All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Oct. 13, 2022 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
47:10
20221013_piers-morgan-uncensored-time-up-for-truss
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Justice For Sandy Hook Families 00:14:39
Tonight on Piers Morgan uncensored, Alex Jones is ordered to pay a billion dollars for his vile conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook.
A chilling effect on genuine free speech, as some claim, or in my view, justice served on a hateful whack job.
We'll debate that and talk disinformation with the former director of the CIA.
Kwasi Kwateng says he's going nowhere.
My money is going somewhere and that's out the door, probably followed by Liz Truss, making them both the shortest serving Chancellor PM in history.
Is that the only way to fix Britain's mess?
Kane Clark, former Chancellor and Tory Grandee, will be live in the studio.
Plus, India wants Camilla to ditch a crown jewel, which it says Britain stole.
Is diplomacy more important than ceremony?
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Good evening from London and welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
I believe passionately in free speech.
The clue is in the name of the show, Uncensored.
I believe you have a right to be heard.
Just as importantly, I believe you have a right to hear what other people think, especially if you disagree with them.
Why?
Because unpleasant or radical opinions, even offensive opinions, are what a free democracy is made of.
You might furiously disagree with somebody, but only by hearing their other opinions are you forced to ask yourself why you disagree.
How do you know they're wrong?
How do you know you're right?
Is it just because you've always been told that they're wrong and convinced yourself that you're right?
And who told you they're wrong in the first place?
Opinions belong in the daylight, but they can be challenged, debated, and exposed for what they are.
That is free speech.
But there is a line.
And to me, it's a pretty clear line.
And nobody illustrates better where that line is than the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
People with long memories may remember an encounter I had with him once.
Hitler took the guns.
Stalin took the guns.
Mao took the guns.
Videl Castro took the guns.
Hugo Chavez took the guns.
And I'm here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms.
Yeah, he was crazy back then, about 10 years ago, and he's got crazier ever since.
But he's got malevolently crazy because Alex Jones has made hundreds of millions of dollars by deliberately peddling lies.
Not opinions, just hateful, deliberate lies.
Most disgustingly, he lied about the Sandy Hook school shooting massacre, where 20 young children had their lives taken by Deranged young man, all between six and seven, gunned to their desks with a semi-automatic rifle.
Alex Jones told his followers it was all a government hoax.
He said the grieving families were actors.
Because of his lies, grieving families were harassed, even threatened with death by his fans.
Sandy Hook is a synthetic, completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured.
I couldn't believe it at first.
People just instinctively know that there's a lot of fraud going on.
But it took me about a year with Sandy Hook to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing was fake.
Well, it turns out that the one who was the fraud was him.
Every honestly held opinion deserves to be heard, but what Alex Jones was doing was spewing deliberate, vile lies to make himself rich.
And he was using the families of Sandy Hook, grieving the deaths of their murdered children to make himself rich.
And he didn't care about the impact of his lies on their lives.
He didn't care that their lives themselves became threatened by complete morons who believed the nonsense that he was spewing.
Well, finally, it's caught up with him and families sued Alex Jones.
And as a result, a billion dollars was awarded in damages yesterday, one of the highest defamation payouts in history.
Well, I want to start by talking to the retired professional wrestler and former governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura.
But before I get to him, I'm going to talk to Nicole Hockley, who lost her six-year-old son, Dylan, in the Sandy Cook massacre.
And she joins me now.
Nicole, thank you so much for joining me.
I thought of you very hard yesterday and all the families having covered this appalling atrocity that befell you all when I was at CNN to see at least some justice being served to this vile man, Alex Jones, for perpetrating wicked lies, which compounded your grief.
I guess it was satisfying, although his response, of course, was to be completely insensitive once again.
What was your reaction when you heard that this huge payout of damages was being made against him?
What was your response?
My initial reaction was just to be absolutely overwhelmed when the very first amount of the award against one of the plaintiffs was being mentioned and hearing that first number come out and realizing that this was really a very historic moment and the jury had not only listened to us and really heard us, they were sending a message.
You don't get that kind of award without really saying this is important and this is how we're going to stop this spread of disinformation and have people understand that there are consequences for your actions.
So I was overwhelmed by a verdict that was significantly larger than I could have thought about in my wildest dreams, but it was a message and I think it's being heard.
For people who think this is about free speech and he should be allowed to say what he likes and this is ridiculously over the top payout, I want you to paint a picture of what it's been like for you families from Sandy Hook to be on the receiving end of this continual tirade of lies and the damage it's done to the way that you can conduct your lives yourselves.
You know, that's a good question.
And because we kept so much of this private from the public, I've had a lot of people reaching out over the last few weeks saying, I just didn't know.
I had no idea that it was that bad.
I mean, when you think about for 10 years, and this isn't just something, I mean, he did his first broadcast saying that he thought this was a false flag.
When I was still in the firehouse and I didn't even know if my child was alive or dead yet, he started off within two and a half hours of the shooting and has kept putting out video after video for year after year after year and calling us all crisis actors, calling our children, you know, either that they were never killed or they were never alive in the first place, that we're traitors, that were treasonous and that we're government shills.
It's been very difficult.
It's been easy to turn off some of it, but some of these people have been incredibly dangerous.
And when he says, when he stokes this anger in his base, this fear, and then incites them to action by saying, you know, we need to investigate this.
You need to look into this more, they come at us.
So part of it's just social media comments, which can be damaging.
It's defaming.
It's hurting your reputation.
People, I don't know if I'm walking around who thinks I'm real and who thinks I'm an actress.
It's damaging to my son's memory in terms of his life, his short six-year-old life.
It's damaging to my surviving son because I don't know what he's going to deal with going forward, but it's also scared the living daylights out of me.
I sleep with weapons by my bedside.
I've received death threats.
I've received harassing calls and mail.
I've had people send me pictures of dead children because they say, as a crisis actor, you have no idea what a dead child looks like.
So let me send you this picture so you can see it.
This is stuff that has really not only just been distressing, it's disturbing.
And in terms of security, you know, I'm just a mom.
I'm just trying to look after my surviving son, run my organization, and make some good in the world.
I didn't choose to be part of this.
Alex Jones chose to tell lies knowing that they were lies and continuing to harbor that lie and make it happen for his own profit.
And that's what this trial has been about.
Yeah, I completely agree.
And I think it's utterly disgusting.
It's sickening.
Even as I hear you tell the story of what you've had to endure, the idea that you lose your son and all these other families lost their loved ones, these young kids who were at school and supposedly safe, that you go through that and then your misery and grief is multiplied and compounded by this monster deliberately lying just to make money.
I find, and then imperiling your lives.
I mean, it's just, it's so completely sickening.
Nicole, you rewarded you and your husband Ian $155 million in damages.
He's made it clear he doesn't have the money.
He's not going to pay it.
What is your message to Alex Jones?
This has never been about the money.
This is about accountability.
This is about showing that there's consequences.
And I would hope that Alex Jones learns, A, you lost.
Okay.
That's the most important thing here.
You lost.
Truth is prevailing here and you need to stop willingly spreading false information just so you can peddle beet juice and iodine tablets.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
And to all of his followers, you need to know to stop doing this as well.
Don't just believe what you hear on the Alex Jones show because it's not news.
It's not journalism.
It's not fact-checked.
It's just his wild hypotheses so that you'll send him money.
That's what needs to stop right now.
Nicole, I'm incredibly happy that you had at least a moment yesterday, you and the other families, where you held this person to account.
And he will be held to account for this money, and it will probably bankrupt him.
And that is a good thing.
It will stop him spreading his vile lies.
And I thank you very much for joining me.
Like I say, I remember it very painfully covering Sandy Hook at the time and speaking to you and some of the other families.
It was one of the most unbearable stories I've ever had to cover.
And I can't even imagine what you all went through.
And the fact this guy made it worse, I find repulsive.
So I'm pleased that he's been held to account.
And I thank you for joining me.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Well, let's pick up this debate now with retired professional wrestler and former governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura.
Jesse, great to talk to you.
Hey, good to talk to you, Piers.
It's been a while.
It's been a long time, and it's great to have you.
I mean, when you hear that interview with Nicole Hockley, who lost her young son, it's utterly heartbreaking, but it's also, I find it enraging.
Enraging that someone like Alex Jones, who I knew briefly, you've, I know, known in the past as well, that someone could deliberately peddle such wicked lies purely to make money and knowing that they were lies.
I don't think he believed for a moment any of what he was saying was true.
Well, Piers, you know, he got what he deserved, I think.
Now the question is, can, you know, he truly get what he deserves?
Because, you know, he made light of the whole system, the whole judicial system that convicted him of this.
And he's laughing that they'll never get their money or anything like that.
Now I guess it gets to the second phase.
Can he be truly held accountable or will bankruptcy get him off the hook?
You've always been a big proponent of free speech, as indeed I have.
A lot of debate raging now about where the line gets drawn, who draws it, you know, what this line is.
It's hard.
It's not easy.
When you see a case like this, is this clear-cut to you?
Well, you know, there's a difference between questioning like I question the murder of John F. Kennedy.
And I think I have reason to do so considering the government is still holding on to documents for over 60 years claiming national security.
Well, if it's if the story's true in what they told us, then they shouldn't have to hold on to anything.
It should all be released.
But there's a difference because we all know John F. Kennedy died.
We all know the children at Sandy Hook died.
The difference in my questioning of conspiracies is that I don't deny they didn't happen, which is what Alex Jones tried to do here.
He tried to say Sandy Hook was an action film or something or propaganda, whatever he did, which is totally ridiculous because it did occur.
And so when I question and go into conspiracies myself, I go into one that obviously they've occurred, but sometimes not all the information is being released to us, the public.
I mean, when I interviewed you, I'm going to do that.
I interviewed you at CNN several times, actually.
And on one occasion, you talked about 9-11, and you said my theory of 9-11 is we certainly at best knew it was going to happen.
They allowed it to happen to further their agenda in the Middle East and go these wars.
This is about the U.S. government.
I mean, when you say that, would you be mindful now about the potential impact on families of loved ones who died on 9-11?
No, because the families of 9-11 are asking the same questions I am.
They want to know because released documents now indicate there was quite possibly a great deal of Saudi Arabia playing a role in this.
And the 9-11, I'm with the 9-11 families.
Let's know the absolute truth.
And that's all the 9-11 families are asking for.
It's all I'm asking for.
There's still a lot of unanswered questions, peers.
And you got to remember something.
I spent four years in the Navy underwater demolition team.
I know how to blow things up.
And I know how different explosives work.
And I question 9-11 absolutely.
I question it still today.
I know it occurred.
If I'm challenging you, though, Jesse, I was saying, you don't seriously believe the U.S. government knew this was going to happen or played any part in it, right?
I don't know, but I just know that they have that 9-11 and Kennedy, they have not been forthcoming.
And I'll give you the example.
You had the 9-11 committee, right?
The 9-11 report.
Questioning The 9-11 Narrative 00:04:04
They didn't even mention Building 7.
Half the people in America don't even know that a third building went down that day, that it went down at 5.20 that afternoon and was never struck by an aircraft.
They just explained to that building.
That is just completely untrue.
What?
It's untrue.
That's why people don't know that.
You're saying Building 7 didn't fall to the ground?
Your suggestion that this was some, well, the U.S. government blew up Building 7?
Is that what your claim is?
No.
I'm saying that no explanation was given as to what happened to Building 7.
In fact, the BBC, the BBC had a reporter who was doing a live broadcast back talking about Building 7 had collapsed to the ground.
And the entire time she's doing it, Building 7's still behind her standing because it didn't fall till 5.20.
And on the tape, this says 4.50.
30 minutes before the building fell to the ground, she was already reporting back to you in Britain that it had fallen.
Doesn't that raise a question to you?
Why would somebody cover that up?
Who gains?
I don't know.
You know, you're asking me to take a role and answer questions that need to be investigated.
I have not investigated.
These are just things that I see and have heard that have never been answered.
And building, half the people in America don't even know that a third building went down that day.
Well, we have the perfect person to talk to about this because I'm now going to be joined.
Thank you, Jesse Ventura, for joining me.
We're now being joined by the former director of the CIA, former White House Chief of Staff under President Clinton, Leon Panetta.
Leon, I think you were holding your head in your hand through some of that.
You know, just to clear us up for any viewers who are wondering what on earth that was all about, what is the truth about what Jesse Ventura just said?
Well, having gone after bin Laden and those that were involved in the attack on this country, I think it's pretty clear to me that al-Qaeda and bin Laden were the primary planners of 9-11 and conducted the attack on 9-11.
And with regards to buildings that may or may not have come down, there's no question that the impact of what happened with the trade towers created the kind of dynamic that brought down other buildings as well.
There's no mystery here.
It's the result of the attack on the Twin Towers that resulted in bringing those buildings down.
But the idea which Jesse Ventura was sort of suggesting there that somehow the American government knew that this might happen or had some involvement with the Saudis with it, what is your response to that?
Well, again, there's no question.
It was a national commission that looked at 9-11.
And what it clearly found is that bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were primarily responsible for planning the attack and conducting the attack.
Now, was there a failure of intelligence sources to be able to get all of the information that was out there?
The National Commission basically said because there was a failure to share intelligence and information, we may have missed the fact that they were in fact planning this attack.
Putin's War On Democracy 00:04:20
And that is the responsibility, obviously, of the intelligence agencies that failed to share that kind of information.
But the idea that somehow our federal government was directly involved in this attack is crazy.
Yeah.
Let me turn just to the wider issue.
Following this extraordinary win for the Sandy Hook families against this conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones, of nearly a billion dollars of damages, a historic figure, obviously.
But it does bring into question, doesn't it, this whole fake news disinformation era we now live in and the brutal cynical monetizing of fake news by people like Alex Jones, deliberately putting out very damaging disinformation to line their own pockets to make money.
What do we do about this?
Well, It is a tremendous cause for concern when it comes to the stability of our world and our countries.
Democracies, particularly our democracy, is in many ways being undermined by those that claim the lies that just go to the very core of what our country is all about.
The fact that Donald Trump has basically claimed the big lie and that somehow the election was stolen.
Even as we speak, the January 6th committee is reporting that Trump knew very well that he had lost the election and that nevertheless, he promoted this lie and ultimately it led to the attack on our capital.
The reality is that these kinds of conspiratorial lies are being used.
And what concerns me is that, in fact, there are people that basically believe those lies without asking questions about what is the real truth here.
Look, it really does depend on the institutions of our democracy to respond to this kind of craziness.
And what the court did in the Jones case is essentially hold him accountable for spreading what was clearly a lie, a blatant lie that caused harm.
And so I'm a little bit comforted by the fact that the institutions of our democracy are responding and trying to hold people accountable for trying to present these kinds of blatant lies that harm people.
Look, I believe in free speech.
We all believe in free speech.
There's a case that Oliver Wendell Holmes decided in this country that basically said, yes, you can have free speech, but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
And so clearly you can't use free speech to cause harm.
That's where the line is drawn, and that's where the court drew the line.
Finally, Mr. Vineda, I want to turn to Ukraine, Putin, where we are with this.
We've spoken before at the early stages of this war.
Where do you think we are here?
What's the end game, do you think?
I really do believe that the tide of war has changed here.
You know, we've gone through a number of phases in this war.
The fact was we've had a failed invasion by Russia initially that was stopped by Ukraine and obviously the United States and NATO working together to stop Putin.
We've been through a siege warfare.
Actually, we're still seeing some of that in what Putin is doing in blatantly destroying that country and killing innocent men, women, and children to break the will of the Ukrainian people.
And that hasn't happened.
We've been through a war of attrition, but the Ukrainians have now advanced with a well-planned offensive, have been pushing the Russians out of the east, really capturing, again, almost 1,000 square miles in that area.
So Ukrainians are winning this war, and Putin is losing.
Tax Cuts And Failed Invasions 00:15:03
And as a result, Putin feels cornered.
He's fighting a two-front war.
He's fighting a war against Moscow and the hardliners who are criticizing him for losing this war.
And he's fighting a war in Ukraine.
So Putin is cornered, and that makes him dangerous because when you corner a bully, a bully can be very dangerous.
And I think that's the situation we're facing right now.
Leo Panela, great to talk to you, as always.
Thank you very much indeed.
Good to be with you.
Well, coming next, the PM in this country is having another week from hell.
Every week so far has been a week from hell for Liz Truss.
How much more can she or more to the point the country take?
Plus, man-splaining, man-spreading, toxic masculinity, men.
Is it all over for us as a species?
Former GQ editor Dylan Jones, who created Man of the Year awards.
In fact, I won three of them, and every time I did, I lost the job I won them for.
So I hold him accountable for that as well.
But he'll join me live as well.
Well, welcome back.
They've lost the markets to the public and a rapidly rising number of their own MPs.
Now, it seems like, well, even the King may have had enough of Liz Truss in quasi-quarting.
This is what happened when the King met the new PM yesterday.
Promising Majesty.
Your Majesty.
Great to see you again.
It's a great pleasure.
Oh, dear.
Not the most encouraging, heartwarming exchange we've seen between a monarch and the Prime Minister.
But joining me now is somebody delighted to have on the show, the former Chancellor, Tory Grandee, Ken, now Lord Clerk of Notting.
Welcome to UK and Clark.
Good to be here.
Great to see you with a nice glass of red wine as well.
It's a civilized idea.
I gathered I've set a precedent for the programme.
You have.
You're the first one to be actively.
You provided it.
I didn't bring my own.
It's great to see you, and I really appreciate you coming over.
Without getting too personal about the individuals, what have you made of the last three weeks?
Just from a position of former Chancellor?
Well, I don't think I surprise people by saying, unfortunately, I've never known a new government get off to a more chaotic start.
I mean, it's made a disastrous beginning.
And they've really got to start again.
I mean, you know, this is...
But I say, I say I don't want to get into the individuals.
That's quite right.
I'm still a conservative, but slightly detached one sometimes compared with the past.
But I want them both to succeed.
I mean, in the national interest, we don't want chaotic government.
We actually want them to tackle several really serious crises that they've inherited.
The problem they have, it seems to me, is once you lose the confidence, particularly of the markets in this kind of situation, then things can unravel very quickly.
And they are playing, it seems to me, a form of roulette with the nation's economy.
Well, they plunge into a budget too quickly.
They didn't think it through.
They acted solely on the basis of what Liz had said during her election campaign.
I doubt whether they paused much to take very much advice.
I mean, Rishi Sunak, her opponent in that race, specifically said he said this is what would happen if they did it.
Well, I voted for Rishi, right?
Well, I thought he would have been a much better candidate.
I don't claim to be an expert on market sentiment, which can be extraordinarily odd and unpredictable.
But I think that this was a real danger.
And when I listened to the budget, I thought this was extraordinary.
All they were doing was spending huge amounts of money, which they proposed to print and borrow.
Right, without any indication to us about how they were going to afford any of this.
Well, precisely, because they'd inherited a serious debt situation already.
Our credit was already, you know, strained.
And in fact, where they issue bonds now, foreign creditors often won't buy it.
And the bank prints the money and takes the bonds.
And you can't do that.
They've inherited a dreadful combination, which we haven't had for many, many years, of highly inflationary situation, almost hyperinflation, with a recession going down.
So the bank is working to take money out of the economy and get interest rates down.
They turned up with an enormous pile of debt already that they had to contemplate what to do about.
And they promptly added hundreds of millions of pounds to it.
I mean, to me, I'm not an economist like you.
I've not been chancellor, but to me, it seemed nuts at the time.
I said it on the day they did it.
Well, I was startled as I listened to it.
I was watching it on television.
I'm not in the commons anymore.
And yet, it surprised me, put it mildly.
People have tried to compare Liz Truss as like the new Margaret Thatcher.
But the interesting thing about Thatcher was that when she came in, she didn't actually.
She did the opposite to this.
Jeffrey Howell's 1981 budget was very unpopular because it was so tough.
We had to do that.
Put up taxes.
Yeah, well, we had to get the fiscal situation sorted out before we started on our structural reforms.
You were talking jargon, I'm sorry.
Yeah, it was a very tough and quite unpopular budget that Geoffrey had to introduce.
And if something like today's proposition had been put to Margaret, she would have lectured Quizo, I think, on good housekeeping.
She didn't ignore fiscal discipline.
She didn't just say, well, I promised it when I was on the stump, so I'm going to do it anyway.
Is he, for want of a better phrase, toast, quasi-quarte?
Well, is there any way back for it?
At the moment, we don't know what they're going to do.
All we have is wild rumours.
There are apparently rumours tonight swirling they're going to reverse the corporation tax.
Not a big plank of their mini budget.
I gather that's the current one.
If they have to do that, surely at that stage again for a new chancellor who's done all these things and then reverses.
I've made U-turns in my very long political career.
Anything quite like this?
Nothing quite like this, and not, I don't think, when I was Chancellor.
But I think I would say that.
If you get up and say, I'm sorry, I'm making, you know, I did this once in the Commons.
I'm making a U-turn on something.
I'm making a U-turn.
We got it wrong, and we're going away to think again.
And it calmed things down.
I think their fate now, and the fate of the rest of us, depends on what they now do.
They can't come back, talk to each other, and say, now, after the last 24 hours, they're going to do nothing.
They were right all along and they're carrying on.
And if you're going to do a U-turn, do it properly.
You can't do it.
We've done one already.
Should they just start again?
I mean, it's the only way out to say.
Start again.
You can't do little bits.
Scrap the whole mini budget.
Otherwise, they'll be doing little bits of U-turns every few days.
So you would literally scrap the entire thing and start again.
Well, I suppose.
Just pretend you had a vote.
I'd just say the tax cuts are off, and they're the tax cuts we wish to make when circumstances allow us to do so.
The fuel price thing, you have to give some people help with fuel prices, but it's the poor and the less well-paid who need their help.
There should have done some scheme where Bayou did actually cut fuel prices and hold them.
They haven't cut them, but they've frozen them for people who consume below a certain amount of energy and left the rest of us to grumble about fuel taxes and blame Vladimir Prussia.
Would you raise the benefits in line with inflation?
Yes, I think in the present.
We have too much poverty in the country and we are going to have a very hard winter.
And the one thing even the most highly paid person in the country probably doesn't want is to see more of our population drifting into destitution and abject poverty.
So, yes, that was an absurd thing to float.
If you were a betting man.
Are you a betting man, Ken?
I used to be.
No, about the only very few bad habits.
I've given up, really.
With your old betting hat on, would you put good money on Kwa Teng surviving the month and Liz Truss surviving till Christmas?
Well, I wouldn't bet on it, but as I said, I want them to sort it out.
But it entirely depends on whether they learn the lesson, start again, say they're making changes to restore or get some stability into the markets, just calm it down for a minute.
Liz Truss would be a bit more.
And if you're going to go and do a U-turn, do a proper U-turn.
If you were Liz Truss, would you sack Gwasi Guatemalg now?
No.
Really?
Well, again, the politics, the politics of the budget were all wrong.
The cutting the top rate of tax wasn't really the financial problem, but that was a bizarre thing to do when the rest of the country was facing hardship.
Sack Kwasi, people would immediately say he's being made a scapegoat.
Absolutely being made a scapegoat.
And I don't think it would rebound to her credit very rapidly.
It's better to better to actually sack the mini budget.
Start the mini budget again.
And we'll see if changes of personnel can be kept to the minimum.
I have no objection personally to either of these people.
Start again.
And as I said when I started, learn the lesson.
Just don't plunge into things like this anymore.
Do study a bit more and take some advice on this simplistic rhetoric that cutting tax for wealthy people boosts growth and pays for itself.
That's all complete nonsense, isn't it?
Yes.
Thank you.
Do you know what, Ken?
It's great to have my own views validated by a man of your expertise.
I thought you invited people on to do that.
Of course.
How is our wine, by the way?
It's not bad.
Ken Clark, great to see you.
Thank you very much for coming in.
Pleasure, nice.
Really appreciate it.
Well, coming up next, called Britannia, Park Life, things are going to get better.
That was a glorious 90s.
God, how I miss them.
But how wrong they were.
Former GQ editor Dylan Jones has a great book out about the 90s.
He's on next.
Plus, could Camilla wear the controversial colonial diamond?
We'll debate that as well.
It's very difficult to understand how demoralized people are.
And certainly many young men are in that category.
And you get these casual insults, these incels.
What does it mean?
It's like, well, these men, they don't know how to make themselves attractive to women who are very picky.
And good for them.
Women, like, be picky.
That's your gift, man.
Well, welcome back.
That interview with Dr. Jordan Peterson has now racked up 7 million views.
The whole interview on YouTube.
So you can see the whole thing here again tomorrow night.
He made some serious points about everything masculine being branded toxic these days.
A far cry from those days of unparalleled hedonism in the 90s, a time when many people thought they too deserved to live the rock and roll lifestyle.
I know I tried.
Blur, Oasis, the Spice Girls, Tony Blair, Kate Moss, Bedelin Skinner.
What a time it was to be a man and to be alive.
But was that the last great time to be a man and be alive?
Well, who better to ask than former GQ editor Dylan Jones, who joins it on some IPAC tonight, lawyer Paul LaRone, Adrian and Talk TV Isabel Oshawa.
Well, first of all, Dylan, great to see you.
Great to see you.
You were the one, in my opinion, the greatest magazine editor of them all that this country's seen.
You were also the man who gave me three of your Men of the Year awards.
One for my work at the Daily Mirror, opposing the Iraq war, one for my work at CNN, taking on the NRA over guns, and one at Good Morning Britain, haranguing politicians over the pandemic.
And the uniquely bizarre thing about it was within three months of every one of those three awards, I lost the job that I got it for.
So thank you, Dylan Jones, for being the number one curse of my entire career.
But great to see you.
Men.
When I think back to the 90s, the giddy days before social media, the internet, even email, technology, life was so much simpler.
You could go out and behave like a toxic man and nobody cared.
Now what's happened?
Can I first say that the only reason I actually left my job was to spare your blushes so you didn't get fired again, okay?
I think that's it's it's true to a certain extent.
I mean, I think I spent my last book trying to redeem the 80s and I'm trying to redeem the 90s this time because I think it gets a bad rep because it was an incredibly culturally rich time.
But I think it was, I don't think it was just great for men.
I think it was a culturally emancipating period for men and women.
Are men basically now being traduced into being pathetic?
No, and I think as anything, it's about balance.
And I think there's been a period in the last five years or so where masculinity has been toxic and there has been a kind of, it's been redressed and in part for good reason.
But I think you can see the pendulum beginning to swing.
All right.
Paul, my view is men are being traduced.
We're being parked into a box where everything masculine that people used to look up to and respect and like about men is now being used as a stick to beat us.
Everything is toxic if you behave like a man.
I'm confused about this.
I'm confused.
Because let me just remind everybody, in case we've forgotten this, you still dominate in practically every single field across this planet, bar home care or child rearing.
So let's not create a myth.
A witch age group though, because you probably find that that is only the case amongst older men because things are changing massively, aren't they?
If you look faster.
If you actually look at the game.
We saw what happened during COVID.
We reverted back to old stereotypes, didn't we?
Even though the women were working at home with the men, who did the majority of the childcare?
Women did.
And when you talk about, when you talk about men and emasculating men, we're not emasculating men by teaching them to be vulnerable.
We're not emasculating men.
I understand.
Men aren't blubbing every two minutes.
There's something emotionally wrong with them.
That somehow the stiff upper lip is now a terrible thing.
You're not allowed to actually have a stiff upper lip because it's shameful to not emote all the time.
I do find that all a little bit like, come on, really?
Am I going to start blubbing every 10 minutes just to prove that I'm a real man?
We know that toxicity.
Men Learning Vulnerability 00:03:52
They're there.
They're there.
Can you not actually touch me in the workplace?
I'll have you arrested by HR.
Now, now, dear, now, now.
Can't you?
Can you not tell me, dear?
You see how this works.
We know that on a serious note, we know what the stats tell us about, for example, the suicide rate in men.
Yeah, and that's serious.
We know that.
So Fair Grills wrote a really good piece today, actually, Dylan.
A really good piece of Times based on his new book about the shocking epidemic of anxiety amongst young men.
And I've seen this with my own sons from time to time and a lot of their friends suffering real anxiety.
And his theory, and I agree with it, is they're exposed to so much stuff now, sensory overload, whether it's constant social media, shocking imagery from wars and all the rest of it, which we were spared it when we were young.
We've seen most of this stuff.
Pornography, all these things.
It's constant, bombarding, bombarding.
And I think it's really getting to them.
But conversely, I think we are in a period now where because men have been encouraged to be more open about their feelings and to be more honest about being vulnerable, that they can be more open and they can talk to people.
So I think it works in another way too.
So I think that in many ways, men have benefited.
I mean, I've had great conversations with you at GQ Christmas parties, but only after about 16 bottles of wine.
That's the point I'm going to say.
Which would remain my go-to for emotional outpouring.
That's the point I was exactly going to make.
Who are these men who are being told they can talk?
Who are these men who have been told they're vulnerable?
They aren't allowed to do that.
You're not going to find a man on the street doing that.
What you're going to do is you're going to go on the internet and you're going to find a group.
You're going to find an activist male group.
And that's where you're going to spout and that's where you're going to feel heard.
And that's toxic, Piers.
Well, let's talk about Faster than look.
You make some points.
I don't agree with most of them, but you make them.
It's good of you to make them.
Very good of you to make them.
I'll just pat him on the head if I could reach.
Fast on the Cannonball, 1995 and all that.
1995 was actually the year I took over the Daily Mirror.
And I remember that I wrote a book of diaries about that decade.
It was a spectacularly entertaining decade and dramatic with all the news and the people and Princess Diana and Blair and all this kind of thing, wasn't it?
It's a uniquely special decade.
I think one of the most important things was that it was the last analogue decade.
And in this country, I think people felt that they had a kind of sense of emancipation and they could behave badly without having a smartphone shoved in their face.
And there was it, which felt like a kind of level playing field.
And it was an incredibly intoxicating period.
But the fact that it was the last analogue decade and there was this sort of rush towards the end of the century, I think, played into the cultural diversity.
My only problem with it is if I turn to the index, there's a lot of mentions of me in the index.
Farting.
But on the back, you've clearly drawn up your main stars of the 90s.
It won't be funny, but there's no Morgan here, but there is Alistair Campbell, Gary Lineker, Matthew Freud.
I mean, where am I here?
You've obviously got the proof copy, Piers.
You are actually on the final one.
I'm sure you are.
It's a fantastic book.
I love the stuff you do on these decades.
And this was one of my all-time favourites, not least because I actually caught him my wife at one of your parties in the 90s at GQ.
So thank you.
Pleasure.
It's about the only thing you did for me, which enhanced my life.
It's a great book, Dylan.
Great to see you.
Fast and a Cannibal, 1995 and all that.
Thank you very much.
You're going.
You're staying.
We're going to pitch you against your own partner.
Oh, that happens all the time in our home.
We might just talk about intimate stuff just to get everyone going.
Well, next tonight, India wants Camilla to ditch a crown jewel.
It says Britain stole.
Is diplomacy more important than ceremony?
We'll be discussing that with Isabel and her other half-rich ties.
And they disagree.
Crown Jewels And Royal Drama 00:05:07
We could be watching the first domestic dispute unfurl on national television.
That doesn't keep you nothing.
Start spreading the news.
Piers is taking the show to New York City with big guests in the big apple.
Heavyweight champion Mike Tyson.
The most controversial man in American news, Tucker Carlson.
And the man who tried to kill the president, John Hinkley Jr., and many more.
Join Piers Morgan uncensored in New York City.
Going to be a big week in New York next week, having the show from there.
But there's breaking news tonight from America.
Former President Donald Trump will be ordered to give evidence under oath over U.S. Capitol riots on January the 6th.
So that will be a fascinating development.
It has been subpoenaed to give testimony.
Well, Talk TV's Richard Tys has joined my pack of one.
Isabel, a pack he knows well, because you are a couple.
And you're at loggerheads over a...
I've got to bring in a little crown here.
It's very rare.
You're at loggerheads over a crown.
I can't imagine much you ever agree about you two, but it's quite interesting.
It's about the Koei Knoor, which is going to be part of the great crown jewels, I guess, isn't it?
Of the coronation.
And the debate really is whether we should be giving this back.
Which I think is a ridiculous.
What's your view?
Well, I think it's a ridiculous suggestion.
If you actually look into what this is made up of, this crown, absolutely fantastic.
This is not the real one, by the way.
Sadly, sadly.
This goes to the winner of the debate.
Thousands of jewels on it, almost all of which have probably got some kind of questionable heritage.
I mean, how many of the diamonds are blood diamonds?
How many of the jewels can be traced back?
I mean, there's a jewel in there.
It's called the Black Prince Ruby, which is traced back to some battle in Granada.
I mean, are we going to now give that one back because it's got blood all over it?
But this is actually all about diplomacy.
Essentially, does the Queen Consort wear this crown at the coronation?
The Mikamilla.
Exactly.
And the point is that the whole purpose of the royal family is to be diplomatic, to sell the UK across the world.
You don't want to create a great row with a fantastic, growing nation like India.
And the truth is about this particular diamond, the Kohenoor diamond, it was obtained by the East Indian Company under very questionable circumstances.
It wasn't a gift, yes.
It was reparations.
It was a gift.
It was reparations for war deft in 1840.
What do you do with it?
I actually, no, we're not going to pick it out, but I just think it's a bit unnecessary to walk.
Why would you do that?
I just don't think the Queen Consort should wear it at the event.
So she doesn't wear the crown or she takes the diamond out.
One suggestion I think is take it out, replace it with a replica and put it back.
So it's fake.
It's very sensitive to that.
What happens if they say it to diplomatic institutions?
Well, because I think Isabel's right, because actually once you start taking some jewels out, you'll suddenly find there's a dodgy history about it.
One of the greatest members of the Commonwealth, there's no need to unnecessarily create a row.
So it's okay to have a row with the other countries.
And by the way, also in Afghanistan.
The role of the royal family is to smooth over when politicians make a huge difference.
When did you go so woke?
This is really lovely.
I've been accused of it.
Richard Tice woke.
I've been accused of many worse things in my life.
I mean, Isabelle, I mean, if he has genuinely gone woke, is that really the beginning of the end of the relationship?
I'm not sure that you could be with a woke man.
She's properly annoyed.
She doesn't mean it.
I mean, obviously.
She does mean it.
Obviously, I'm not sure.
You're kind of a fake crown at the coronation.
That's absolutely.
It's kind of a royal family upsetting a member, a main member of the Commonwealth.
What happens if they then literally say, right, we're going to go over every jewel that is one of the crown jewels.
Any dodgy history, they've all got to give it back.
I'm not saying give it back.
What I'm saying is don't unnecessarily wind people up by wearing it, by rubbing people's noses in it.
I'm saying, look, just be sensitive.
That's the role of the royal family is to smooth over to the market.
What are they going to wear instead?
Replace it with something else.
But you're going to find that every element of whatever the replacement is has also got some question mark about it.
You know, gold from some dodgy mine and on and on it goes.
I think the biggest question mark tonight is the unthinkable.
Has Richard Tice gone woke?
Has he gone nuts?
Honestly.
When Richard Tice goes woke, you know the world has literally taken leave of its senses.
And I'm afraid I'm awarding this crown to your other half.
I'm going to go to the next one.
You're not going to place it on her head, on Isabel's head.
You've got to get on with it.
You've got about five seconds.
There we go.
I'm going to wear it, but like.
Actually, you look very good, is it?
I think it's very heavy.
She'd be a great queen consort.
Thank you very much to both of you.
That's it for me.
Keep it uncensored.
Good night.
See you in New York.
Next
Export Selection