot of people.
Horse dewormer, ivermectin.
Because I think what's happening here shows a lot of dishonesty on the part of the mainstream media.
So the first clip I want to get to is Sanjay Gupta, CNN's famous doctor, on Joe Rogan.
And I want to show him on Joe Rogan and a couple days later how he sort of reacts going back on CNN, having to defend them.
So let's go ahead and roll that first.
So you think that's a problem, that your news network lies?
Well, I don't dude.
What did they say?
They lied.
What did they say?
I was taking horse dewormer.
First of all, it was prescribed to me by a doctor.
Yeah, yeah.
They shouldn't have said it was a bunch of other medications.
If you got a human pill, because there were people that were taking it, the veterinary medication, and you're not, obviously.
You got it from a doctor, so it shouldn't be called that.
Ivermectin can be a very effective medication for parasitic disease.
And as you say, it's probably, you know, I think, what, a quarter billion people?
They did say something about ivermectin that I think wasn't actually correct about CNN and lying, okay?
Ivermectin is a drug that is commonly used as a horse dewormer.
So it is not a lie to say that the drug is used as a horse dewormer.
I think that's important.
And it is not approved for COVID.
Correct?
That's right.
That's correct.
It is not approved for COVID.
And you're right.
I mean, the FDA even put out a statement saying, you know, basically reminding people, it was a strange sort of message from the FDA, but that said, you're not a horse, you're not a cow.
Stop taking this stuff is essentially what they said, referring to ivermectin.
Now, I think what Joe's point is.
That is been about proof for humans, but not necessarily for COVID, right?
Yeah.
That's correct.
It's been used for a parasitic disease for something.
It's called river blindness, and it's been very effective for that.
But, you know, just because it works for one thing doesn't mean it works for something else.
And, you know, there's still a few ongoing clinical trials around ivermectin.
But for the most part, if you look at the data, there's no evidence that it really works here.
I mean, you have Gupta going on Rogan, and Rogan ends up saying, you know, he's a very nice guy.
But I think it's kind of cowardly.
He goes on Joe Rogan's show, talks to him like he's his friend, agrees with him, then goes back on CNN, pretends like they never framed it, you know, like as if he's being just some meathead who's taking horse dewormer, Brian Stelter cackling at him, all this stuff.
Why can't they just be honest about, you know, the success it's had versus the negative it has and saying that, you know, he was prescribed this and it seemed to work for him.
Why can't even like a seemingly nice guy be honest about this?
Yeah, well, it goes against the narrative, right?
If he were to admit that there are certain treatments that, you know, I mean, they're still under study, right?
We don't have 100% conclusive evidence that it works, but it's worth a look.
And, you know, that's what science is all about.
It's about looking into different treatments.
I mean, after all, the vaccine itself is a product of years and years and years of research based on other coronaviruses.
That's why we had PCR tests almost immediately, right?
We were able to detect this thing almost immediately.
All we have to do is feed it the proper data and we get the results.
It's not like some strange new virus that came out of nowhere, right?
So it's for that same reason that these previous or older treatments like ivermectin and so on, they may have some efficacy in treating the new disease because they have at least some data has shown that they do work against other kinds of infections.
And I think that's worth looking at.
But they won't. admit that.
They don't want to even admit that natural resistance, natural immunity is a thing.
I mean, obviously, you have to get sick and then you have to not die in order to get natural immunity.
But they're claiming that, oh, natural immunity doesn't work at all.
And this is obviously very unscientific to claim that people who have antibodies to the illness who have already gotten sick to claim that they are less protected than the vaccine.
I mean, that's just patently ridiculous.
This is not how any science works.
This is not how any virus works.
I mean, yes, there are certainly viruses out there that are, you know, that antibodies don't really help that much.
But, you know, this is a type of coronavirus.
And certainly there is a lot of evidence showing that we need to start looking at these things from a less politicized perspective and just simply explore the science.
I mean, you see these things being explored as actual science in the Nordic countries.
And they're certainly very educated people and they certainly know what they're talking about versus a couple of meatheads on CNN going on about how everything's horse dewormer or how water is essentially used as engine coolant.
I mean, if Joe Rogan said, oh, all I'm drinking is water.
I'm just hydrating.
They'll be like, oh, he used a water sewage treatment.
Like, that's what he used, sewage treatment material to get better.
It's like, so what he's saying at all.
I mean, this is a very cheap tactic.
It's a way to delegitimize anything that he's saying by simply calling it horse dewormer.
I mean, it's been prescribed for many, many parasitic illnesses.
It's used to treat worms.
That's what it's for.
A lot of poor people in poor countries, their kids have to take it because they got worms, right?
They get worms in their food and flies gestate in their bodies.
Like that's what it's for.
So to claim that it's only used against a river disease or whatever the hell that guy was talking about, well, that's just a way to marginalize it.
Why is it being treated for every form of domestic animal?
Because it treats worms and they're very close to the ground and so on.
Chris Wallace's Controversy00:07:13
He mentions in that same interview that, you know, I was on for three hours and we're just talking and it's hard to make things clear and get my point across.
But is this sort of the reason why we don't see many broadcasters taking on this format of extended conversation where they actually have to answer for things like this?
No, I think that's more to do with the monetary issue.
I mean, if you broadcast something for three hours, how many people are going to tune in and how much ad revenue are you going to get?
I think that's the bigger issue.
So like these long-form podcasts, these long-form conversations, I think it's best suited for places like YouTube, Spotify, or just, you know, like Apple iTunes.
I think that it has a place.
It's got a niche.
It's a very big niche and it's a very profitable one.
I mean, as you can see, Joe Rogan has clearly made a lot of money just speaking his mind.
I mean, you have many YouTubers who do it as well.
Twitch streamers can stream for an entire day.
I mean, Hassan Piker, we may not like him, but he's the most successful Twitch streamer out there.
And he streams eight to 10 hours a day.
I mean, that takes dedication.
It takes work.
So, you know, I may not like his politics, but kudos to him for doing that.
Now, somebody I don't think could survive an open-ended conversation, especially on Joe Rogan, is Anthony Fauci.
I wanted to go to him giving an interesting answer to Chris Wallace on Fox about those who disagree with him.
Chris Wallace is asking him, is there anything you can say that you might have regretted saying or something, a point that might be put against you?
And here's his answer from Chris Wallace.
You've become so controversial.
And honestly, do you think there's anything you have done that has contributed to that?
Well, I'm not so sure I can answer the latter because I can't think of anything, but I'm sure some people will.
But you know, Chris, I have stood for always making science, data, and evidence be what we guide ourselves by.
And I think people who feel differently, who have conspiracy theories, who deny reality that's looking them straight in the eye, those are people that don't particularly care for me.
And that's understandable because what I do and I try very hard is to be guided by the truth.
And sometimes the truth becomes inconvenient for some people.
So they react against me.
That just is what it is.
There's not much I can do about that, Chris.
Everyone who disagrees with me is a conspiracy theorist.
I feel the same way.
Is this sort of indicative of a modern Democrat way of thinking?
Yeah, it is.
I mean, and he's dismissing a lot of the legitimate criticism that is thrown his way.
Now, granted, there's a lot of nonsense out there.
There's people talking about 5G and how the vaccine has aluminum in it.
It's a bunch of nonsense, right?
That's not true at all.
And they'll claim that Fauci is secretly trying to kill the population.
Clearly, that's not true.
But that's, you know, those are on the fringes.
The real criticism against him comes from, you know, normal people who are upset and rightly so that he repeatedly changes his stance.
I mean, most recently, he talked about how Christmas may not even be on, but then he backtracked on that, said he never said those words.
And, you know, if you recall, last year, he was saying that masks don't work.
He was kind of lying in a way because he later on tried to justify it by claiming that, well, you know, the people who work in hospitals and first responders, they need the masks more.
And so I was just trying to dissuade people from, you know, buying these masks up and, you know, making us have a shortage.
Now, why would he lie about masks like that?
Right.
And later on, some research shows that, you know, N95 masks do have some small means of limiting the spread of the virus.
And it's true it does, but it doesn't necessarily protect you, but it might protect others.
And then he backtracks on that.
And then you have all these crazy people on Twitter who kiss his feet, who are, you know, previously they would say, I'm never wearing a mask because Trump wants me to put on a mask and he wants me to take the vaccine.
I'm never doing that because goddamn F Trump, right?
That was their response.
And now they're saying, well, if you don't wear a mask, you're a terrorist.
Okay.
Well, my next question is going to be, why do you think networks keep turning to him?
I see him still being on CNN.
Obviously, Chris Wallace is more of a contentious interviewer.
But with the funding, his emails from last year, where he talks about in the emails about how he doesn't think the masks help, especially somebody who's not sick, I think those things are pretty telling.
Why do they keep pushing him to the forefront like that?
Ratings.
He is a creature of the media.
He's a creature of the media.
They boosted him up.
They've invested in him.
And their audience, a few dozen people who watch CNN, well, it's more like a few million, honestly.
But those people who watch CNN, they love him, right?
So that's the reason why they keep boosting him up because he gives them good ratings.
And the people who hate these channels to begin with, they're not the ones tuning in.
So they're not the intended audience.
Now, the people who maybe you could call them Q people, your best friends, the QAnon supporters, they might say that Trump made a mistake or was it on purpose pushing Fauci to the forefront when Trump was still in office?
Do you think was this sort of in opposition to Trump that the deep state put in there?
Or do you think Trump was just using one of the advisors he was already given?
Why this dichotomy of Trump and Fauci up there at the same time, do you think, while Trump was in office?
This is an issue, a broader issue with Trump.
I mean, a lot of the people that he had as advisors, I mean, General Milley is someone that he himself appointed, right?
People seem to not realize this.
He doesn't like Millie now.
He calls Millie a woke general, and he is.
A lot of the people he had in the FBI, all the people who turned their backs on him, they were all Trump appointees.
And that was maybe his biggest failing was that he tended to go with whoever was already there instead of getting rid of them.
I mean, with previous administrations, we're talking Bush, we're talking Obama, we're talking Clinton, we're talking even Biden now.
The first thing they do when they step into office is they get rid of everybody who was from the previous administration, unless they're friendly, right?
So, you know, if you're Bush, then you want to keep Bush seniors people in there, right?
But you obviously don't want any of the Clintonites in there.
But this is something that Trump failed to do.
He did not get rid of the people from the Biden administration.
That was what essentially became the deep state.
You know, what we call a deep state isn't some organization.
It's mostly a loosely knit group of people who did not like the president and were working against him, maybe in small pockets of the federal government.
And I don't know if Fauci's one of those people, but Fauci has been a fixture in the federal government since the Reagan administration.
So he has always been there.
So it's been a fixture.
He's always done his job.
He's more of a career guy.
And that's why Trump had him there.
I don't think it was anything nefarious.
I don't think it was for any clever 12-dimensional chess reason.
I don't think Trump thinks about these things at all.
I think that's a bunch of nonsense.
Trump clearly makes some good decisions, but Fauci was definitely not one of them.
Scott Atlas, on the other hand, was a great decision that he made, that he appointed, you know, and so it's not all bad, but it's not all good either.
I think what people are missing is in the back room, I think to your right, in the background, you've got this orb of 12D chess that you play.
China's Hypersonic Threat00:04:42
You're moving the pieces in spherical motions.
But anyways, the Biden admin has been doing these weird press conferences with Jensaki about the food shortages and the backed up ports where they're giving these weird excuses, the gas prices are going up.
And I want to talk about this specific story that came out about China, I think, flexing on them with this missile that they've shot.
I forget what exactly the hypersonic missile that was able to orbit the Earth in a low atmosphere.
I'm really going to make some science-y people mad about this.
But let's go ahead and get Jensaki's response here about somebody asking if she's worried about this basically.
That China tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile over the summer to the surprise of U.S. officials.
Are they accurate?
And do you raise concerns about China's nuclear capability?
I know General Secretary Austin, I should say, was asked this question this morning and addressed it, but I'm not going to comment on the specific report.
I can say and would echo what he said, which is generally speaking, we've made clear our concerned about the military capabilities that the PRC continues to pursue.
And we have been consistent in our approach with China.
We welcome stiff competition, but we do not want that competition to veer into conflict.
And that is certainly what we convey privately as well.
Ian, I don't know about you, but from that, I get sort of like a disit sounds like they're at a disadvantage.
I mean, first of all, you're referring to them with the PRC.
I don't usually hear that.
North Korea is testing missiles.
Low orbit was the term I was looking for with this missile that could be equipped with a nuclear weapon.
What kind of vibes are you getting from this?
I saw you mentioned it was you called it loser talk, I think.
It's loser talk.
Yeah, it's loser talk.
I mean, for maybe a decade now, America's had its own hypersonic weapon, right?
Hypersonic missile.
I can't tell if it's a ballistic missile or if it's a similar device as what China's using.
So to understand what this hypersonic missile is, it's not, you know, it's not a ballistic rocket.
It's not an ICBM where you launch it from one point and it just flies straight to the target because that is something you can shoot down.
It's very easy to shoot those down.
That's what the Iron Dome is for, for example.
And you maybe need a larger version of that to fire farther, right?
The way that these missiles work, these Chinese ones do, is that you fire a rocket straight up into space, and then it deploys a sort of vehicle that flies in low orbit, and it just basically circles the globe as many times as it needs to, using only its own momentum to carry itself.
So it doesn't really need that much fuel.
And then an AI targeting system decides where it wants to land.
So you can basically, you can create a sort of special trajectory that's very difficult, if not impossible, with the current level of technology to evade being shot down.
It's only going to be really, really close when you see it, but if it's carrying a nuclear war hit, you're screwed anyway, right?
So that's what it's capable of.
And it flies really, really fast.
It's hypersonic.
It's five times the speed of sound, slightly slower than an ICBM, but is maneuverable.
That's what's deadly about this.
It's what's so dangerous about it.
Now, granted, the Chinese one actually missed its target by about 12 to 14 kilometers or miles, which is pretty far off.
But what it means is that they're capable of doing this.
And with better targeting, they'll be able to hit their targets very easily.
So America was apparently taken by surprise with this report.
They did not expect to see China have this level of technology.
And now they're shocked and they're saying, oh, we welcome the competition.
No, no one welcomes the competition.
You don't want your enemy to get a trebuchet when you're trying to protect your castles.
That's a bad idea.
It's a bad idea.
Yeah, I tend not to worry about, I mentioned North Korea shooting off into the ocean there because American warships are there and aircraft carriers in South Korea.
They tend not to have great technology.
But this is sort of like the first time I can remember in recent history where the American response to the Chinese testing an advanced missile system is just like, well, you know, we hope it doesn't come to anything and we respect the, what did they call them?
The PRC, just, you know, giving them a cute little acronym.
It's a little bit worrisome that as a person who already does not, you know, trust the, I'm trying to be nice here, trust the level of competence from the administration.
I'm just a little bit sitting here and it's like, do they really know what they're doing in terms of the military front anymore?
No, they don't.
Yeah, look at who they appointed as a four-star admiral today.
Get Out the Vote Efforts00:15:29
It's that the Health and Human Services transgender doctor.
Now, I'm not saying that their gender has anything to do with their competency, but look at that person's record.
When they were in Philadelphia, they basically assigned the deaths of thousands of the elderly by putting COVID patients in nursing homes.
And so this is the person who now has a four-star rank, who's a four-star rank admiral, and it's insane.
And these are the people they're putting in charge.
You know, Millie's greatest fear is white rage.
White rage.
There's nothing else is white rage.
And you have generals on Twitter doing their nails and complaining about how about the colors that they're permitted to use in the military.
It's like, where are your priorities?
I mean, there's terrorists out there.
ISIS K is rebounded.
Suicides in the military are up by 52% this year alone.
I mean, what are you guys doing?
Insane.
Have you seen, what is your take on these latest Biden press conferences?
Obviously, most people think he's deteriorating.
He's got the advanced set across the street from the White House now that people think is probably so he can read off a teleprompter easier without people really being able to see it.
But that could go a lot of different ways, that story.
But did you see that latest one with him where he's getting really mad about democracies across the world?
What's your take from these latest ones?
Because I don't think when people look at Jen Saki, they're thinking, oh, this is this nice, caring woman.
She's pretty snappy.
She doesn't have a lot of answers or stuff.
She kind of answers people like they're children.
What is a vibe?
Let's give us a vibe check on these Biden press conferences, will you?
Oh, yeah, sure.
I think that Biden is, he's lost his marbles.
You know, he isn't the man he used to be in 2016, back when he could actually form a coherent sentence without pausing.
They claim it's a stutter.
I don't believe it.
He didn't have a stutter four years ago.
He didn't have a stutter eight years ago, 10 years, 12 years.
He's been in Congress since 1972, and he hasn't had that problem, but only now he's got that problem.
He's got a childhood stutter.
Give me a break.
No, he doesn't have a stutter.
I think that when he gets angry, it enables him to refocus his energy.
I think, you know, they say that when you get angry, when you work yourself up, it helps you to refocus your mind.
And I think he uses that as a sort of mechanism to keep himself in check when he is sort of going off trail and forgetting what to say.
I think he just amps himself up, gets really, really angry in order to sort of like temporarily get rid of that Alzheimer's that he's clearly experiencing.
Get some clarity there for a second.
Now, something else I wanted to ask you about is this the Build Back Better initiative that seems to be taking over the world in a sense.
There's some footage from London of people heckling a Boris Johnson and Bill Gates meeting.
Now, I think people are getting mad at the similarities they're seeing in lockdowns across the world.
So the anger I think is justified.
I don't know how you feel about the people yelling.
Let's show the clip first actually of the people yelling at who knows who's in this car in London
So he's throwing the plastic cup What was the point of that?
Now, I think you often face criticism for not going forward with everything from a particular side.
Like maybe like saying or echoing arrest Bill Gates.
I get some of that sort of stuff too.
Outside of screaming at a person's car while they're leaving a dinner, what do you think is a better reaction from people who are seemingly opposed to, you know, things being out of the voters' hands in organizations like the CDC or Microsoft and Amazon having huge influence?
What do you think is the correct thing for the average person to do who's in opposition of these Build Back Better initiatives?
Take back the city councils.
Take back the district attorney's positions.
Take back the school boards.
That's the better answer.
You can't really have a voice.
I mean, you don't have a voice just by screaming.
If you're screaming, people are going to report on how you're screaming.
And that's the amount of the effect that you will actually have.
You will have no effect whatsoever.
You'll have people smirking at you and thinking, wow, that person's kind of worked up about something.
It doesn't solve anything.
It doesn't create policy.
It doesn't create solutions.
What you need to do is you need to take back all of these positions in government, actually start caring about people legislating, the people who are making these decisions for you, filling these roles up, becoming school teachers, joining school boards, actually having an impact.
And you can see this happen in places like Florida, where a lot of conservatives do, you know, do run the school boards.
They've taken back these positions.
They voted for conservative candidates.
And it's happening across the South as well.
A lot of people are mobilizing.
You see Dana Lesch actually leading some of these campaigns to retake these school boards, to do away with critical race theory, for example.
And that's the only way to do it.
Screaming and yelling and harassing people, throwing plastic cups at cars and chanting arrest Bill Gates doesn't solve anything.
It doesn't fix anything.
It doesn't change anything.
They are still in power.
If you, you know, like, I don't know what, you know, these their stance is on Bill Gates.
I know they want him arrested.
I don't know what for, but, you know, what's it going to do?
I mean, he still has the money.
He still has the power.
He still has the ear of Boris Johnson.
What we need is people who can have that level of access, who can have that level of power in government to be able to make decisions and ones that actually matter, that actually land on paper, that are signed into law.
Vote for the people that you want leading you.
Don't just be all blackbilled.
You know, don't be nihilistic and claim, oh, the system's broken.
Don't vote.
Like, that is the opposite message.
I mean, I don't know if you listened to Herschel Walker talking about this yesterday, where he actually condemned Donald Trump's comments on not voting.
He says that it is necessary to go out there and vote and just do all that you can to rethink the government.
It's the only solution.
Because, I mean, what's the alternative?
That everybody's just going to give up and go home and maybe be a prepper, you know, have a gun and hope that the FBI doesn't show up.
And that's not a solution.
You have to take action.
And by taking action, I mean actually participating in the process.
It's the only way forward.
I think they're still mad about Windows 2000 NT is what it is.
No, I agree with you.
I wrote down in California, they had their recall vote where if the amount of Republican voters who came out for Donald Trump came out, Gavin Newsom would have been recalled.
In Alberta, they saw a huge reduction in voters in the federal election where they lost some of the seats.
So I agree with you.
People need to start going to these city council meetings, school board meetings, district attorney votes, which are often funded by George Soros in some controversial places.
And they need to show up because they can't, you know, there's nothing that the international movement of giant businesses like Microsoft and MasterCard and the IMF can do about John Sally and everybody else going out to vote for a city council.
There's no influence that's going to be put down on that.
So once you start from the bottom there and you say, whether it's take the masks off our children or we don't want this taught in our school, that's where change should stem from.
And it's the place that's going to affect you the very most.
Property tax.
Sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, like one of the things that the left does and is their ability to organize.
You look at the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA, they're basically your Bernie Sanders/slash AOC commies.
They're not really communists, but you get what I'm saying, right?
So these guys, their ability to organize is phenomenal.
And what they do is they organize a vote movement, kind of like what Stacey Abrams is doing.
In fact, it's quite the same thing.
And they get these votes out.
They do the whole get out the vote thing.
They call people up.
They canvas.
They get people out there voting the way they want.
And they get these people into city commissions.
They get themselves into, in the case of Austin, Texas, they got a district attorney there who is a member of the DSA.
And this is what conservatives need to be doing: conservatives need to start rallying and organizing and making sure that we have our own get-out-to-vote systems to get these people the support that they need.
Because right now, it's a very one-sided battle.
On the one hand, you've got Mike Tyson, and on the other corner, that's us, we've got Glass Jim or something.
Is that a punch-out reference?
I think.
Yeah, it's a punch-out reference.
I don't remember the character's name.
Gabby J was one of them.
I remember Glass Joe or something.
Glass Joe.
That's one punch.
Yeah, the only places I see this really happening is some places in Arizona, which is very fractured on the right side, even still.
And then Florida, of course.
And then you've got small, I think, city council and student, not student council, but school board things across the country.
And I agree with what you're saying.
Especially what I wanted to reference was: if you remember a few years ago, the Democratic Socialists of America meeting that went really viral, where they would all snap for applause and then they'd interrupt each other with trigger warnings.
Maybe we can get some b-roll of that because that was one of the most fantastic things ever.
You guys have to start addressing people by more than sir and ma'am.
It's very triggering for me.
And then that person would get in trouble for being too loud and stuff like that.
Point of privilege.
Point of privilege.
Two days of that.
Two whole days of eight-hour meetings, just non-stop.
Point of privilege, debates about the debate itself without even happening.
You know, they had to talk about it first to make sure that everybody felt comfortable because this was a safe space and we have to ensure that the well-being of all our attendees.
And there's like safe rooms as well that people could just sit in and listen to quiet music.
It makes me wonder who's in charge of those things where they really see their army of useful idiots, as the term is out in front of them.
I mentioned off the top the criticism you get when I'm looking from looking through videos of you.
Some of them are very emotional.
Some of them are very YouTube-y drama, 2016, 2017 sort of things.
And among other things, one of the complaints I noticed is about your influence, the fact that, you know, Joe Rogan's as he follows you, the retweets, the Fox News coverage.
What do you say to people who don't like the fact or disagree with the fact that you have apparently an influence on American culture from overseas?
Get used to it.
No Mauryan.
Oh, he's going to drop the microphone.
What else is there to say?
He's going to drop the microphone on me.
With the YouTube really clamping down on America or right-wing creators the last few years, do you think that whole era of political YouTube drama is over?
I think it's over.
Yeah.
I mean, I used to, I won't say engaged in the content too much.
I used to watch it from time to time, but it got old really fast.
And, you know, you went from giant creators having beefs.
As we've seen in the makeup community, the gaming community, they've all done it.
They've all had beefs.
It got stale after a while.
I think the audience started to dissipate.
And it became worse and worse because when you create content like that as a sort of like a driving force for your channel, you tend to run out of content because people are not having beefs every single day.
And some of these YouTubers, these creators, they've tried to manufacture drama.
They'll go after certain people.
They'll go after celebrities.
I think you can see the ones who are remaining right now, they try to start fights with celebrities and they end up getting blocked on Twitter.
So that's hilarious because nothing really happens.
And so they tend to go after the small fish, you know, like two no-name Twitch streamers are having some weird beef with furries and anime avatars and so on.
And who honestly cares?
Who cares?
So I think that's kind of a dead genre.
It doesn't go anywhere.
And when it does escalate, it escalates into real-world physical violence, people threatening each other and damaging each other's businesses and so on.
And I mean, frankly, that's not cool.
Reality itself should not be a Jerry Springer show.
And I think that sort of move towards that sort of content was really, I wouldn't say dangerous, but it was, you know, it was deplorable, right?
It was disgusting.
And I'm glad that YouTube itself has sort of demonetized these channels because I think that YouTube tended to realize that it was the source of this drama by encouraging people to do it, by monetizing them.
So it's, you know, it's actually quite good that it's done away with that.
I don't like that kind of content.
I know some people do, but you know what?
Suck it up.
You know, just this, the world shouldn't be a fighting place.
If you want to fight, you know, I don't know, go to a UFC gym or something.
I found myself getting over it pretty quickly and even going back and typing Ian Miles Chong into YouTube, it just seems very, I don't even want to say immature because I'm not that mature, but it's sort of like teenage drama and I myself got over it.
I remember Candace Owens and like Blair White and stuff like that arguing on Ruben Report and it just became where this isn't.
This isn't productive and this doesn't really affect politics at all.
So I am glad to see that stuff sort of, you know, fallen by the wayside.
But I'll tell you, Ian, searching your name, they still want to pull you into it, it seems like.
Of course they do.
Of course they do.
Yeah.
Like they think that they can get drama out of me.
Even me going on this video interview here will be milk for them.
They'll be like, oh yes, Ian finally recognized us.
Yes, yes.
I don't even think about you.
It's ridiculous.
I think, you know, just before we end it, I think that it shows, though, people love the blood sport.
People love the engagement, the arguments.
YouTube doesn't really go far enough.
I think that we sort of need to create a real world squid games or real world battle royale, you know, where we actually do battle, physical combat in real life that's fully monetized, fully legal, and all the participants can be fully consenting adults who say, hey, you know, yeah, I'm willing to surrender my life in exchange for a million dollars and maybe a sponsorship deal.
And they can battle it out in real life, you know, in the streets of Minneapolis or Portland.
You can just empty it out of civilians, have them fight each other and televise it, stream it, live stream it, collect lots of money, you know, from the bets because you can bet for the Antifa clan or whatever, you know, and they can fight each other with the proud boys and just go head to head.
I mean, I think a lot of people may find that disturbing and disgusting, but you know what?
Civilizations throughout history have done this, right?
We had gladiatorial arenas in the Roman times.
We had the jousts in medieval times.
The Aztecs used to play football.
That ended in the other team losing their lives.
So, I mean, maybe it's a return to that.
We just need to return to that.
Battle In The Streets00:00:53
This is Ian Miles Chong attempting to create a Reddit thread that clips this and takes them so seriously in real time, everybody.
You're witnessing it.
I want to thank you for coming on.
Keep doing your writing.
Keep getting the push that you are getting from all these outlets.
If it makes them mad, I think it's worth it, Ian.
Ian Miles Chong, any final words you want to say to the audience before we let you go?
Just think critically, you know, keep an open mind and don't dismiss other people's opinions because you don't like them.
Maybe they've got something good to say and maybe you can continue to not like them.
But you know what?
I think that learning from your enemies is often a very good thing.
See what they're doing right.
That's my final word.
Thank you.
Just like Jerry Springer would have done.
We would have been proud.
At the end of the day, it is what it is, you guys.
Thanks a lot, Ian, and thanks a lot for watching us.