'Burning EVERYTHING Down!' Tim Pool, Milo Yiannopoulos & Steven Crowder Talk Fuentes, Candace & More
Piers Morgan is joined by a formidable trio of right wing commentators in the form of Tim Pool, Milo Yiannopoulos and Steven Crowder. Pool discusses his recent tirade against Candace Owens and insists he’s not lying about an attacker opening fire at his house. Then, Yiannopoulos gives his insight into Nick Fuentes and Kanye 'Ye' West. Are we going to get round three between the rapper and Piers? Then, Crowder joins to dissect Piers’ interview with Nick Fuentes, drawing comparisons between his own. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Oxford Natural: To watch their full stories, scan the QR code on your screen or visit https://oxfordnatural.com/piers/ to get 70% off your first order when you use code PIERS. ExpressVPN: Right now you can get an extra four months of ExpressVPN for free. Just scan the QR code on the screen, or go to https://ExpressVPN.com/PIERS and get four extra months for free. Angel Studios: Uncover the truth behind COVID-19 in Thank You, Dr. Fauci—stream now and join the Angel Guild at https://Angel.com/PIERS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Monetizing Conspiracy Theories00:12:42
Stephen Crowder, who wrote on our YouTube channel, How to Not Conduct an Interview 101.
This is what legacy media is done.
You can't compete.
Look, you're still following the same format.
And so there, accusing someone young of being racist is a win.
You know, we had Milo Yiannopoulos on, which generated quite a bit of controversy, and I had people criticizing me for hosting him.
Nick is a kind of chameleonic character.
I couldn't tell you an opinion aside from hating Jews that if he has on Tuesday, he will absolutely for sure still have on Thursday.
Call me what you want, go down that rabbit hole, whatever.
Completely missed the mark.
For me.
The most damaging thing done, of course, was the murder of Charlie Kirk.
And now the second most damaging thing we're looking at is Candace Owens burning down everything he built.
Charlie Kirk's friends and followers were united in grief and horror by his murder, but in the months that have followed, that unity has collapsed into a bruising and incessant battle over what they stand for and why.
It's Israel v. Qatar, MAGA v. Migger, Candace v. Crowder, Tucker v. Shapiro, Grifters v. Groupers, and on and on it goes.
One major flashpoint has been the conspiracies about Charlie Kirk's killer and allegations about Turning Point USA itself, which Charlie's widow, Erica, responded to earlier this week.
Come after me, call me names, I don't care.
Call me what you want, go down that rabbit hole, whatever.
But when you go after my family, my Turning Point USA family, my Charlie Kirk show family, when you go after the people that I love, and you're making hundreds and thousands of dollars every single episode going after the people that I love because somehow they're in on this, no.
Well, one of the influential people with very strong views on this matter, among others, is Tim Poole, the CEO of Tim Cast Media, who joins me now.
Tim, welcome back to Uncensored.
We're going to come to a really appalling incident that happened at your home.
You reported this yourself in a few moments.
But first of all, what is going on here with Candace Owens and Erica Kirk?
It's causing a lot of consternation to a lot of people.
You finally, it looked like to me, had enough and went pretty nuclear about this.
Why does it matter to you so much to do this?
Well, the simple answer is that there was a coalition that was built by many, many people with this coalition had many different political views, but it largely coalesced around a populist pro-America movement.
I myself grew up very liberal, very Democrat, and like many others, found ourselves more likely to vote Republican because we saw the Democratic Party as drifting away.
One of the most powerful voices in uniting all of these forces was Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA.
I don't completely agree with everything Charlie said, nor Turning Point USA, but Charlie invited me and many others to debate those ideas.
Even Jenk Uger of the Young Turks was invited to come and speak at Amfest because Charlie understood only when we come together and have these conversations can we actually make this country better.
Well, he was murdered and it puts all of this coalition building in jeopardy and this movement to try and help this country with not one singular political ideology, but many that overlap.
And the most damaging thing done, of course, was the murder of Charlie Kirk.
And now the second most damaging thing we're looking at is Candace Owens burning down everything he built and now having the gall to go after his grieving widow and his children indirectly threatening their livelihoods, what Charlie built.
It's a bridge too far.
She's said many things that were increasingly, let's just call it unhinged.
And then finally, one day she said, pull your donations from this Godforsaken organization with a direct implication in her post saying that Charlie Kirk was betrayed by Turning Point USA, even saying in one clip that his friends would have had to have signed off on his murder.
It seems like there is no depth too deep and no bridge too far for her to benefit her career and her show.
She would even go after those who love Charlie the most.
And I have no problem.
with people questioning the official government narrative or what the FBI thinks, but claiming there's Egyptian planes flying around in Utah time, which she was incorrect about, claiming that these planes are landing at airports or black SUVs are pulling into federal buildings where it just so happens her lawyers also work.
It has just come to the realm of nonsense.
The U.S. military, she claims, is now involved in his murder.
She has turned the very tragic murder of Charlie Kirk, and she has turned this political movement into a reality drama true crime show where she treats us all like characters in a fictional show.
And, you know, I think it's just gone too far.
You know, I'm due to have her on next week on Uncensored.
I've interviewed her numerous times over the years and, you know, get on with her perfectly well.
But I had a big set too with her about the Brigitte Macron thing where I genuinely felt that she just completely concocted this whole narrative that Brigitte Macron was a man and then built a whole kind of conspiracy theory story around it and was doing it purely for attention, clicks and money.
And it ended up with us having a $300,000 bet to charity.
My bet being that Brigitte Macron, who mothered three children, is a woman.
But even if it's proven, because of course the Macrons are now suing her, even if they win, it seems to me that Candace has got herself into a place now with her surging following that even if the Macrons win the case and they prove that Brigitte Macron is a woman, which she is, Candace will just claim another conspiracy theory.
She'll probably say it wasn't Brigitte Macron who took the sex test or whatever it is they do to establish the truth and so on.
In other words, there's almost no way to turn these taps off, right?
If you're intent on monetizing conspiracy theories, particularly if you have concocted them, and I'm going to ask her directly on our next interviewer, are you just making this stuff up, right?
Because that's what many people think.
It's very hard to see how you stop it in the modern world.
I completely agree.
And, you know, as you mentioned at the beginning of this interview, the shooting that took place at my property.
And this is not to shift on to me, but this makes a good example of what her audience is looking for.
And what happened?
So just explain to people who don't know what happened to you.
So it was late Friday into Saturday morning.
So this is between midnight and 1 a.m. A vehicle slowly approached our property here at Tim Cast and opened fire.
It appears to have been driving just below this relatively low the speed limit.
It slowly comes in line with one of our buildings, fires a shot, speeds up, lines itself up with our studio, fires two more shots.
This took place between midnight and 1 a.m. Saturday morning.
Our security company, our security guards immediately registered them as gunshots, called the local sheriff, the police.
They came out, cleared the incident, took a report and left.
I learned about this at the time, but not entirely clear what had exactly happened.
The next day, we reviewed security footage and, oh yeah, this vehicle pulled up.
It fired these shots.
We're pretty flustered.
We're actually going to be leaving this location because even with security, a fence, a perimeter, these things are getting out of hand.
Now, this happened.
It's terrifying.
Following this, Candace has been apparently accusing me of fabricating the whole thing.
And a man on the internet, some random guy calls the wrong police department who says, we have no idea what you're talking about.
It then goes viral among these people who follow Candace that the police said no such event happened and they have no idea what Tim Poole is talking about.
And they say that proves it.
However, journalist Cameron Higbee then contacted the correct department who said, yes, we have this police report on file.
This happened.
We came out weekly, et cetera.
And then they said, Cam is now lying.
So even when he shows the phone call where they say, yep, this actually happened, they say he's lying.
Now we have TMZ confirming the police report in question, and they're still saying I'm lying.
So a random guy calling the wrong police department proves I lied.
And an actual statement from the police saying, yes, I filed this police, our security company filed this report, and another journalist verifying it, two journalists, three actually, that's never enough for them.
So we did for on the uncensored portion of the show last night, play some of the audio of the shooting.
But the reason we can't release the footage is that it shows the layout of our property, the location of our security implementations, potentially personnel, and that would compromise our already compromised security.
So what I've said is perhaps once we are officially out of here, which may be in about a week or so, then upon reviewing it with security, we will release that footage.
But we have already released audio for those.
Her audience doesn't care.
They want to believe the drama reality that Israel is paying everybody, that I'm secretly funded by Insert Random Deep State Organization, because we are characters in a drama she is producing, a reality TV show, a whodunit.
And stay tuned for the next episode to see what comes next.
Instagram teen accounts default teens into automatic protections for who can contact them and the content they can see.
Explore teen accounts and all of our ongoing work to protect teens online at Instagram.com slash teen accounts.
I mean, it's, I don't listen, until I talk to her myself, I'll hold my fire about the credibility of any of the stuff she's coming out with at the moment.
I certainly have no reason to disbelieve you.
I messaged you on X when I read what had happened because I thought it was appalling, particularly appalling in light of what happened to Charlie Kirk.
You know, if this carries on, if public figures in this space of talking about politics and issues in the news and so on become legitimate targets in people's eyes for assassination, then it's hard to think of a worse suppression of free speech and democratic society.
What do you think is happening here?
I think people are being driven insane by the internet.
I think that, you know, if you take a look at YouTube, the question is, why has YouTube announced they were banning flat earthers, not necessarily banning, but they were going to suppress this kind of conspiracy content that claims there's an ice wall surrounding the intercontinents or whatever.
There's a flat earth.
They're going to suppress climate denial and all of these things.
And there's a question over where that line of free speech is and when you should be allowed to talk about conspiracies, but they banned Alex Jones.
They banned Nick Fuentes.
And one could make the argument that these individuals may have been more hateful and that was why.
The question becomes, why is Candace Owens with all of her theories on the front page propped up promoted to many individuals, despite her saying things like, she's not a flat earther or a round earther.
She's left the cult of science, saying things like Bridget McCrone is a man.
These things are outlandish, but for some reason, YouTube and many other platforms seem to be completely okay with what she's doing, not okay with what others are doing.
I think it's bringing people to a state of paranoid delusions.
We had a show on my Culture War podcast with some psychologists and psychiatrists, and I asked them: we understand that there could be mental illnesses, that someone's brain is not firing properly, and thus they're going to believe things or see things that aren't there.
But what do you call it when someone comes to believe a false version of reality because they were convinced of it by writings, literature, movies, or otherwise?
And they said that's just still paranoid delusions.
There are now people that believe the French legionnaires, the French Foreign Legion, Israel, and the U.S. military have a hit squad out and they're going to take out prominent personalities.
And it's just become a paranoid, delusional state.
Egyptian planes around every corner.
This is driving people to a state of violence.
And it's not just this.
There's the general political disagreement and hyper-polarization, but this is a very serious component of it.
I don't know if there's an answer.
I'm not saying anyone should be censored or banned.
Security Costs and Violence00:04:59
I think the answer is sunlight is the best disinfectant.
And more and more people are coming out and criticizing the absurdities of what Candace O has been saying.
And I think that actually may end up being the best disinfectant.
Tim, you've said on your podcast, Tim Cast, the attacks on you, you know, actual shooting that occurred, because of the extra security costs you're having to take on just to protect yourself and your family and your employees, that this could end your business.
So I didn't say that it would end the full business outright.
We have several shows.
We have other shows that are not hosted by myself.
The issue is that to host a show where we bring people in every day, we give our address four or five times to various assistants and people makes it relatively easy for people to figure out where we are.
And then you have the general security costs of keeping bad people out.
We've had run-ins with creepos.
We've had stalkers.
A man approached the property once saying he was sent by God to speak to me.
And we have to pay men to come out here with guns and make sure these people don't get in.
Now we have extra added costs following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which means as a normal media business, we have advertisements, we have sponsors, we have paying members, and we do very, very well, even with our general security costs.
Now we have to reassess: can we do the show here if they're opening fire on us?
How do we secure against things like drive-by shootings?
And there's actually no way you can unless you restructure where you're doing work out of.
One recommendation was a penthouse in, say, you know, somewhere in Florida or something like that, because then no one can get in there.
No one can actually shoot at you.
The issue now is following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the credible death threats that we have received, we are looking at a new artificial cost to do business, and that is high-profile security at our location.
This can cost upwards of $2 to $6 million per year, depending on how extensive.
I mean, I believe you already know this.
I imagine you deal with it similarly.
And it was reported that Barry Weiss has to spend, what is it, $10,000 per day for her bodyguards.
As a media business, it's totally fine.
We can handle the costs of cameras and staff and doing the show, and we all do fairly well.
But now you add on the need for 24-7 bodyguards and multiple bodyguards.
And that's money we don't have.
So this means that Timcast IRL, our nightly show with guests who physically enter the property, we may have to reassess and restructure.
That could mean we can't afford to do business this way.
My family can't afford this.
And especially with the increase in political violence going into a midterm year, we have to reassess the most appropriate way for me to do shows, which means maybe I go into more of a solo slot like I do in my mornings, and we don't do shows that are physical.
That's a possibility.
We're also having emergency meetings with our partners to figure out a way to, we're looking at economies of scale.
Where can we bring in all the personnel to a single location so the cost of security is spread out among 10 people instead of one person, and then we can continue to work.
So hopefully it doesn't come to any immediate termination or suspension of Timcast IRL, but that may be the case.
We can't handle death threats that turn into physical manifestations, actual shots fired at our property.
No, it's horrific.
Absolutely horrific.
And it shouldn't be happening.
And like you say, this has real-time consequences for people in terms of protection and security and all the rest of it.
And not just for you, for your guests, everybody involved.
It's outrageous.
And for people to trivialize that or doubt it or whatever it may be just compounds the problem, right?
And it just fuels what I think is an increasingly big problem in America of just deliberate disinformation that's being spewed out for money.
I would encourage doubt of all people, of me or of anybody else.
The issue is it's not actually doubt.
It is zealotry.
Right.
I mean, Andy Know, great journalist, got a press release from the Sheriff's Department where they confirmed that our security called in the reports of shots fired, that a gray sedan had been circling the property.
In all fairness, they said that we didn't turn over surveillance footage.
They couldn't substantiate the claims, but the report did happen.
We played the audio on our show last night.
We don't want to release the footage because it compromises the location of our cameras, security personnel.
It shows the layout of the property, which would dramatically worsen an already bad situation.
But it's not about doubt.
It's about there's no amount of evidence that they are willing to accept because it is cult-like zealotry among people who don't want to believe this is reality.
Tim, I just want to ask you, just before I let you go, just because you've had an experience with this, I just interviewed Nick Fuentes and it blew up massively online.
I'm not going to ask you about the interview.
I just want to ask you one question because you interviewed him with Yay and they walked out and so on.
Platform Controversies Explained00:02:12
This debate about whether you should platform, whether I should platform people like Fuentes.
What do you think about that?
You know, we had Milo Yiannopoulos on, which generated quite a bit of controversy and I had people criticizing me for hosting him.
I think it's sunlight being the best disinfectant.
We have to be robust and prepare in our ideas and be prepared for these debates.
I actually think you did good work that you've done in hosting Nick Fuentes.
I think people should interview and challenge him.
And I know that you're facing, you know, I don't know what the right word is for it, but people are certainly coming after you now in a negative way because you are willing to do so.
I think Stephen Crowder did a good job.
If you want to interview Candace, Tucker, Milo, Nick, anybody, I think it's appropriate.
And this is what we should be doing with these debates and conversations.
So I applaud you for doing so.
Tipo, good to talk to you.
And it's very sobering what's been happening to you.
And I hope they get to the bottom of who was doing it.
And I hope that your business continues to thrive because you're an important voice out there.
And I thoroughly enjoy listening to you.
So thank you for coming on.
Thanks for having me.
I really do appreciate it.
Today's show is sponsored by Oxford Natural, makers of the Optimum Day and Optimum Night All Natural Supplements.
Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them with incredible results.
Optimum Day boosts your energy and supports weight loss throughout the day.
Optimum night helps you relax and get deep, refreshing sleep.
They have countless success stories, including from some very familiar faces.
England ledger Michael Owen, who lost 40 pounds.
AFTV's Robbie, who lost more than £100.
To watch their full stories and many more, scan the QR code on your screen or visit oxfordnatural.com slash peers.
And here's the best part.
Use the code peers and get 70% off your first order.
Yes, 70% off with the code Piers.
Imagine the scene, a veteran TV host causing outrage by interviewing a rising alt-right star who's facing accusations of racism, anti-Semitism, and much more besides.
Yes, Bill Maher interviewed Milo Yiannopoulos almost nine years ago.
Generational Provocateurs Defined00:07:30
And some of those who despair at the mainstream rise of Nick Fuentes and his followers believe a lot of this all started back then.
Well, Milo Yiannopoulos joins me now.
Welcome to Uncensored.
Thank you.
Thank you for having me.
I remember the Bill Maher thing.
I remember the fallout from that.
Now, when you look back at that, Milo, when you see what's happening with Nick Fuentes, do you feel that you were like at the start of all this, that you were partly responsible for all this?
How do you feel about it?
I certainly feel as though it looks a little similar to when I was speaking at Berkeley and causing, you know, giving journalists conniptions.
But I think there's something very distinctly different about me and somebody like Nick Fuentes.
We've moved quite dramatically in America toward a sort of, I would call it something like an epistemological crisis.
Ten years ago, we, you know, we had positions.
There were people with intellectual hinterlands who had opinions and who were consistent in their political beliefs.
I don't think Nick Fuentes really believes in anything at all.
And I think it's partly a result of the press spinning out of control to attack Donald Trump.
There are all kinds of etiologies for it.
But I think it's quite a different moment we're experiencing now.
And I think he's quite a different phenomenon.
I mean, I interviewed him at length and put to him a number of more controversial things that he said.
He doubled down on most of it.
He unashamedly said he was racist.
He explained why he was racist in a very racist manner.
He was blatantly misogynist and unashamedly so.
You know, he kind of hedged round about Holocaust denial, but I suspect, as some people have said since, he was playing a sort of arch satirical game with me about that, so that he, you know, he could say later he didn't really mean it.
How much of what is going on with him is performative?
How much of it, you know him, you used to hang out with him and yay and others.
How much of it is real?
How much does he really believe?
Well, I tried to befriend Nick because I wondered if there was anything to save there.
And so I became, I suppose, something like a mentor to him for a couple of years.
And it turned out that there really wasn't.
He just, he's a person who just wants to hurt people.
And I couldn't find, you know, it's like nailing jelly to the wall.
I couldn't find any consistent or substantive kind of core to him in any way.
I mean, Nick is a kind of chameleonic character in media.
On one day, he'll go on a podcast hosted by an African-American who has rappers on.
He'll say, oh, I love immigrants.
I know illegal immigrants.
No, they're not bad people.
And then he'll come on with you where he feels he's on sure ground and he'll sort of do the smirking double-down kind of mischievous routine.
He's a very gifted speaker.
He's obviously got very high verbal IQ.
He's a very charismatic person.
But having observed him and having known him for a little while and been on the receiving end of some of his worst behavior, he's something distinctively different, as I mentioned before, from the provocateurs of a decade ago and the decades before that, in that he is, I think, emblematic of Gen Z, really, in being quite a pure and sort of terrifyingly pure nihilist.
And really, I couldn't tell you an opinion aside from hating Jews that if he has on Tuesday, he will absolutely for sure still have on Thursday.
And that can't be a good thing.
I mean, you know, you mentioned that you're the son of a woman, your mother, who was born in Germany, who was Jewish.
I suppose it begs the question, knowing how apparently anti-Semitic he is, I mean, he's constantly attacking Jews, constantly accusing Jews of running the world in a malevolent way and so on.
Why would you want to hang around with someone like him?
And indeed, Ye, for that matter, who then began spewing anti-Semitic content.
Well, Ye is in a completely different category.
I mean, Ye is a generational genius.
I mean, he can speak for himself.
He doesn't need me to speak for him.
These two people are in completely different categories.
I think that maybe to British ears, some of the discourse in America can sound really just baffling and horrifying and hateful.
And it's important to understand what's really going on.
Whereas 10 years ago, we were sort of saying things to be mischievous and naughty, provocative, and to push the boundaries.
That now has sort of evolved into a less ironic kind of sort of, I guess you call it an equal opportunities sort of loathing for everybody in the forms of people like Nick Fuentes.
But I got to say, I don't have that much of a problem with a lot of what he says when he's talking about...
I mean, when you were sort of incredulous about his misogyny, I felt it actually was a little unfair to him because 10 years ago we were talking about how men were getting left behind, how women were overtaking them at university, how the world had suddenly, bafflingly and very, very abruptly, become quite a hostile place to be a man.
That situation has not gotten better.
And so I think his generation's hostility toward women is lamentable, but very understandable.
And when he comes to talk about what he would call Jewish power, there is a discussion to be had there that has not been had for a very long time because people have been spooked or intimidated or threatened into silence because of an event 75, 80 years ago, which has been weaponized against, I think, legitimate debate about, for instance, what the state of Israel is up to.
I think it's really good.
And I've got to tell you, I really give you a lot of credit for breaking with the establishment on Israel and coming up with the opinion that you have, which I think is the correct one.
But it was very difficult up until about five years ago to speak plainly and honestly about some of the most appalling behavior of the Israeli state because you knew what was going to happen.
You knew what you were going to get called.
And I do think there's some value to having a character like Nick.
I'm not a fan of Nick's, but I do at least see some positive benefit in, if you like, the wreckage he's left behind.
But the problem is his Groypers, his fan club, all the abuse that spewed my way since I did the interview is entirely predictable.
But I've been really struck, not just by how blatantly misogynist and violent is about women.
And I don't really accept the defense that, well, men have been treated badly.
I've been leading the charge for young men to be treated better for the man bashing to stop and so on.
It doesn't mean at the same time you have to just belittle and demean women or say they shouldn't be allowed a vote or shouldn't be allowed a job or they're going to get old and fat and ugly and they're all annoying.
I mean, that's just, that's not about defending the male position.
It's about just demeaning and belittling and attacking women, which is to me grotesque.
But I think in terms of...
It does look ugly, but you have to understand it in the context of a very heavily feminized society.
Addressing Negro Fatigue00:02:54
I mean, we have speech codes in the workplace.
We have exams rewritten to favor girls.
I mean, it's not just that women are pulling ahead in university.
I mean, women really have engineered the world against men.
And I'm not saying that I like the tone that some of these Zoomers take, but do I understand it?
I sure do.
I really do understand.
A 22-year-old guy today has no realistic prospect of building a life for himself and no path to being a patriarch, no path to being a husband and father that he can plausibly see.
So they're dropping out, they're getting hostile, they're getting bitter.
Do I get it?
I'll be honest with you, I do.
I do understand it.
And what about his racism?
We just admitted, yeah, I'm a racist and then explained why.
He doesn't want to be walking around near black people and so on.
I mean, he articulated perfectly what it is to be a racist, where you want to be away from people who are not.
Don't you think everyone feels just slightly like that?
Maybe he's an extreme case in the wake of George Floyd, and perhaps their frustration is with the white liberals that made it happen or whatever.
But I mean, there is a phrase, I hope it's okay that I use a safer version of the word.
There's a phrase in America at the moment, Negro fatigue.
And it is used to describe people just being sick of hearing about, you know, black people this, black people that, black people complaining, in the wake of George Floyd, which was just the most grotesque absurdity and offense to common sense and to decency.
Do you think it's acceptable?
Do you think it's acceptable and decent to use a phrase like the one you just used?
Well, I don't think anything, I don't think there's too much wrong with what I just said.
I certainly don't wake up in the morning glad that the world is more full of hate.
I'm a Catholic, so the most important thing to me is not.
So why would you use a phrase like the one you just used?
If you don't want to fuel that kind of thing.
Why would you use a phrase that you know is so inflammatory?
Well, there are much worse versions of that.
I was using a sanitized version out of respect for you for your program.
I doubt the average black viewer watching this or African American who hears about that is going to see it that way.
I think they'd rather be called what I said than have somebody who, you know, than have white people kind of tied up in knots, not even sure whether they should call them African American or black because these things are sort of used as a sort of ever-changing linguistic weaponry against one racist society.
Look, I mean, you can get waylaid and go down on a tangent about that if you want.
What I was trying to explain in an anthropological way is explain to you how people are feeling in America.
And it's not just 22-year-old far-right racists that feel like this.
Apologies for Offensive Remarks00:11:48
It's not.
What I'm struggling to do, I'm honest with you, I'm struggling to see where you are different to Fuentes, other than you speak in a posh English accent.
I mean, you basically agreed with everything he's been saying while saying I don't agree with him.
No, I mean, I think there's a big difference between somebody who is leaning into animosity and hatred of others and somebody who is observing it happening, sympathetic about the origins and lamenting the fact that it exists.
I mean, I don't think the tone that I'm taking, irrespective of my accent, is anything like the way that Nick talks.
And I think the comparison is slightly silly.
Well, because I think you can...
Just because I can understand, because I'm empathetic to this group of people, and because I think that now and again they have a point about things doesn't make me Nick.
It means that I can perhaps understand that group a little bit, sort of see where they're coming from in some respects.
And making friends with Nick was My intention was, you know, if I can have one foot in that world and one foot in, you know, in the sane, in the sane world of everybody else, maybe I could help bridge the gap there.
It turned out not to be the case because he, you know, he's, let's say, not a bridge builder.
But what is it specifically you don't agree with him?
What is it you don't agree with him about?
Christmas is peak time for online shopping sprees, but that also means it's peak time for hackers and data brokers who steal information online.
The solution is very simple.
Use ExpressVPN to shut them down.
Top-tier encryption keeps your activity hidden, even on dodgy public Wi-Fi, which is perfect for holiday travel.
You can set your location to 105 different countries, which lets you access content from all over the world.
Users save hundreds on streaming and even plane tickets with ExpressVPN, all for $3.49 a month.
It's a no-brainer.
I use it and you should too.
Right now, you can get an extra four months of ExpressVPN if you go to expressvpn.com slash peers.
That's ExpressVPN's lowest price ever plus four extra months of service.
Just scan the QR code on the screen or go to expressvpn.com slash peers.
I think he has a reductionist and grievance-fueled view of the world that explains almost everything that's wrong with America, geopolitics, the economic state of his generation, and the fact that he can't get a good burger.
It all seems to be the Jew.
And there are some things that, you know, now and again that do strike one as unusual, whether it's Jewish overrepresentation in certain industries.
There are certainly criticisms to be had of Israel.
But, you know, Nick reducing the whole world down to a vast Jewish conspiracy and it would all just be fine if we could smash Jewish power.
I mean, I don't have anything remotely like that kind of point of view.
Well, how could you?
Your mother's just.
I think it's strange that you're...
I think, well, Jewish, yeah.
I think it's strange.
I'm confused as to why you seem so anxious to suggest that we're identical.
It's quite...
No, I didn't say that.
I just said as you were defending him over the misogyny, defending him over the anti-Semitism, defending him over the racism, I just began to conclude that although you're saying it in a different way, and obviously I was being ironic, I myself speak in an English accent, but it seemed to me that you were going out of your way to defend your way to defend things, which I thought were pretty deplorable in that interview.
Well, I'm trying to understand where these guys are coming from, because there's a lot of them.
There's a whole generation of them.
And if we simply write them off as racist, sexist, misogynist pigs, we'll lose them.
And we'll lose them to people like Nick Fuentes.
And I take the view that it would be better to understand what of their package of opinions has validity and what does not, understand where some of their anxieties and concerns are coming from, figure out what we can fix and try to rescue a generation that seems to me to be sliding into nihilism and hatred of everybody.
Isn't that a good thing?
Well, I mean, look, if we expand it, if you look at someone like Ye, you represent him, I think, right?
You work with him still?
Yes, I manage the lawyers and I run this family office.
You know, and again, I would simply say that this is a guy who on the record, I would have asked him this if he hadn't walked out of our last interview to get him to explain why he said these things.
But, you know, only three years ago, literally, three years ago this month, he praised Hitler, denied the Holocaust.
I love Jewish people, but I also love Nazis.
I do love Hitler.
He posted an image of a swastika fused within A Star of David, which led to a second suspension from X for incitement to violence, and so on.
He then produced a song called Heil Hitler, which was banned from many platforms and so on.
This is deliberate baiting of Jewish people in the most horrific manner possible.
Again, I'll just ask you, are you comfortable?
I'm happy for him to do that.
Of course I'm comfortable.
I mean, he's an extraordinary human being.
I mean, there's a perfectly good explanation for that, which he has given a number of times.
You can find it plausible or implausible as the case may be.
But the way he explained it, and he did this on a live stream, it's readily available.
He said, I want to perform Heil Hitler at the Grammys, because if I do that, those words will suddenly no longer have power.
I will have conquered them.
I will have drained them of all of their, I forget the expression he used, but I suppose I would say something, you know, all of their, you know, their toxic, hateful, or taboo energy, whatever.
You know, the way he was articulating his artistic project in doing that, and some people will find it persuasive and some won't, was that, it was in terms of, you know, like abuse survivors,
we used to laugh at them 10 years ago when they had trigger warnings and safe spaces and little puppy rooms and stuff like that, because everybody knows that if you get raped or something terrible happens to you, the best way to put your life back together is exposure therapy so that it doesn't become this sort of thing that turns you into a blubbering mess every time you hear about it for the rest of your life.
You just slowly kind of acclimatize back and get used to it.
Ye seemed to be taking a similar view about some words, phrases, and opinions that have had a stranglehold on our culture for a long time.
And it's funny, he perhaps hasn't read The Holocaust in American Life by Peter Novick, the Princeton academic, who explains how that particular historical event was sort of rebooted in the academy in the 1960s and formed the basis of modern, what we would call grievance culture and victimhood ideology that became BLM.
But Yees seemed to instinctively intuit that this was being weaponized and leveraged to stop people talking about other things, like Israel, for instance, or other things like the fact that one particular group of people seemed to be all the managers in the entertainment industry and they were systematically defrauding and screwing the black entertainers that they were managing.
I mean, he's entitled to that view.
He's entitled to that observation.
And if it's right that his intention was to take this horrifying taboo, you know, the greatest evil in history, as we're all told to call it, if it was his intention.
Well, what would you call it?
Well, you know, no, of course it was a monstrous and incomprehensible evil.
You know, maybe Stalin was worse.
Who cares?
After a certain point, it's like it's just evil we can't wrap our heads around, isn't it?
But the way he was articulating, at the time he gave that interview, and within a day of giving that interview, he was on a live stream and he said, I want to sing Heil Hitler at the Grammys because after that, the words will no longer have any power.
That's a bit more of a complex situation.
It's not complex project than you're giving him credit.
Well, honestly, it's just a crock of shit.
That's not why he did.
He did it just for attention.
He didn't care about antagonizing and upsetting and distressing Jewish people worldwide.
He's a massive entertainer with 33 million followers on X alone, as he reminded me when he did his little performative stunt with me.
And the truth is that all I've heard you do in the last 20 minutes is defend all these people from what I think are indefensible things they've said.
And you've done it in a very sort of moderate sounding way, but I just think I'd see Mr. Ye's face if he hadn't bottled it and run away.
And I wouldn't have bought into the, he was doing all this stuff for some profound, you know, complex reasons.
No, he wasn't.
He was just dew baiting.
He was dew baiting and using it at the beginning.
Some people are not going to find it plausible.
I do think it's a pity that you two in your encounters with one another seem to have spoken past each other so much.
You obviously haven't.
Last time I was prepared to do a lengthy interview, I did a two-hour interview with him several years ago, which I thought was very illuminating, very enlightening.
I was looking forward to doing the same thing with him the second time around, and he just bailed at me after three minutes because he obviously worked out it was going to be a publicity stamp.
Having had that conversation with him and having seen a little glimmer of what is clearly a remarkable intellect, albeit an unconventional one, I mean, you don't seem to give him very much credit as an artist, as a creative, as a doctor.
Just to be clear, he's one of the most talented Grammy.
No, no, hang on.
He's one of the most talented artists of my generation, without a shadow of a doubt.
Without a shadow of doubt.
It's possible to say that.
But he's also possible to say that some of the stuff he's come out with in the last two or three years has been disgusting.
And I would have said that to him to his face.
And by the way, the offer remains.
If you want to go back to him and tell him we've had this exchange, I don't expect you to answer for him.
If he wants to actually have the balls to sit there and answer these questions to me for a sustained period of time, I will do that interview.
But he didn't want to.
He'd rather turn it into a little...
Something of an answer.
Sorry, go on.
They're gone.
Make your point.
Perhaps something of an answer to your frustration is the fact that he did sit down with an Orthodox rabbi a couple of weeks ago, give a public and direct apology for having hurt people from that ethnic and faith group, and undertake to understand a bit better why it was that what he was seeking to accomplish with those garments and songs and whatever didn't land and upset and hurt a lot of people.
I mean, he has begun to acknowledge that.
I mean, perhaps your producers didn't tell you that, but that's fair here.
Well, tell him the offer stand.
He has already acknowledged that and he has to be able to...
Last time he bailed on me after three minutes.
If he wants to have a longer conversation, I'd be very happy to do it.
I've got to leave it there.
Marla Yiannopoulos, thank you for coming on uncensored.
Thank you.
God bless you.
Challenging vs Gotcha Tactics00:07:08
Angel Studios are back with a new must-see documentary.
It's called Thank You, Dr. Fauci.
And you're going to hear a lot more about it over the next few months.
Award-winning filmmaker, Jenna First digs into the origins of COVID-19, a possible bio-arms race with China, and claims about history's biggest public health cover-up.
It's not a right-wing film or a left-wing film.
It's a film about transparency, which is something we should all care about.
First pulls over documents and interrogates scientists, intelligence professionals, and whistleblowers.
It's being described as Oppenheimer meet outbreak.
And if you've ever wondered what really happens behind closed doors, you'll want to see it.
Angel Studios is powered by its guild members voting on real stories.
You can find out more at angel.com slash peers.
Become a member, stream thank you, Dr. Fauci, and be part of the conversation demanding truth and accountability.
An eagle-eyed member of the uncensored team, noted one of the first eager super fans to comment on my interview with Nick Fuentes, was Stephen Crowder, the host of Louder with Crowder, who wrote on our YouTube channel, How to Not Conduct an Interview 101.
And Mr. Crowder joins me now.
Welcome to you, Mr. Crowder.
Thank you for having me, sir.
Merry Christmas.
Or do you guys say happy Christmas?
I've heard it both ways.
Well, we do both.
I'd be very happy to wish you a happy Christmas and a Merry Christmas.
Thank you.
Despite you impugning my qualities as an interviewer.
You did expand on this.
You said Piers Morgan is a liberal at heart, which I think is probably right.
So he spent the whole interview trying to gotcha his way through identity politics on a guy who already rejects supremacy.
I did think that was an interesting commentary, actually.
I would start by saying I wasn't trying to gotcha him because I'd already made it clear I was going to put to him, I'd already said this publicly, I was going to put to him all the more contentious things that he has said, which have gained notoriety and challenge him properly about them, which I think I did.
I don't categorize that as a gotcha.
He got very exercised about the story involving his father.
And I said on an earlier panel we did that actually, if I had my time again, I wouldn't have named his father, although it's easily discoverable on the internet, but I wouldn't have done that.
I would still have told the anecdote because I was trying to explain to Nick Fuentes, the story was put in the public domain by Nick Fuentes about his father in a way in which you could only construe from it that his father made decisions when Nick Fuentes was young, which appeared to be racist decisions.
And I was curious whether he felt he was a product of that environment.
Now, he went nuts about that, and he's perfectly entitled to, and he's come after me and my family.
He's perfectly entitled to do all that.
I don't care.
But I was curious why you felt that I was playing gotcha with him and not just actually, I think, doing my job as a journalist and just challenging him about the more contentious things that he said.
Yeah, well, here's the thing.
I don't think you challenged him on the most contentious things.
And by the way, it's not an impugn of your character.
It's a different interviewing style, right?
I think that trying to shame someone like Nick Fuentes for being racist, for being a misogynist, like that's a layup for him.
He's already been accused of that.
And I don't think it's very fruitful.
I mean, I don't want to conflate gotcha with challenging.
So I would say, by the way, yeah, if he's going after your family, Nick Fuentes, if you're watching, strongly condemn that from your audience if anything is happening online.
But I also would say when the guy makes a good point and says, hey, you know what, my dad's not here to defend himself.
Could we move on from that?
Don't do it six more times.
But I counted six times and you're not able to get to where you actually have disagreements.
See, when I sat down with Nick, and yeah, I played his clips back.
People could argue that it was tedious, but I would play a minute and a half clip, you know, a two-minute clip, because I wanted to show it in context.
And I was able to actually lay out, we were actually able to contrast our policy, our prescription differences, where people know.
And so I think if you go after, for example, not for example, father being racist.
I don't even know that you would construe his father as being racist because he doesn't like Applebee's.
No one likes Applebee's.
No one's.
No, hang on.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
That's not what he said.
He literally told the story that his father didn't like that particular restaurant chain or others because they were known for black fare.
Sure.
Well, that's racist.
Black fare?
What if people don't like black fare as far as food?
What if people don't want to be somewhere where they're more likely to end up in a world star hip-hop video?
This is where we get to the issue of you and him discussing per capita.
Right, let me ask you this.
Like, you're Catholic.
We were talking about this.
You said you'd be happy to talk about it.
What do you think is going to be fruitful in attacking a celibate Catholic for not getting laid?
I didn't attack him.
You're driving people into the church.
I didn't attack him.
He said he needs to get laid.
I think he does.
He's a heresy.
I think he does.
I think he's an insane.
Do I advocate heresy?
I think he's, well, I perfectly understand if you're a devout Catholic, which I'm not.
If you're a devout, I was brought up a Catholic and I was given spiritual guidance by Catholic nuns and a lot of my family are very devout Catholics.
I'm not particularly, but I still adhere to, you know, broadly here, adhere to Catholicism, albeit there are parts of the teachings I don't agree with.
So that's my position on it.
But I can understand if he'd said to me, the reason I've never had sex.
Why bring it up, Pierce?
Why is it relevant whether he's been laid or not?
Because I said in my interview specifically, just so you know, and I'll answer for everything I say.
When I interviewed him, I said, you know, I hate it when people use something that should be seen as a virtue as an attack.
Out of all the views, if you view them as reprehensible, and I, by the way, strongly disagree with a lot of Nick's views, the least relevant is whether he's celibate as a devout Catholic.
That's like a good thing.
And so you actually give him the reason.
Well, yeah, but actually you're getting bad out of it.
Yeah, but hang on.
You're putting up a better defense, if I may suggest, than he did, because had he said to me, I'm a devout Catholic and the reason I haven't had sex is because the Catholic Church forbids that and says you should be married before you have sex.
Perfectly reasonable answer.
That's not what he said.
He never said that at all.
So you didn't do your research because he said that literally doesn't.
He may have said it elsewhere.
He didn't say it to me.
I only asked him about that stuff because there is a view that he is what they call an incel and that he whips up that kind of mentality.
And that's why he's such a misogynist about women and so on.
It's an interesting thing to ask him.
He was actually, he seemed to me quite happy to answer it all.
He was quite emphatic in his answers.
Fine.
I didn't see that as an attack.
I was joking about getting laid because it seems to me he's a very angry guy.
Can I jump in for a second here?
Because this is where I think you, this is important, right?
His audience will.
People out there, by the way, some who are voluntarily celibate because they're devout Christians.
But also, if you look at the dating pool out there, I don't think it's misogyny to say, I wouldn't date one of those young women if they were growing on my ass.
And they're actually out there living in a world that's been created.
They will identify you as someone who's helped create that, right?
Someone who said, I don't care if the UK no longer looks white.
I don't care if we lose our cultural identity.
Hey, it's great.
Women's rights.
And they're looking at their prospects.
And when you say, hey, hey, you're celibate or whatever it is.
You haven't gotten laid.
You're an incel.
Guess what?
You give him the moral high ground.
Understanding Young Men's Anger00:11:50
When you say, hey, what about your dad?
And he asks you, and I will say, he asks pretty respectfully, don't do that.
You go on six more times.
What did you say?
I thought what he was doing.
He said little twerp.
Yeah, no, I just hear you.
He said little twerp.
Stephen, I hear you.
I hear you.
I'm not saying you're wrong.
I'm just saying, honestly, I'm not, because I've got a lot of respect for you.
I think that he...
Well, thank you.
I think what he tried to do, he tried to, I think he was taken aback when I revealed that anecdote about his father.
And I think he didn't want to address what he actually said on air with that anecdote because it's pretty damning when you hear it.
And I think he decided very quickly, because he's a smart, quick operator, to turn it into me attacking him about his dad who wasn't there and how disgusting and blah blah.
And that's fine.
But I kept trying to bring him back.
I kept saying, look, it's not an attack on your father.
To his dad.
Well, it wasn't.
It wasn't.
I wasn't attacking his dad.
I was saying, if you tell a story which looks to the world when they hear it, that you're saying your father was racist, can that have an influence on you as you grow up?
That was the question I was making.
I didn't want him getting off the hook of answering that question about his environment, having heard him in his own words put that story out there.
Yeah, well, here's the thing.
In trying to keep him six times, and that's what I counted on the hook for his dad maybe being a racist.
Look, if your dad's in the Klan, it couldn't be relevant.
It has nothing to do with the price of tea in China, right?
What hooks are you going to do?
Well, it is if you openly admit to being a racist.
Well, I'm asking him about Stalin.
And I say this because the last time I was on your show, remember, we were talking about Tucker Carlson.
And by the way, I would hope that you would be just as hard on Candace and people like Tucker for some of the things that they've said.
I think it's fair to be even-handed across the board.
Stalin, I said, I would like to ask him about that, right?
Is he a fan?
Is he actually an admirer?
Or does he just mean to say he's fascinated?
What did you ask?
You asked him about his dad six times.
You attacked him as race.
And I don't mean attack him.
You present him with racist, misogynist, right?
Stuff that he already knows.
That's the playbook.
You'll drive your fans into his own arms.
What was your question on Stalin?
Well, I usually ask potential criminals to have a seat, but now I'm asking you to join me, Chris Hansen, for my new series, Have a Seat with Chris Hansen.
Guests each week are fascinating personalities who are grabbing headlines, making waves, or changing our lives for the better.
Have a seat with Chris Hansen available wherever you get your podcasts.
There wasn't one.
Well, there was, actually.
There wasn't one.
No, no, no, no, you're not.
No, there wasn't.
No, no, there was.
You just didn't hear it.
So I actually brought on a British journalist called Danny Finkelstein who spent 90 seconds in a video talking about what Stalin and Hitler had done to his family.
I did it in the context of him saying Hitler's cool, but I did.
Stalin was addressed in that, and he was totally dismissive of a Jewish man talking about his family being annihilated by Stalin and Hitler.
Do you hear yourself?
Do you think that you think that's going to be effective or fruitful?
Well, it wasn't.
I didn't Finkelstein.
No, it wasn't.
You didn't ask me.
Let me read you what I asked him about Stalin.
Okay, because I think a lot of people, you responded saying it was softball.
I don't, did you watch the whole interview that I conducted with Nick?
Well, before you read what you're about to read, let me play a little mashup of you interviewing Nick Fuentes, and you can respond to this.
Hang on.
Okay, but did you watch the whole interview?
Nick Fuentes, do you hate all Jews, sir?
No.
No, I don't.
Okay.
Do you consider yourself an anti-Semite, a noted anti-Semite?
No.
Okay.
Clears that up.
Do you believe that white people are superior to all other races on the planet?
No.
Okay.
Do you want to eradicate all non-whites from the United States?
No.
Okay.
Well, Barry Weiss will be very happy to hear that.
No doubt she's watching.
And then because this happens a lot, right?
Tucker did this with you.
Fed, Fed, Fed.
Nick Fuentes, are you, in fact, a Fed?
No.
Okay.
I got to say, mate, that's one of the most forensic examinations of interviewing Masterclass I think I've ever seen.
I mean, the follow-ups were magnificent.
Nick?
Magnificent.
Pierce, did you watch the whole interview?
No.
No, you didn't.
Okay.
So one of us came here quite a bit more prepared, which seems to be your approach with Nick.
So let me read you my exact question on Stalin.
Those were layups specifically because, again, I think you and I both agree, right?
We want to have reasonable discussions.
You don't want to radicalize.
I agree.
Get rid of the bullcrap on the outset so that we could actually get to real differences.
And I think here's something that I really pursue when I interview truth and understanding.
I asked him about Stalin.
Let me read you the exact question later on.
It would help if you watched the whole interview.
I said, my question to you would be, I know that you've said we want a Catholic theocracy or a Christian theocracy.
I've heard the word dictatorship.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I would ask you, since the end point seems similar to where Stalin would want us to reach, swap atheism for Catholicism.
Would you be able to name or is there any one thing that you think America concretely should copy about Stalin's rule or revolutionary methods to get there?
And guess what?
We were able to actually answer.
We were able to actually discuss it.
How many retractions on your show?
Zero.
Quite a few on mine.
How many times did we actually get into discussions regarding where we disagree?
And let me tell you where I disagree with him.
I'm to the right of him on some issues.
I'm definitely to the right of him economically.
He's a pretty big sort of centralized economy guy, but we did it in good faith.
And I presented him with his own questions.
We got that out of the way.
If you don't watch the whole interview, yeah, you can take 15 seconds.
Did you get to any, let me, that was my question.
And yours was, well, you never asked about Stalin.
He said, do you think Hitler, do you still think Hitler is fucking cool?
Yeah.
How'd that work out for you?
What'd you learn?
That he does.
And that's new?
He thinks they have nice outfits.
They're Hugo boss.
No, but okay, he didn't say that as his reason.
Did you learn about Stalin, Pierce?
Did you learn a lot about this about disenfranchised?
Said to you.
I played a clip from a guy who literally lost family members close family members to Stalin and to Hit Sure, and and Nick For Went.
His response was to mock him and then to unleash his Groypers on this guy who've been now mercilessly abusing and mocking him about the loss of his family members to Stalin and Hitler for the last 48 hours.
Now you might think that's acceptable or that somehow I didn't push that.
This is that.
This is what you, this is the.
This is what legacy media is done.
You can't compete.
Look, guys like Nickname on your show.
They've come up, they've come.
I mean that you were at CNN HLN for a very long time and you're still following the same format, and so they're accusing someone young of being racist is a win, but with people who've grown up being accused of racism, of misogyny, their whole life, they don't give a shit, and so you should get to the point where you can actually understand.
Here's the one thing I would say that would help, listen.
You weren't listening to the guy, so you don't even.
You're not even able to lay out where you disagree and your own audience.
I don't think you heard that I.
I don't think you could have heard the whole interview either.
Then I mean look, i'm gonna go and listen to yours in full.
Last second pillar to post.
Okay, but look, for two hours I talked to the guy.
I came with an open mind.
I wanted to know whether it was performative, whether he did these things, whether he said things as a joke whether, if he did and it blew up, he regretted any of them or whether he really means this stuff.
And I learned a lot more about Nick For Wentes in the two hours than I knew before.
You probably knew it all already uh, because you've interviewed him before.
I haven't.
It's the first time.
I've never interviewed him before.
This was my first time i've ever spoken with him or interacted with him whatsoever.
I did do my research and I already knew what his stance was on so, and I already knew how he clarified it.
I already knew his stance on racism.
Here's what I would say, if i'm being uh, as accurate as I can be right for the general populace.
I think most people, if they listen to Nick Fuentes, his views on race and crime, they'd say, okay, someone like that has a case, certainly any man under the age of 25, I think a lot of people with broad strokes categorize it as Anti-semitic.
We were able to get into that.
I was able to communicate that I thought Islamic immigration is a greater threat than global jury.
And guess what?
He disagreed but we understood each other.
You don't de-radicalize people by marginalizing everyone who actually makes good points, by spending six follow-up questions on a racist no, accusing them of not getting a lady's word, Steven.
Here's what i'll concede.
Like with the initial uh reaction that you did, I will concede I.
I didn't get him.
I mean other than him saying I believe now, actually in a satirical way.
In other words, I don't think he really meant it, but when he said he did think at least six million Jews died in the holocaust, he did it in a way that others, like Glenn Greenwood, have told me he didn't mean it.
Uh whatever, it's up to him.
It's down to him I.
I don't think I got it.
I don't think I got anywhere with Nick For Wentes.
I don't think I got anywhere to him changing his mind about anything.
I certainly didn't get anywhere in stopping him unleashing his Groyper hounds on me or my family whatever whatever, I don't care.
I've had far worse and it's fine uh, if you're in the media jungle long enough.
You get these pylons occasionally and it's just better just to ride them out with a smile on your face.
It's whatever uh, but I didn't get anywhere with him.
So in a way, I am listening to you because I i'm curious.
I'm curious how you do get anywhere with somebody like that, when his whole shtick is really just on doubling trebling, quadrupling down and he says things which I genuinely do find really offensive.
When he talks about women in the way that he does, it is really offensive.
Well here okay, let me answer.
Here's how you get somewhere by not playing gotcha.
So, for example, when you start off with if you've done the research, you know it's facetious same thing that uh, Jillian Michaels did.
Do you think all women need to be raped?
No, he was citing, by the way, study after study that you can replicate that 62 of women, Formerly red fancy.
Yes, sexually dominant.
But when you start off with that, guess what?
Young people go, okay, all right, same old, same old.
He's taking off.
What are you starting with?
I started off with this thing that all women are annoying and they all get old and fat and ugly.
What part of that do you disagree with?
All of it.
You don't think that women get fatter and more unattractive?
Men do too, by the way.
I think men like that.
You and I are both getting fatter and uglier.
And I think that a lot of women, particularly if you go on TikTok and you see generationally, I think they're annoying.
And I think that is a symptom of a serious problem, which is deeply rooted feminism, which, by the way, is the same source problem for LGBTQAI and the reason that you have biological men winning Olympic medals, right?
You see that as a problem.
You need to get to where you diverge or what the root of the problem is.
And here's the thing.
You're never going to get there if you just discount young people who are facing different problems.
I understand.
I don't think they're right on all of it, but I understand it because I was listening.
I think you could have listened to him better.
If your goal is the pursuit of truth, and actually, and I would imagine your goal, if you think his views are abhorrent, by the way, and I think some of them are.
So if your goal is to peel some of those people off, give him the floor to explain context so that you can contrast it.
But it ended up getting a lot of people.
Okay, but final question.
Which of his views do you find abhorrent then?
Well, when he talks about, for example, I would say wrong.
I would say wrong, the idea of global jury.
And I told him that.
The idea that massive third world immigration, particularly from Islamic countries, that that largely rests at the feet of the Jews.
I think it rests at the feet of these Islamic nations, of these third world nations that I would call crap holes.
And that's considered a more offensive view.
I think it's a problem, for example, when you ask him if he's a racist.
He's going to answer yes.
He's going to answer yes.
But he actually answered, by the way, everyone's racist.
And then he actually offered a qualifier.
And through that, you're racist because you live in a largely white area.
By the way, there's nothing wrong with that.
You can't just ignore the points and go back to a soundbite.
That's how a guy like Nick Fuentes, that's how he thrives.
And by the way, people in the comment section, your own comment section, I get that they were, some of them are trolling.
Ignoring Abhorrent Views00:01:10
Go easy, guys.
It's Christmas.
I think you were trying to do a good job.
What I'm telling you, Pierce, is that it's not the way to approach a different generation of people who come up in a blood sport debate like they did on Twitch.
It's going to actually give them a win.
Yeah, I think I buy into the argument they couldn't give a shit, actually.
And that's one of the more depressing aspects of it.
Easier to dismiss, though.
But if I worried about their comments, I would turn the comments off and they're wide open.
So bring your worst, you little Groypers.
Stephen Crowder, Merry Christmas to you.
Always good to have you on.
And I enjoy our conversations about these things.
I think I get stuff out of them.
I hope you do too.
We always have an interesting chat.
So thank you.
I do.
Happy Christmas.
I appreciate you taking the time.
All the best.
Piers Morgan on Sensor is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
You enjoy our show.
We offer only one simple thing.
Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan on Sensor on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
independent uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.