Mike Cernovich and Dave Rubin dissect their contentious history, from 2016 controversies to Cernovich's denial of rape accusations and current Epstein litigation. They critique media double standards regarding figures like Roseanne Barr versus Rashida Tlaib, arguing that tech monopolies weaponize Section 230 to silence pro-Trump voices while enabling election interference. Cernovich condemns Trump's moral failures on anti-Semitism and the "Deep State" bureaucracy, warning that economic despair fuels domestic terrorism. Ultimately, they conclude that eroding trust in mainstream media necessitates confronting algorithmic manipulation and bot networks to prevent a fractured digital landscape from descending into decentralized warfare. [Automatically generated summary]
Yeah, okay, so look, I think you know how I interview.
I really try to just sit down with someone and focus on being present and seeing where the chips fall, but I am gonna conduct this interview a little bit differently than I usually do.
I've got all your past controversies here and controversial statements and things you've said and done and all of those things, and I wanna dive into all of those things, but I thought the first thing we should do is talk a little bit about our history, because I had you on the show way before we were independent.
We were at Ora TV back in March of 2016.
It was right at the beginning of the Trump phenomenon.
And I was seeing this thing on Twitter where I saw all this support for Trump.
I saw these fun memes.
I saw, like, there was a real energy behind this thing, but I could not find anyone You know, a verified person on Twitter or a celebrity or an author.
I couldn't find anyone that was supporting Trump.
Then I came across you.
I think I tweeted out.
I'm looking for a Trump supporter, basically, to have on the show.
I came across you.
You were a published author.
You have the guerrilla mindset, which you have right here.
And we sat down.
And three and a half years ago, it feels like a different life to me.
Do you remember that guy, three and a half year ago, Mike Cernovich?
At the time that I was on your show, everybody said Trump won't win.
Here's why.
Boom, boom, boom.
The polls, this, everything.
And I said, no, no, no, he's gonna win.
Here's why.
Here's the trends.
Here's why people support him.
Here's where the puck is going, as Wayne Gretzky would say.
Nobody else would I was saying that nobody could, Scott Adams being an exception, cogently, not, oh, I love Trump, rah, rah, rah, but no, the media's made him.
Everything now that I'm saying, the media's like catching up to, oh, Trump's nicknames, maybe we shouldn't amplify them, they're too powerful.
Everything where I talked about branding, how Trump was essentially the big gorilla, and everything else.
So all of that aged well.
Everything that I said was going to happen, happened.
And then people go, well, we don't want to look at the message.
Cernovich is a bad guy, persona non grata.
And there's a number of things to address.
One is, I used to troll pretty hard Twitter.
It's easy to say Twitter was a different place, right?
This is the, like, namaste.
Twitter was a different place.
If you're James Gunn, you get to say that.
If you're James Gunn or a lefty, you get to just say, you know what?
Twitter was different.
I was joking.
How dare you?
weaponize tweets and bad faith because we all know when that happens.
There's trolling merely to provoke and then for its own provocation.
And that was always sort of nasty.
I never did that stuff.
There was something, for example, called RIP trolling, which is trolls would go to a memorial site
of someone's dead person and like laugh about it.
Which is just amoral evil.
And then there's using tactics that generate attention, massive controversy, but in a way that amplifies an underlying message.
That's why when people call Trump a troll, he's using a tactic.
So what I would do is I would use a certain tactic.
There's a meanness to it, really.
Everybody's a troll now, though, which is ironic, because when you watch Maddow, That she's a troll.
She's not a nice person.
She's not having open-ended conversations with people.
Everybody now trolls, so I was a troll, kind of, and then the left all became a troll when Trump won, and then I become nice, and now everybody is making people angrier, and I realized that just being a nice person is Makes people so angry, that's the best way to put it.
Well, that's why I wanted to have you on, because I have seen an interesting evolution, and you've been on sort of the side of the hate machine, and then you've been on the side of taking the hate and all of those things.
So I thought, alright, why don't we start with this.
Right before I had you on, I tweeted this out, and I got a series of people saying that I'm alt-right, and you're a racist, and all the usual stuff, and these are verified journalists, you know, blue check verified journalists and all that.
But somebody, we don't have to mention his name, but a blue check guy, said that Rubin is having a serial rapist on the show.
No, not only have I never not done anything like that, but the people who make those allegations have made fake videos of me, fake videos of my daughter, threatened to release revenge porn of me.
They claim they have a sex tape of me and they're going to release revenge porn, which is actually a sex crime in California.
So the answer to that is no.
Now the question is, why do people say that?
Why don't I just sue everybody?
And the answer is, if you're me and you've been so smeared in the media, You can't just go sue people for defamation because the theory is, well, nobody would believe it because they're saying it on Twitter, but even if they would believe it, then they wouldn't side with you because of whatever the reputation.
So they say either rapist, rape apologist, white supremacist, and a men's rights activist.
So there's like a whole slew of them.
And it's all very bizarre to me, especially because I don't do any of that stuff.
You know, like, if I'm murdered right here, I wouldn't say I was, you know, Rubin murdered
or a quaintance murdered.
You would just say, well, you were just murdered.
And so when they call it out, you go, no, no, no.
Actually, that's a Susan Asterix thing.
This is a second-wave feminist argument, which is, you need to treat—this is the problem with societies.
You need to treat it very seriously.
Like, if we were walking outside and we saw somebody being raped, we would, like, take a baseball bat to the guy's head.
Nobody would be like, oh, rape apology, da-da-da-da.
You'd just—everybody knows what they would do.
But that said, there now it's become a word where everybody just tosses it around.
Oh, that was rape.
That was rape.
Well, this thing happened.
That was rape.
There's now even a thing that regret is rape, because if you feel bad the next day, then you must not have had affirmative consent the night before.
So this is where this is where it's actually going.
Now, my mistake is, well, a number number of things.
One is when you have 40 Twitter followers and everybody knows that you're talking about a specific article, then people are like, oh, yeah, they get it.
And then you become, like, famous or whatever, and then people pretend that there wasn't that context to it.
But again, this only happens if you're conservative or if you're on the right.
If you're on the left, you can say, I'm James Gunn, and he touches children, and, oh, LOL, and Cernovich found these tweets.
How dare he?
He's weaponizing bad faith.
So, the answer to that is, Those tweets, they're just not very smart.
They haven't actually read the literature.
They should go read Susan Esrich.
Now, that said, and I've learned this, there's a lot of people who've been through some shit, man.
Like, I fat shame people.
I feel bad about that.
I watched this video by Boogie and he talked about what fat shaming did to him.
So I'm like, I fat shame people?
That's real shitty.
There are people who read me who've probably been raped, you know?
How much of that do you think, and we've all been guilty of this, so I do not sit here as holier than thou.
Have I engaged in some of this type of stuff?
Sure.
I really try not to.
And then sometimes just the evil nature of Twitter just drags you into it one way or another.
How much of what you were doing, though, was calculated just so that you could get followers, so that you could get whatever your message is out there?
Regardless of what your past is, what do we do about this set of people that is this blue check set of BuzzFeed Vox people that we know are watching this right now, waiting for you to screw up one word, or me to pause in a weird way, or get a glimmer in my eye.
Like, just any crazy thing so they can selectively edit it, so they can just try to destroy it.
And what people need to understand is there's a business behind this.
And you're also acknowledging that some of your business partook in some of these things.
But when you're- I think that actually is when I, this is probably about six or eight months ago, and that's when I finally had reached out to you after about two years of not speaking, because I thought, here's someone you're trying to acknowledge some of these things.
Some of your past behavior and I thought we know we want to destroy everybody We don't want to give anyone a chance to come back from the brink and that I thought that was commendable well, and that's what's interesting is they And this is the reason that they're all freaking out is they're no longer they've lost gatekeeper status and this is this was talked about in the one i did with you two and a half years ago and now their methodology has changed where they go now to the tech companies and cry so so for example they're crying there's this girl so she's 14 she's got they're going you know so it used to be they'd write a hate piece and now they go youtube how do you allow this person on there so here's my answer to all the blue checks i know they're watching
All of you.
I'm talking to all of you right now.
You all know what Vic Berger did.
You know he edited fake videos about my wife and daughter.
Fact.
You know that he's edited multiple videos about my daughter.
I know that'll end up in a soundboard in five years from now.
some boomer is going to be like, oh wow, I heard this audio where you said you like to
murder people.
You know, I don't care.
That's the game.
But going after someone's wife and daughter beyond the pale, they all know about it because
I email them and everything.
They won't write about it.
But then they'll go, oh, Dave Rubin, this and that.
So they can show some integrity and they're all watching.
Write about that.
Say, hey, Cernovich is an asshole.
He's a jerk.
He's a troll.
He's a bad guy.
You should never, never make a fake video about an 18-month-old girl.
My daughter was at the time.
You should never make a fake video about a wife tagging Child Protective Services.
Never!
But they can't!
So they'll sanctimoniously go, Dave Rubin gives Cernovich his redemption arc.
Oh, Rubin lets him come in and apologize, but he didn't bring up these other 15 things, and we'll just pretend that Vic Berger hasn't tried to make Cernovich's wife a living hell.
Well, that's the thing, is that the game, no matter how many of these things I read off to you, and no matter what mea culpa you do or don't do, they never stop.
I mean, if I've learned anything in the last couple years, it's that they never stop.
They just ratchet up every time.
But wait, let's back up to this 14-year-old girl for a second, because I don't know a lot of people know this.
What's her name again, or what's the YouTube channel?
Yeah, so you've got BuzzFeed going after kids, literally for kids, for satire.
The video was taken down.
It had something like 800,000 views.
But the guy who went after her, who of course has gone after me before and the rest of it, and this is a BuzzFeed verified guy, he has a tweet, I think you just referenced it, saying, kill all white people on your way to work today or something to that effect.
But it's like, what rules are you guys playing by, and why is it that some people get protection and lauded for these things, and some people get destroyed by them?
I held an event in New York, Night for Freedom 2008, teen.
And a number of Buzzfeed people were there.
Chelsea Manning was there, so it became a story.
How dare Chelsea Manning come to my story, even though everyone is nice to her.
And Antifa, a 30-year-old white male, was arrested for almost beating a Jewish man to death.
He was walking home.
No mainstream coverage for that.
They came to the event.
The same people who go, oh, Dave Rubin is a gateway to radicalization, blah, blah, blah.
It's like, OK, why won't they report on Antifa?
This is why they're losing trust.
If I read an article that says, Cernovich is a piece of shit, but so is Vic Berger, and you should never go after kids, and Antifa violence is wrong, I'd be like, well, OK, what are you going to do?
We're all flawed.
But when I read these articles, Cernovich this, oh, but by the way, Cernovich went after James Gunn.
This was, I think, revealing.
My wife found this quite amusing.
She goes, babe, all these articles say that you found James Gunn's tweets.
And they're saying he's joking, and then they're saying, but look at Cernovich's tweets.
But are tweets jokes?
Are they satire?
Are they to be taken literally?
And the answer is there's no rule, and anybody with a brain knows that the left doesn't care.
They're not nice.
They're not nice to people.
They don't call out their own side.
There's Chris Cuomo praises Antifa.
Oh, we like Antifa.
Antifa beat up three Marines in Philadelphia.
No media coverage.
The guy who ran the Smash Racism DC Twitter account.
Antifa D.C.
is being charged with hate crimes because he called a Hispanic Marine a W-E-T-B-A-C-K.
Nobody says, oh, you know, who is radicalizing the far left?
They just, let's pretend it didn't happen.
And we'll pretend that you're radicalizing people, even though the irony of this is that, if anything, you've de-radicalized people, because you've made people—you and a few other people—and this is why they hate their IDW or whatever it's called, because you've shown people, look, you don't have to—you're not caught in this Hegelian thing where you're either a far-left maniac or you're just a far-right calling people cucks all day on Twitter or whatever.
Hey, there's, you know, there's a little bit of room in between here.
Well, that's the thing that I've realized is so bizarre.
All I think I've actually, you know, look, I've talked about the difference between leftism and liberalism, sure, but I think what I did that they really hate is that I've shown that you can be conservative or lean a little right and that doesn't mean you're a bigot and that's a huge no-no for these guys.
So do you think, do you think That your tactics were, let's say, just a reaction to their tactics.
If they had behaved differently, or if the media hadn't been so awful leading up to Trump that you would have behaved differently, or maybe not even been relevant because then when I had been looking for a Trump supporter, How would I have ever found you?
Do you think that leads to mutually assured destruction though?
So, like, when you were going after Gunn, and you can explain it a little bit more, like, when I saw you doing it, my feeling was, these are obviously jokes, they're all kind of gross, we've all made bad jokes, and this is the purpose of jokes, right?
You want to get as close to that line as possible.
But sometimes when you're doing it, you're going to trip over that line.
But did you have any sense of, like, if I keep ramping this up, they will keep ramping this up, and then what does that actually lead to?
Well, Gunn is an unusual case, because I have reason to believe that some of his stuff is pretty bad.
The worst one was Bieber when he was 16.
I don't want to get in the weeds of that, but people can read the tweets.
But there is a sense of—and we see this now with Rashida Tlaib and Congresswoman Omar and them.
The left can't withstand the scrutiny that you and I take for granted.
We sit down, we already know right away, okay, shitstorm, they're going to go after Dave, here's what they're going to say, they're going to clip this, they're going to clip that.
You take it for granted.
You take it for granted.
But these people on the left will go up and say, Israel has hypnotized the world.
And like, nothing happens.
The issue with James Gunn, I always say this, why didn't he delete his tweets?
You know why?
He didn't have to.
Because nobody on the left was ever going to find his tweets, or if they did, they weren't going to do anything with them.
So Roseanne, her show gets she gets fired, pulled from syndication.
But then if a made man of the left says stuff way worse, they attack the messenger.
They go after me.
My favorite article was and this this kills them.
There's There's a guy at CNN and his job is to dig up old tweets of people and he digs up old tweets he gets a lot of people fired and whatever that's the game.
So that's the part, I mean, we're all over the place here, but that's the part, I mean, I even tweeted that, I think it was this morning or maybe yesterday, it's like, she lied about what the nature of 1948 war was and all of those things, used the Holocaust in the worst sort of sense, and all, I didn't, it's not about piling on her, it's where is any decent Democrat ever?
The right always has to get rid of these guys, and that's good, self-policing is good, but it seems that the left never has to do it.
And then I have this weird sympathy when people like you sometimes step over a line.
I'm like, well, it's the only way to ever get anything done.
It may not be my tactic.
And I sort of saw this with Milo years ago.
It was like, I can understand his over-the-top ridiculousness because he's sort of blowing things up so that maybe someone a little calmer, like me, could come in and try to rebuild things.
And it's just, we all operate in different tactics.
This is why they keep bringing up Pizzagate, right?
Because what have I done lately?
There was actually a really funny video from Media Matters where they go, the gist of it was, Cernovich is being nice, but don't forget all these bad things he said.
But then a couple of the clips and this shows how people things get chopped up.
I did one video where I said, you know what, there's all this because I was part of the man's internet, whatever people call it, the male sphere, whatever it was.
And I broke from that a long time ago, but there was a racial element came in.
And I was like, look, you know, I won't have any tolerance to this racial element.
And I was like, here's what people are saying about black guys on Twitter.
And then I repeated what I said.
And then that gets chopped up into a video.
Oh, Cernovich is dropping n-bombs.
No, I wasn't calling anyone.
I was saying, hey, you know, I'm not having any tolerance to this kind of stuff.
Because, like, our guys already have enough drama.
I mean, literally an hour ago, some blue check guy was going after me, because years ago on a livestream, years ago, when the alt-right was just coming to fruition, whatever that is, I said, as a meme-making joke machine, there's something funny going on here, but the previous sentence?
No, the racists are bad, the bigots are bad, all of those things.
Of course, Daily Beast didn't run that piece, and then this guy's quoting.
So there was a Podesta, the emails, the WikiLeaks, and there was a bunch of emails that don't even make sense.
So there was one, for example, that said, you left a handkerchief at your house.
There was a map on it, something pizza related.
Now, who would leave a napkin at your house and somebody's going to email you, you left a napkin at my house, you want me to mail it to you?
So it was a little weird, you know, could have meant nothing, it could have been vague, but then people thought, oh, that must mean Podesta was involved in something, but I never said anything about John Podesta.
But it's important to lay out some of this, because part of, I think, what's happening here
is the inability for mainstream, whatever that is, the increasing layer of mainstream
that's just shedding relentlessly by their own doing, it's their inability to deal with any of the outsiders.
So, I mean, it's the way they respond to things that I do.
It's like they can't understand that people might have a different take on internet culture or on just outsider culture or any of the trolling or meme making.
If you ask me something out of my comfort zone, I'd say, well, I kind of have a take on that, but not really.
And when I came on, and this kind of segues into you having experts on your show, I'm an expert on Trump, meme culture, persuasion, the internet, you name it, I'm an expert on it, in terms of mass human psychology, trends, where things are going.
So then you go, well, I mean, I can't know everything.
So about a year ago, I think it was a year ago last week, was when that big renegades of the intellectual dark web piece came out in the New York Times.
And the piece, Barry Weiss wrote the piece, and I know Barry gets a ton of hate online, and I have sort of mixed feelings about her, but whatever it is.
In the piece, she sort of threw me and Rogan under the bus, because she said if you talk to people like Mike Cernovich and Alex Jones, now Jones had been on Rogan's show a bunch of times, and he's been on since, and here you are, and you had been on my show, that you're either stupid or cynical.
Now, I didn't like the line because to me it's like Joe and I are interviewers, at least when we're doing our shows, and it's like you're going to have to talk to people outside of your box.
I'm not even referencing you here.
You talk to all sorts of people.
That's what an interviewer does, right?
But she said you'd have to be stupid or cynical to talk to those people and I was wondering You're a source for all sorts of people, I'm guessing, probably at the New York Times and all sorts of different papers and all sorts of things.
Now, we happen to be doing this publicly so all the haters can watch and anyone can judge whatever they want about anything we say.
But I suspect you probably talk to all sorts of reporters and all sorts of things and it just goes under the radar and that's why it's acceptable to those people.
I've handed off all kinds of stories to people in all kinds of publications, and I'm not going to out them, but we'll just say the most prestigious publications in the country have run stories where I sourced it or I hand-delivered them something.
Right, so I'm not asking you, obviously, to blow a source, or you are the source, but to blow a connection.
Other than to say, I think it's just worth noting, because that line sort of stuck out of that article, and it's like, well, you guys just do it on the DL.
You're all doing it on the DL, and then you think you're holier than thou, and that one's personal to me.
People read me and their kids are having developmental problems.
Why would I make them feel shitty?
Why would I make them feel like they want to just come here?
Why would I just make them feel shitty?
And that's the irony of the arguments to no platform people is You become normalized as you become more whatever famous because you get more inputs now it isn't just you and 50 people knuckleheads seeing who can be the most offensive and you're like well why do I want to fashion people I you know they're probably somebody's fat reading me right now and maybe I should try to try to think of a way to lift their mood and did it and then of course
You know, things that I didn't take seriously before I realized were a problem.
People would be like, three years ago, you know, anti-Semitism, problem in America.
I'm like, well, people call me an anti-Semite.
I don't even talk about this stuff.
I mean, it's not even my lane.
You know, if you want to call me a misogynist, it's like, well, there's a conversation to be had.
But if you're calling me like an Islamophobe or an anti-Semite, it's like, no, no, we're just not even in the same ballpark here.
But then, you know, like I talk to a lot of my Jewish readers and stuff like, yeah, there is there is a problem.
And then there was a synagogue shooting.
So, you know, clearly there's a problem.
But that's the idea is the more people you talk to, and the more you get out of your own space, and your own little niche, the more you realize, okay, is my behavior really reflecting?
Well, and then as you become more prominent, Then you start to think, well, anything that I do is going to be used against people who have been nice to me.
Well, it's all just so stupid because it's like, I, forgetting that the usual suspects will come after me for even doing this.
It's like, there is probably somebody out there now that I would like to get on the show that simply will not come on the show because I'm doing this right now.
I mean, even yesterday I, uh, I contacted, uh, Paul Budijadjadj.
Yeah.
His PR person DM'd me because I asked him to come on the show and we're looking into it But then the blue checkers again, you know calling me all these awful things and it's like what are you guys all doing?
Like what?
What is it that they're all trying to accomplish by by de-platforming and destroying everybody?
Something interesting happened when Huffington Post had to lay off a bunch of people.
Like, oh, everyone's like, oh my god, hire these great minds or whatever.
And I went to their Twitter accounts.
I'm like, no, no, you're not.
You're not interesting.
You're not.
This is another basic hot take white male patriarchy.
Everybody's evil.
It's like, no, they're fungible.
What they're doing is they're producing a fungible content, which is Outrage directed at a specific group of people, and then people like you, people like Joe Rogan, they're jealous.
They're jealous of those people, and they rather than just say, and again, this is like a mindset issue, rather than just say, yeah, I'm kind of jealous of those people, and maybe I ought to figure out what they're doing.
Maybe I ought to up my own game.
They want to attack and destroy, and largely that's because left-wing politics today, orthodoxy, is largely based on resentment.
How do you think, or why do you think Trump got this?
Like, if we were going back three and a half years ago to that first sit-down, I'm sure I asked you something to that effect at the very nascent version of it.
He was always a liberal before he became a Republican.
If you reform leftists are the left's worst nightmare.
Because psychologically, and I don't know, this is something I haven't heard a good answer for.
Jordan Peterson kind of touches on it.
There's a difference between a left-wing brain and a right-wing brain.
The conservatives, the American Eagles, that sort of campy stuff, and I don't want to be dismissive, but that shit's not me, right?
I would rather look at Jackson Pollock or something.
I think that's real art.
Trump thinks like a leftist, and he's thinking, how can I get under their skin?
Right?
I'm going to get under their skin.
How can I get under their skin?
Because he understood that that was what brought you cultural relevance and cultural significance, is getting under the skin of the other side, which has now become, memetically, it's called owning the libs.
So now you have all these people on the right, oh, lol, owning the libs has become a mean of its own.
And now the left is saying, oh, these people want to own the libs.
And actually, they say that unfairly sometimes.
There's a profile on Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk, and they said all they do is own the libs.
And that was dismissive and untrue.
But memetically, there is a sense of, oh, we're going to rile them up.
And Trump is great at riling people up, because his brain, he has a leftist brain.
It's so interesting, the 2D arguments on a lot of this stuff, because you probably know, I often go to colleges with Candace and Charlie, and yes, are there chants of build the wall, and are they screaming, and all of these things.
There's a lot of that, but you know what there mostly is?
I would say 90%.
It's actually talking about ideas, and we go up there and we talk about the things that we disagree on, but you can't get the media to report on that.
They will only report on it in the 2D way, and then what that does is, the people that were there, or that see video of it, go, oh, well, you guys are just liars, because that's not really what happened there.
And that becomes, so that becomes a crisis of confidence.
And that's why more and more people lose trust in me.
I'll give you a great example that's sincere, is when I read a Daily Beast article where they said Jacob Wall put this kid up to making a false accusation against Mayor Pete, and we have tape, I was like, I think I said Paul before, by the way, it's Pete, obviously.
Yeah, yeah.
And I thought, oh, they're probably just lying, because they've lied about me before.
So when I read an article now, I don't think, oh, this isn't forming my opinion.
I mean, if you care about truth in any way whatsoever, and I don't, you know, like anyone watching this, if you care about truth, like during the Jussie Smollett thing, the entire time I was like, this all just reads so wrong.
But it's not just that the media's lying about it to gin everybody up to start a freakin' race war.
It's that the politicians then are all tweeting that this is an example of white supremacy in America.
Because the other part of the New York Times article, Weiss's New York Times article, is basically that there needs to be just, well, in this case, she was talking about the IDW, however you want to define that.
But generally speaking, do you have sort of boundaries of what gatekeeping should be?
Like, what ideas are so fringe that are so, I mean, people call you a white nationalist.
Do you believe that America should be a white nationalist?
Yeah, that's, as I never even written about, that's bizarre about me is they- With your Persian wife?
Yeah, that's what I would say, like, where does my Persian wife fit into this, right?
I don't even, I don't even talk about this kind of stuff.
And when you look at actual immigrant populations, Indians tend to be more innovative.
There's the idea behind immigration.
We talked about this in 2015, over three, feels like a decade, over three years ago.
I'm all for it.
I'm a believer in we have enough people here making $12 an hour, so we don't need anybody else here who can take $12 an hour jobs.
But if we can get people who are really brilliant from all over the world, let's skim.
I'm a cream skimmer.
I want to bring the smartest people over and bring them all over here and make America a great place for them.
And they try to say, oh, like, well, I live, my revealed preferences are antithetical to the accusations they make.
Now, that said, are any ideas off limits?
And I've always held the belief that no idea is off limits.
You can talk about anything.
It's fundamentally how people treat you.
And there's an example, if there are people, for example, that they want me to do their show and I won't do their show because I just don't like them.
Like, you're just a nasty person.
I don't want to talk to you about anything.
You're a bad person.
It isn't that.
They're too far left for me.
And then, of course, what I thought was funny to you is I always see people tweeting out that you won't have a socialist on your show, but they won't come on your show.
Yeah, but there's any ideas, I think people should be able to talk about any kind of ideas.
Fundamentally, it's how do you treat people?
And I think that we're seeing now something that I predicted I might have.
I think I talked about on your show, actually.
If not, I'll have to rewatch the clip.
But what happens when you put ideas off limits are there's nobody be like, hey, that was a really dumb thing you said.
You're just with 50 other people in Discord server trying to one up each other.
And then you get in a downward spiral, and that's when you have violence, so you shut people down, and then that's when people are starting to get violent, and we're actually, we're seeing that backlash.
Well, that's why I wake up every day and I'm like, oh, of course the left got worse today, of course they got worse today, of course they got worse today, because I kept saying, guys, we can't call everybody racist.
We, meaning me as a lefty, too.
We can't call everybody racist.
You can't say that everybody who wants stricter immigration than you want, the type of thing that Obama ran on, or Bill Clinton used to talk about all the time, You can't say that they're all racists because of that, but every day there's just another version of that.
And it seems like there's just no adult in the room anymore.
But if you can't just say, because you're so afraid of the mob,
eh, no, no, no, no, the baby's out of the womb, nobody supports post-birth abortion.
They can't even say that because they're terrified that the left, oh, so you're saying a woman
doesn't have complete control.
They can't even draw any kind of lines, where you're like, look, man, we all know
eight and a half months, the mother's healthy, there aren't gonna be any kind of complicated...
And the irony of that, too, is that, It's such a marginal issue to lose on.
It's like a hill you're dying on.
Women who are pro-choice don't want to kill their babies.
Now, there's a pro-lifer saying, well, but life begins at conception.
That's a different debate.
But women who are eight and a half months pregnant are not trying to go to the clinic.
But the left is so afraid of freaking out their base of just feral monsters or whatever that they won't even just say what I just said, which is so not controversial.
So they have to make everything sound like it's OK.
And then, as I say all the time, then it's like for me, who's begrudgingly pro-choice, I mean, I still am, even though I've heard far more compelling pro-life arguments than pro-choice arguments at this point.
It makes my position impossible to hold because I know I'm holding this temporary position on quicksand because I know these guys are going off the deep end.
Yeah, Jordan Peterson is a secular religionist, which maybe seems counterintuitive, but not really.
Just the old school virtues.
I think Aristotle is going to come back.
Ryan Holiday popularized the Stoics, right?
So Ryan Holiday has his own, you know, books on Stoicism and the idea of dealing with the world, trying to live virtuously, trying to be a good person.
And you're going to see a return of virtue.
That will absolutely, it's already making a comeback.
I'm less of a piece of shit sometimes because I look around and I'm like, I don't want to, like, I've seen the mirror now.
Okay, this is me.
These people that I don't like, that was me three years ago.
I don't like that.
That isn't what I want to see.
So I'm in my own way living my own virtuous life, which makes me contrite about some things while still having the sense of, but I'm not going to apologize to the people who are doing it.
All right, so let's back up to the censorship stuff, because obviously now, so Alex Jones has been booted from YouTube, then last week or 10 days ago or so, Facebook and what else was it?
Instagram took him, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, a couple others.
First off, do you see any meaningful distinction between any of these people?
So what do we do then that, forgetting the specifics of him, I happen to like Paul a lot, and I think his videos are good, and I think he's funny, and I think he gets some of the culture stuff that you're talking about, not some of it, I think he probably gets all of it, probably gets a lot of it, in a way that I don't even get, let's say.
But these all happen to be right-leaning people.
A lot of lefties can get away with a lot of stuff.
Yeah, well, anybody who doesn't think Facebook is the new Russia is missing the trend.
This is election interference.
And they're going after pro-Trump influencers, people who have cultural cachet, people who can get votes for Trump, and they're getting rid of them before it becomes too hot to handle.
Once we're full in primary season, it'll be too on the nose as election interference.
So it's election interference.
100% that's why they're doing it.
They're banning influential pro-Trump people.
They're silencing them.
And not by any kind of rules.
So here's an example.
I'm not putting anybody on blast.
These are my friends and everything.
I'll just say that I've messaged people before.
Some people you name and some you haven't said, I think this is, you shouldn't say this.
I think this is kind of nasty.
It's not a very nice thing.
Not, it wasn't hate speech, but their Facebook doesn't say, Hey, you know, this is like a nasty thing.
And they're like, OK, here's the 10 things you did wrong.
You're going to come back in a probationary period.
No bullshit.
You better just be, if you feel like you're close to the line, don't even go near the line.
That's what you would do in a functioning, working system that was actually trying to make the world a better place and increase the value of the conversation and not interfere and manipulate the election.
You would just say, look, this is a bad thing you said.
So do you think platforms just cannot exist as they have existed for the last five or ten years, and that they've become too much of a sort of informational behemoths?
There are so many voices on there competing, and then you've got a social justice mentality out of Silicon Valley, that it's all the inequities.
So when Tim Pool has to explain this right to Jack's face on Joe Rogan, it all looks ridiculous, because it is ridiculous.
Well, they have monopolies, and this is something that isn't mentioned enough.
There's a guy, there's like a new upstart rock fan that's trying to explain this.
Well, there's something called Metcalfe's Law, which is there's a formula where the value of the network increases synergistically based on more people you have.
And what YouTube did, and this is why I don't have any sympathy for the other private companies, they can do whatever they want.
No, they can't.
Here's why.
Joe Rogan built YouTube.
PewDiePie built YouTube.
They brought all the people who liked them onto YouTube.
YouTube provided a platform.
Bullshit.
We all remember what YouTube said.
Come on up.
You can say anything.
Bring all your people.
And then they built that network up.
And then once YouTube had the network effect, and networks, Peter Thiel talks about this in Zero to One and his other writings, networks tend towards monopolization.
So, once they have a monopoly now on video, which YouTube has, Facebook and Twitter, they'll have their own respective monopolies, then they say, oh, you gotta go, and then these free market conservatives, well, it's a private company, they can do whatever they want, no it isn't, it's fraud.
They lied to people to get people to put their time and their resources, thousands of hours on their channel, To build that network under Metcalfe's law, and now they're changing the rules, it's civil freedom.
All right, so let's dive into this a little bit more, because you've probably seen my tweets on this, and this is pushing my libertarian side to its end point.
I feel like that's what's happening right now, is that I know right this second, by having you on, or for not even having you on, for any reason, could they pull the plug right this second.
If I had to bet my life right now, have they depressed the views of this livestream?
Yes.
My channel has over a million subscribers.
We're getting 20,000 views on some things.
Are they fucking with us?
Yes.
Is Twitter shadow banning?
Yes.
Has it all gotten worse, oddly, since I had James O'Keefe?
Yes.
I mean, we could do like a list of all of this shit, right?
But putting that aside for a second, my core libertarian belief is that I would prefer that competition solve this.
Why do you think that that's not a sound argument?
A social media company, a tech company, is a natural monopoly.
A power company is a natural monopoly.
Standard Oil is a natural monopoly.
The railway tracks are a natural monopoly.
So you have certain industries that tend towards monopolization.
And if you have a monopoly, you can't have a free market competition, due to the economy scales and the Metcalfe's Law.
Now, the counter to that, but this would be counterfactual, is if five years ago YouTube had said, hey, come onto our platform, We might ban you, just because we don't like you, we don't like what you're saying, or some middle manager doesn't like you.
We might ban you, but come on up and put your videos on here.
Well, then you would have had somebody say, oh no, come on over here.
You would have had a real competition.
So these social media, they all know, I mean, this is zero to one.
These are natural monopolies.
This has been, it was a priori, this is what people thought, and it's been established a posteriori, that they're natural monopolies.
Okay, let's buy your argument just for the sake of this.
So let's say we completely buy that, right?
Well, now what I see happening is I see conservatives saying, where is Trump?
Where is Trump?
The government's got to come in and break it up or they've got to regulate these things or whatever.
Now, I understand this might be a moment.
Where you might want to do this, especially if what you just laid out about 2020 is true.
You might want to do it right now, but would you, Mike Cernovich, want to hand that power over to the government when it's very possible Trump loses, and then you've got Silicon Valley full of postmodern leftists, and then you've got Bernie in the White House, and then what do you have?
Like, when I walk around, I remember when I was at the RNC, there was an MSNBC guy there, I think Chris Hayes is his name, but more people recognized me than him, just from E-Celeb, right?
Yeah.
And they would have been happy.
Let these people scream and rant and rave while we actually govern.
And then they realized that no, they do have real influence.
Now we have to do something about it.
And the big trend now is they're getting rid of the big pro-Trump influencers.
Now they're nudging.
There's a great book that everybody should read called Nudge, and the idea is how can you as a government help people make better choices?
The prototypical example is organ donors.
If you just have people opt in, it's a good thing, societal good, donate organs.
We all agree.
If you ask people, do you want to donate?
Most people say no.
If you just say, do you want to opt out?
Most people say, no, I'll be one.
So that's a nudge.
You're not telling people what to do, you're just nudging them.
That's where the tech trend now is.
So if people Google Dave Rubin, they're going to find the hate pieces.
They're going to find the hate articles.
And they're going to bury anything about you and your channel.
And that's another way that the narrative is being manipulated and the narrative is being influenced.
Okay, well, it's too late now, but if I had a magic wand, then when Trump had a Republican majority in both houses, they would have said, you know what?
Why is it that if somebody libels me on Facebook, I can't sue Facebook?
Facebook says, well, we're a platform, not a publisher, you can't.
No, you want to be publishers now, and you want to... Just to clarify this for people that aren't fully on all this, the idea of the platform versus publisher argument, Yeah, go ahead.
That's because they don't... Well, there is and there isn't.
I mean, I've been part of conspiracies.
Everybody's been part of a conspiracy.
Ryan Hawley's book, Conspiracy.
I wasn't part of that conspiracy, but that was a conspiracy.
Suing Gawker was a conspiracy, an actual conspiracy, orchestrated by Peter Thiel and Mr. A or Mr. X or whatever.
And they took down Gawker.
So the deep state conspiracy is just in terms of there were people that were pro-Trump.
And they saw what Trump did to General Flynn.
They're out.
Peace.
See you, you know, when you leave town.
That was a major leadership failing.
This is a major moral failing of him.
General Flynn had Trump's back when that meant something.
Well, that was hard.
Now everybody, oh, you know, you can, you can grift, you can make all that money off of him or whatever.
Flynn had Trump's back, so I won't forgive that.
And the, the good guys or whatever, the deep state people want to talk about.
So he's, that's absolutely a moral failing, it's a leadership failing, and largely that has to deal with His energy, his masculine energy, is still very shadow.
He isn't that fully integrated, fully self-possessed man who realizes you're a servant leader.
You're President of the United States.
You never heard me say hardly anything bad about Obama.
I still want to this day didn't like his policy.
Obama had a sense outside of himself.
And Trump doesn't have that sense of, you know what, I'm, this is a major responsibility.
Now, the flip side is if Trump felt that way, he might have a nervous breakdown because of the attacks.
I mean, that's a seriously weird and warped psychological situation because it's like, yeah, if he was maybe more evolved, let's say, all the hate would probably get to him in a way that would crush any human being.
Exactly.
He's not, so it offers the defense, which is allowing him to function.
No, I've spent a lot of time thinking about Trump, and even when I think about him, even when I'm criticizing a guy, I smile, there's just this affection where it's like, son of a bitch, that's just who he is, right?
And if he weren't that person, nobody could have withstood the attacks that Trump withstood.
No human being ever, I don't know if in the history of the world, But you'd be crushed.
And every day he just kept showing up.
He doesn't—you know how the presidency ages people?
If, for the people watching this, that are gonna selectively edit it, that no matter what either of us say, gonna do whatever they're gonna do, if you were to try to offer a little out of this mutually shared destruction, what would you want out of them?
What would you wanna see that might get us out of this mess?
I don't think you wanna be suing these guys, and you were explaining some of this stuff with your daughter and your wife before, and you can expand on it here if you want, but I know that's not fun.
So one is, to the really creepy evil people, they're always gonna be creepy and evil, and I'm dealing with them in ways that they, you know, they have no idea.
But the people in the middle, the people who, they're on my beat.
This is what gets me.
Everything I do, they tweet about, they write about, they know what's happening.
Say the fucking right thing.
Just say, you know what?
I don't like Cernovich, he's a scumbag.
This is fucked up.
No more of this bullshit.
Call it your own side.
That would be my message, because if they don't, people are gonna get more and more and more militant.
There's no reason in the world, multiple reporters attend my events, if a Jewish guy gets, and it shouldn't matter that he's Jewish, but I just bring it up to show how complicated it is, a white Antifa guy beats up a Jewish Trump supporter, but the article in The Guardian is angry white men party with Cernovich.
No, no, no, the angry white men beat the fuck out of some Jewish guy.
No, no, no, you're just, you're just liars.
So, the decent people in the middle, Hey, I don't need you to love me.
You can dislike me.
That's fine.
But if you know something's wrong, none of this owes my side.
Don't pretend like you don't know.
Don't pretend like it's not on your beat.
Don't pretend like you can't write about it when you write about everything else that I do or that happens to me.
And likewise, Likewise, I called out, the minute that salute bullshit happened, I was right there, like, who are these people?
That Nazi salute thing?
You know, I was Kukovich, and, you know, K-I-K-E-O, I was, you know, every, I was the victim of anti-Semitic slurs, which shows you what weird world we live in, but I just said, alright, dude, like, Nazi salutes, okay, this wasn't what I thought it was, I thought you guys were just, you know, trying to have different ideas, you're bad people, and the left, Zantifa, this is violence.
So is part of the problem that they, we sort of hit on this earlier, but they can always get away with it.
Like the machine somehow moves to always let them get away with it.
So for example, when Biden put out his video announcing that he was running for president,
it was based on the lie that Trump was saying that there were good people on both sides
of the Charlottesville marches.
And it's very clear right before that nobody shows it, but Trump said, and his language,
look, the way he speaks is weird.
His sentence structure is weird.
He backs up and forwards and reverses around and does all these weird things.
And maybe there'll be a book written on the psychology of why he speaks that way or whatever,
or all his strange intonations and all that.
But he clearly didn't say there were good people on both sides, meaning that the Nazi side was good.
He meant some of the people that didn't want the statue taken down were good, and he condemned the racists and the white Nazis, but they know they can get away with it.
So every few months, the video just goes viral again because CNN people retweeted it and the blue check, and it's like, man.
Here's the way I try to explain to people who don't live in this bizarre world that you live in, and I live in probably in the weeds a little bit even more than you do, which is, imagine, I don't know whoever made this glass company thing, I drink it and a piece of glass goes in my mouth and I report on I'm bleeding.
It'd be like a PR crisis.
Town halls.
What is going on?
Like when Tylenol had contaminated bottles.
Town halls.
Brand trust.
You now have, even Democrats don't trust the media anymore.
This should be treated, if you're in the media and you believe, so like let's just say I'm thinking in terms of a journalist acting in good faith.
And I'm speaking to a journalist acting in good faith.
You don't have any influence anymore because you won't call out your side.
So then when you do attack me or other people or even people who are legitimately bad, nobody's going to believe you.
You'll never take out the Jacob Walls of the world.
Why?
Because even I don't believe the articles I read about him.
I'm like, ah, you know, maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
They're probably just making it up.
I just don't believe it.
And if you're a journalist and you really want to tell the truth and you want to speak truth to power, You're done.
It's over.
You don't have any influence.
And the only power... They don't think about this because they're not philosophical people.
So if we're too far gone on this, because that's sort of where I'm realizing now, it's like, okay, you know, 20, 40 years ago we had ABC, CBS, NBC, they were all basically within a certain prism, one leaned one way, one leaned the other, but it was, you basically as a nation got a certain amount of similar information.
Now we split it off a gajillion different ways.
There's a lot of good out of that, and it's allowed other voices, and I would say I'm included in that.
It's allowed me to do this, so I'm not complaining about it fully, but that the ultimate risk is we will continue to just crumble off into different ways that you are going to be walking down the street, and it'll be basically like everybody that you look at will be living in another digital world.
One is a term people are going to hear more and more about is fourth generation warfare, 4GW, which is just the idea of you have decentralized armies now where the armies aren't in a uniform and you don't know who it is and who isn't, right?
Yeah, and now we're in a world where it's decentralized memetics, where, well, there's nobody really, even Joe Rogan said this, he goes, he said, I used to watch CNN and I don't even trust CNN anymore.
That used to be, you know, that's why they got bad ratings, because they were honest and nuanced and everything like that.
And I think that's probably a bad thing, society's going to fracture.
And then I think, well, I remember we had, and that's the way it was, we went to Vietnam, killed a bunch of people, dumped all this chemicals, Agent Orange on them.
I've been to museums in Vietnam, the deformed faces, and the landmines are still there.
And because of what the US did in Vietnam and flew over Cambodian airspace, the Kramer Rouge rose up, and there's still little children with legs being blown off because there are minefields everywhere.
And we were united.
So we united America.
We got Vietnam War.
We got the war in Iraq based on lies about WMDs.
We had the Cold War scare.
It's a decentralized world where you actually have to gain consensus.
Maybe that's better.
Maybe it's better that you have to say, you know what, you might not like these people, but you can work together on an issue.
You have to have some kind of consensus now rather than a centralized authority figure telling you what to do or what to think.
But it's so interesting because I do see, for whatever frustrations or distance I have with some of the people on the right right now, and we've talked about some of them here, it's like I see these people willing to talk about things, and it's like I don't meet any racists.
Well, I only get invited by conservatives and libertarians and people on the right.
I don't see any racists.
I don't see bigots.
I don't see homophobes.
I don't see misogynists.
Any of these things.
I see something very rich and interesting happening there, and it's not what I ever would have thought because I was only getting information.
Yeah, so we have decentralized network where now you have to have consensus.
And again, that's why the blue check marks get so frustrated and angry.
In their world, they're very important people.
And no, they're not.
Their legitimacy comes from the publications they work on, but they're shitting on their publications so much by just running garbage that people don't even believe them anymore.
So now what do you have to do?
You have to Again, you have to be an adult.
Caitlin Johnstone, she got a bunch of heat because, you know, some of my views are economic populist, which, left-wing.
I believe in a living wage.
I don't know that I believe $15 is the right minimum wage, da-da-da-da.
Some of my ideas would be quite offensive to you, including that I think CEO pay should be tagged to the median worker salary.
I don't think you should have a CEO 300, and I'm, you know... Going far left, man!
Right!
So if you're a lefty, you're like, well, I think Cernovich is kind of a bad guy.
Don't really like him that much.
But that's a good idea.
Why don't we work together on that idea?
Or not.
But those are the conversations people are going to have now, where you can't just come out and say, this is the way it is, or this is the way it was, and people blindly believe you and trust you.
So give me some predictions, because I know people love being in the prediction game.
So you've been sort of critical of Trump here, but I know you have a sort of basic, you sort of like it still, or at least better than the alternatives.
But there's in me I was I'm kind of like you like the first trimester on abortion, you know, I'm a little squishy on that But I'm becoming like just a pro-lifer because you see this Brian Sims guy harassing teenage and just like Frick all these people Let's just sit with that one for a sec.
Is that another perfect example of the double standards?
It's like if that had been a young conservative, big buff conservative politician, state senator, anywhere else doing something reverse so it wasn't at an abortion clinic, the media would have destroyed him and they would have said this is Trump's America, this is the evil and the patriarchy and all of those things and instead did CNN even touch the piece?
And then, even then, you're like, well, I mean, Lauren Southern was in the boat, and I don't think she actually did it, but you could at least... There are things where you can disagree, but you're like, well, I see where you're coming from.
I think you made the wrong choice, but I recognize your reasoning and there's your rule.
And now you realize, no, no, no, they're saying ideas are off limits, you can't talk about certain things.
And not only that, but you radicalize moderate Muslims.
Because they're like, well, fuck it, these people hate me.
You know, at least those people.
Modern Muslims are killed more by the jihadis than any other group of people.
So I see this stuff and I'm just not only subjectively disgusted, but strategically this is not smart.
You want to show people, no, no, we have a release valve.
So what we're doing now is we're creating our own jihadis.
You know, jihadi is a poor word, but They're like, okay, you can't make a living, you can't have a voice, you can't even have a bank account, so you can either go be homeless somewhere or they'll commit suicide or something, or we know what happens.
We see what happens in the Islamic world.
We see what happens when you leave little pockets of people to radicalize.
Yeah, Howard Bloom talks about that in The Lucifer Principle, and there's kind of like a reading list.
The human nature pessimist reading list would be Howard's Bloom, The Lucifer Principle, and then Sapiens, and then, I don't know, a Jordan Peterson podcast or something.
But the idea that there's an inherent kind of evil in all of us, and western civilization and and you know there was this is another thing too i don't like about the people who you know attacking there were islamic civilizations in a syrian culture long before western civilization so the confucian culture is quite beautiful the japanese shinto culture but the idea of civilization had tames people and in a way that's productive and healthy and good but there's always that nastiness inside of all of us the inner chimpanzee
And what's worse is there's no road to reformation.
There's no road to redemption.
What do you do?
Well, Lori Lohman is going to kill herself.
Okay, that's actually not funny.
You know, that's not—that isn't funny at all.
It isn't funny that she's having these problems and these kind of challenges.
And what's worse is there's no road to reformation.
There's no road to redemption.
What do you do?
She's 24.
What are you going to do with somebody like that?
And people should think about that just on a human level, but they should also think about it as a societal level, a systemic level.
Is it good that we're making people who have nothing to lose?
Is that good for the social order?
It's actually quite disastrous.
People take it for granted because they're glib.
Do you think a lot of that is just sort of a function of Western success that we don't know?
I mean, we're roughly the same age.
they're parts of the world, you're just, you know, we're right here, boom, car bomb goes off.
And then the problem everybody's making is you have left-wing populism, which is radical socialism, which has been tried.
We know how that ends.
Empirically, we know how it ends.
And then we have right-wing populism.
That's why when people ask me about my views, I'm like, I'm economic populist.
What does that mean?
I care about the median wage earner.
When I'm at Costco, And I'm walking out and there's a person whose job is to check my receipt.
I'm like, ah, you know, I hope that person is able to pay their bills.
I hope that person is able to maybe have a little bit of leisure time.
One thing AOC said that I liked, and this is why people who sleep on are making a mistake, is there's this sense that as a human being in the richest country in the world, the only comfort she deserves are animalistic.
Her words, she's so good, or whoever is her handler.
And we want people to have a good wage, we want people to have... Now, the libertarians would disagree with you, even though you said you sort of have a lot of libertarian leanings.
They would say, the pure libertarians would say, open the borders, no tariffs.
I mean, that's what I always say when I've had some of these anarcho guys on, and it's like, I like it intellectually, but this is where I would say a classical liberal is just slightly, basically like a more realistic libertarian.
Yeah, like, what are you going to do when they come in and we abide by the non-aggression principle?
Great.
That's not human nature.
What are you going to do when they come in to take your shit?
Well, guess what?
When you give men weapons—this is the problem where, like, libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, it's a very sort of male brain, completely ignorant of history and just human nature and human psychology, where you're like, OK, but if you follow the non-aggression principle and you give men guns, They don't just keep following the non-aggression principle.
All right, so we did some predictions in some way, but if we had to predict, the blue check guy's watching this right now, what are they going to write about this?
I played a little trick on them when I released the trailer for Hoaxed.
I deleted every tweet other than the trailer.
You know what they wrote about?
Cernovich deletes tweets.
Trying to cover his butt.
They didn't write about the trailer.
Why?
Because it looked good.
Because you're like, this is a real production, real quality film.
They never went after Jordan Peterson for being in the film.
I was wrong.
I predicted for sure.
I'm like, poor Jordan.
Because when Jordan did it, he wasn't Jordan fucking Peterson.
He was like, Jordan Peterson.
Hi, how are you?
I was bigger than him at the time, actually.
So he was happy to be it, you know?
And they never went after him for it because the film is so good they don't actually want people watching it.
So this interview, I think, is so powerful that The angry little weird left people, the freaks, the weird Mike, and the people who support my family being harassed.
They'll do all the dunking on Twitter, but no outlet media-ite, maybe gutter stuff like that.
I'll put a little thing here and there.
The Daily Beast, a little gutter thing there.
Daily Beast, by the way, they take money from Qatar.
Isn't that interesting?
Interesting how foreign influence is a real problem.
Mike Cernovich, homophobe.
Guitar, you go to jail for being gay, but we'll take your money.
We'll go to the Doha Forum and fly as first class and everything like this.
But other than the real gutter outlets, it'll be ignored.
And the gutter outlets might ignore it, too, because they don't want people to see the full, unedited conversation.
I mean, just candid.
Like, here's my past.
Here's what I've said.
Here's what I've done.
Don't have any fear confronting it.
That bothers them, because they want to create carcatures.
They're not able to create a caricature, so I think like with Hoax Movie, they'll pretend this never happened.
One of the things he tweeted out Okay, so they ban this guy for parody, even though they say you're allowed to have parody accounts as long as you say it's a parody account.
AOC because some of the things she said are beyond, it's like Poe's Law.
That guy, I'm 99% sure, I don't want to get this wrong, but I think it was the CEO or the editor-in-chief, I think, of Daily Beast.
When they went after me, and one of these, I'm alt-right, whatever it is, they take this quote where I say the alt-right from years ago, when the alt-right was still much more amorphous.
I say the thing about it being, you know, let's say this about the racist, no good.
Then I say this thing about the joke makers and the meme makers.
One, somebody selectively edits it, a random anonymous guy, the editor-in-chief then retweets it, and then I say to him, well, how come you didn't put it in the previous sentence?
There's articles, there's people again on Twitter claiming they have revenge porn of me.
And as long as I'm in good shape, you know, but it's technically a sex crime.
That's sexual harassment, by the way.
This is, again, us, you know, me being glib because I live online so much, though.
Could you imagine if I tweeted out I have a sex tape of Anderson Cooper and I'm gonna post it on Twitter?
How long would I survive Twitter?
30 seconds?
Five minutes?
But they, oh yeah, we have a sex tape, we're gonna post it, here's a picture of Cernovich with his genitals blown out, or blurred out, and we're gonna post this, and here's... No problem.
Not only that, but the Daily Beast, which again, they have taken money from Qatar, They wrote an article saying far right-wing trolls get a dose of their own medicine.
And the article was, ha ha ha, isn't it funny that this is happening to Cernovich's family?
Rolling Stone wrote a piece, oh, isn't it funny that Cernovich's wife is getting death threats?
Because, oh, lol.
So not only—so either they—so they information launder, or they characterize it in ways that's kind of funny.
But they're making a mistake because they admit that these people use bots.
And that's why I'm linking it back to the bot thing.
Because when they write about it, Splinter wrote an article about two people who harass you and they're the same people who harassed my family.
There's an article going, oh, they're using bots to troll the alt-right.
It's like, oh, so in other words, you're admitting that you're using bots.
And that's how they phrase it.
And one of the articles is actually how I found that the AOC was actually roommates with one of the people going after my wife and daughter.
So there's a lot of things in play in that regard.
But yeah, the media admits the far left winger.
They call him weird Twitter or whatever.
They admit the weird left uses bots.
And that's all being overlooked.
Now the problem with Twitter, if we're looking at chess pieces, is do they think I don't talk to people in Congress?
Congressmen talk to me in public, right?
I mean, you can see it.
So all of this stuff that the media is using to say, LOL, isn't it funny,
Cernovich's wife is getting death threats and his daughter is getting death threats.
Ha ha ha, it's good for him.
It's like, you think that I haven't not only sent that to every reporter who says that,
so one day they'll get sued, they'll get gawkered, that'll all turn up in Discovery.
I've sent that to every legal department of Facebook and i'm building that dossier in congress
so they have no idea date Basically these social media companies who think they're getting away with these double standards, let's just take a step back and think that if Mike Cernovich, who's very nice to people now,
He's getting death threats against his wife and child.
You think that he's not doing something about that behind the scenes?
Yeah, I think about every day how I ruined my life by ever becoming a public figure.
And I could just write my books and live a good life and nobody knew who I was.
Before Trump ran, I was in a Parisian cafe just writing, having fun with my wife, walking around looking at Notre Dame before it burned down and everything.
And every day I think I ruined my life by becoming a public figure.
Because just the fundamental indecency of it all is not something that I was prepared for.
I'm prepared for a hit.
But when it's my family being targeted, and the same people who hit me and follow everything I do can't say something about that, that does make you, in a way, it makes you sad.
And the problem with making people like me sad is sometimes I hold my daughter, and I think about the people who are trying to hurt her.
And I think about the people who know what's happening, and they're not saying anything about it.
And I wish that they would do the right thing.
I wish the media would do the right thing, and start policing themselves, and quit pretending like it isn't newsworthy, and quit pretending... Here's a great example through New Knowledge.
The CEO, they talk about disinformation, but he got caught buying Russian bots of people.
And then he goes to the news, and the news says, oh, according to the CEO of New Knowledge, Russian bots are following Roy Moore.
But wait, he bought the bots.
And then Renee, I figure her last name goes on Sam Harris, goes on Joe Rogan.
Russian bots, conspiracy theorists, far right people.
It's like, wait a minute.
What about your CEO, though?
Buying people bots.
So, this idea, this disinformation, there's all these people that write about disinformation, and I always email them at their official work office that everybody knows, and I always see CHR and Legal, just so there's a record.
Because one day they're going to get sued, and then that'll turn up.
Like, well yeah, why didn't you write about these threats?
But if you write about disinformation, why don't you write about disinformation on the left?
How many articles are there about disinformation?
There's disinformation about you, they don't correct it.
And this is, again, it's gonna just further radicalize people, further eliminate public trust, and take society in a bad direction.
Because this is something I was talking to, um, because what people don't realize is, you know, we always say Orthodox Jews are 90% pro-Trump, right?
You just, you don't see people with the kippah and, you know, the Hasidic Jewish community.
So I was, I was taken aside by a very, uh, very kind person.
And he goes, you know, I wish you'd have said something more about the, this is two years ago.
It's like, I wish you'd have said something more about the Nazi people and everything.
And I go, eh, it's not really my job to be the ADL light, you know, plus people have lied about me so I don't even know.
And he goes, OK, he was very compassionate.
I wish that I had realized, yeah, there is a problem with anti-Semitism in America.
There's been shootings now, so that seems like an obvious thing to say.
And the problem, Trump should come out more strongly against it, but then the media will say Trump admits His supporters are anti-Semites, right?
So if you're a journalist and you actually give a fuck and you actually want to make the world a better place, you would give room for people like Trump to say, I didn't realize this was a problem.
It's a fucking problem.
And if you're about that life, you need to get away from me.
And if you could just say, okay, Trump, clear stance against anti-Semitism, if that were the story, then the incentive structure would be to create that.