‘My STAFF Deleted My Tweets!’ Andrew Tate vs Piers Morgan on Epstein Files, Ye Song Scandal + More
The Jeffrey Epstein saga is undoubtedly one of the biggest scandals in modern history. Many VIP men are now being humbled by lurid details about their relationship with a convicted sex offender, and claims about their own behaviour with his victims. Too few have faced real consequences - yet - but the public is in no mood to draw a line and move on. A reasonable person might think that Andrew Tate is the last person to be moralizing on all of this. He’s fought damning allegations about his own conduct with women in multiple countries for several years. And that - he says - is precisely the problem. He joins Piers Morgan to discuss this, plus his night out with Nick Fuentes and Sneako... Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Pendragon Cycle (Daily Wire+): Discover The Pendragon Cycle: Rise of The Merlin—a bold retelling of the King Arthur legend where Merlin’s vision sparks a civilization’s rebirth; watch the full trailer now at https://DailyWire.com Mars Men: For a limited time, our listeners get 50% off FOR LIFE, Free Shipping, AND 3 Free Gifts at Mars Men at https://Mengotomars.com 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
Trial by Media00:11:28
You said, I miss human trafficking.
Why did you delete it?
It was just deleted by my PR team as I slept.
These gotcha moments are five or six years out of date.
Let's be professional, Mr. Piers.
Why was the DJ unwittingly?
Far be it from me to teach you how to answer questions in interviews is to say that you find what's in the Epstein files utterly disgusting and celebrating the song Heil Hitler is also disgusting and reprehensible.
And if you'd said that, I could respect it.
There's pictures of you with certain members of Epstein's circle.
Well not, but I'm happy to talk about that.
The Jeffrey Epstein saga is undoubtedly one of the biggest scandals in modern history.
Many VIP men are now being humbled by lurid details about their relationship with a convicted sex offender and claims about their own behavior with his victims.
Too few have faced real consequences yet, but the public's in no mood to draw a line and move on.
The view that he was an intelligence asset for a foreign government has moved firmly from the realm of conspiracy to mainstream thinking.
A reasonable person might think that Andrew Tate is the last person to be moralizing on all this.
He's fought damning allegations about his own conduct with women in multiple countries for several years.
And that, he says, is precisely the problem.
For the last four years, the media all around the world has accused me of sexual crimes on repeat, over and over, every single day.
And now that the Epstein files are out, they're running cover saying that being found in the Epstein files doesn't mean you did anything wrong.
Let me ask you a question.
If I was in the Epstein files, Andrew Tate, do you have any idea?
The media frenzy, do you have any idea how they would attack me?
They would accuse me of things I've done wrong.
They would say that there's no smoke without fire, that I'm definitely guilty, that I deserve more prosecution, more house arrest.
I was locked in my house for four years without being convicted.
I've been to court in three countries and not a single court on the planet can convict me of any sexual crimes at all.
Yet the media still convince everyone at home and still endlessly print that I'm a bad person while running cover for the people who are in the Epstein files.
Well, Andrew Tate rejoins me on Uncensored Now.
Andrew, welcome back to Uncensored.
Thank you very much.
I hope you're recovering well, sir.
Yeah, slowly, slowly but surely.
Thank you.
So it's an interesting point you raise.
You know, I'm not going to relitigate in this interview the outstanding criminal and civil actions that you're facing, other than to repeat what I always say when I interview you, which is as we sit here, you've not been convicted of any crime.
And I do think the process that you've gone through has seemed ridiculously long and doesn't serve anybody.
So let's just put that to one side for the benefit of this debate.
Because I do think you raise an interesting point about the experience you've had and the experience that we are seeing with people in the Epstein files.
Yeah, it's not only ridiculously long, Pierce, it's actually ridiculously harsh.
My brother and I have gone to jail.
We've been reputationally slandered.
We had a company that turned over $150 million a year, which has been economically decimated.
And we have been trialed by Media endlessly, while members of parliament stand up and say that we're the most dangerous people on the planet because we're committing sex crimes, when, of course, no court anywhere in all of the countries which I've been investigating under has managed to convict us of any crime.
At the same time, they are doing this.
At the same time, we have members of parliament standing up and saying, My brother and I are dangerous, they are sitting on information, sitting on clear evidence of a link between members of the elite inside of Western governments and a convicted pedophile.
And to me, it seems absolutely ridiculous that they're going to come along and accuse two young brothers, two guys from a council of state in Luton who have never been convicted, and say that we're the enemy and talk about us in question time while ignoring information they've had for over a decade, linking senior members of British government directly to a convicted pedophile.
And I think anybody with a brain at home understands this reeks of monumental corruption.
Well, I certainly think, you know, I've drawn a line on the Epstein scandal in terms of plausible deniability for people in public life because so many people, public figures, have been connected with him.
There is a qualitative difference to me between the people who disowned him after his conviction in 2009 for being a pedophile who abused an underage girl, and for those who then stayed in contact with him.
And many of the people we're seeing toppling like dominoes, whether it's Andrew Manbatten-Windsor, Lord Mandelson, and others, are people who emphatically denied staying in contact with him.
And now we see from the files that that is actually a lie.
And they continue consulting with him for many years afterwards.
Do you see that distinction?
In other words, take your situation.
If you were to be convicted of what are some very serious offenses that you've been charged with, if you were to be convicted, and it's hypothetical, I accept that, and you must go through fair due process.
And it should happen faster than it's happening.
I've said that.
But if you were to be convicted, would you think it's fair and reasonable of people in that eventuality to say, I want nothing more to do with Andrew Tate and to be judged accordingly?
And conversely, if people decided to carry on, you know, being your friend and doing business with you, whatever it may be, they should be judged accordingly too.
Yeah, that's a fantastic question.
And you've also been very fair to me.
I have to give you credit for repeatedly pointing out that I've not been convicted and that you believe in the rule of law and we should wait for a conviction.
The problem here we have is that we see all of our democratic institutions are absolutely corrupt.
How can Peter Mandelson be promoted to the most important political position that perhaps exists inside of the UK government, which is ambassador to the United States of America, when he has such clear links to a convicted paedophile?
Why was he promoted?
Is it because of his clear links to a convicted paedophile, which is a whole another question?
And now you're asking me, do I trust the UK courts?
Do I trust the systems which are hiding information that they have on paedophiles, which are clearly protecting powerful people, which are clearly engaged in a two-tier policing structure?
Do I now trust them to give me a fair trial?
The whole point of democracy is transparency.
The whole point is rule of law.
And if they're applying rule of law to some people and completely ignoring it for elites, you now have to ask yourself a question: are the courts fair and is the system fair at all?
Please understand my brother and I have gone through the most heinous trial by media that has happened in modern times.
As I've said, we've already been punished more than most sex offenders are ever punished at all.
We were locked up for a total of four years.
We lost our business.
Our bank accounts were frozen.
We were unable to travel.
We couldn't see our children.
I missed medical appointments.
Many bad things have happened.
My mother had a heart attack and I couldn't be there.
These people, where they had serious, credible, concrete evidence, haven't even been investigated.
And these are the people who were in charge of the government.
So, Piers, as a logical person, can I answer to answer your question?
Can I trust anything the British government does when they're clearly running cover for people that they have serious evidence on while endlessly attacking me and mentioning my name in the media and mentioning my name in question time when they don't even have any evidence on me and they've struggled to find a conviction for the last five solid years?
To me, that reeks of governmental corruption.
Well, I think it's a perfectly reasonable question if I'm in your shoes.
Yeah, because you've not been convicted of any crime.
The interesting thing about Mandelson is you have the British Prime Minister Sakir Starmer today admitting in Prime Minister's questions that he did know because of the vetting process that Mandelson had continued in a friendly relationship with Epstein that was ongoing.
And despite that, he still appointed him as one of the most powerful people in his government as a UK ambassador to the United States.
And that, I think, is going to be an extremely damaging, was going to be very damaging for Starmer because that's the first admission that he knew that Mandelson and Epstein had continued being friends up to the point.
Well, we don't know to what final point, but certainly right up to near to when he died.
So there you've got somebody in Mandelson's case who twice had to resign from governments in disgrace over various financial scaldoggery.
And then you have him supporting and staying friendly with a convicted paedophile and the British prime minister knowing they had stayed in touch and it was an ongoing friendship and still making him the ambassador.
I find that crazy.
Well, the optimistic view is the one you've just taken: that he got his position despite the fact he was linked to an international paedophile ring.
Of course, the more realistic view is that he got his position because he was linked to an international pedophile ring.
And I think a lot of people are waking up now to the absolute rot, which exists inside of these democratic countries that we're supposed to believe in.
We're supposed to believe in fair elections, a rule of law, and transparency.
And it's becoming clear to everybody at home that they have been lied to, that the rule of law doesn't apply.
Two-tier policing is clearly taking place depending on your social status.
If you're a young man from Luton, they'll trial you by media and throw you in jail and take all of your money without credible accusation.
But if you're a lord, perhaps, they can sit for over a decade on credible evidence of you spending time with a paedophile on a secret island and refusing to even investigate you, let alone slander you in the media, let alone.
And I think this just shows how rotten our democratic systems have become and how much change needs to take place for anybody to believe in any of the rule of law again.
I, after the Epstein file release, have even less faith in the British judicial system, the British courts, or the British police, because for me, they're going to contact everyone I've ever known.
They're going to go through my phones, cameras, laptops, arrest me five times, arrest the mothers of my children, arrest my mom, raid houses, and struggle to find a single shred of evidence that allows them to convict me.
However, when they have piles and piles of data of credible evidence that crimes have taken place against other people of a different social status than I, they are going to sit there completely protected by the state.
So it shows that these democracies that we live within are completely corrupted from head to toe.
And without a rule of law, then what is a democracy?
You all know the story of Camelot, the round table, the knights, King Arthur.
What you don't know is how close it all came to never existing.
The Pendragon cycle, Rise of the Merlin, tells that story.
Before the legend, Britain was at war.
Old magic, new kings, nothing in balance.
And at the center of it all was Merlin, not the wizard you know, just a man born with power nobody could control.
Every choice he made shaped the land.
Every spell changed the future.
He could have ended wars and ruled everything or destroyed it all.
Challenging Official Narratives00:07:56
Instead, he chose sacrifice.
This isn't a fairy tale.
It's an epic origin story told with big production value.
The Pendragon cycle, Rise of the Merlin, is presented by the Daily Wire, and you can watch the seven-part series now, only on Daily Wire Plus.
Well, it's why I feel so strongly about Mandelson because I've known him 30 years.
I knew him as one of the architects of New Labor in the mid-90s.
And the thing about Mandelson, he was always drawn to money and rich, famous, powerful people.
That was his massive Achilles heel.
But in terms of him now, the stuff that's coming out and is still coming out.
But what we now know is that he was the business secretary in our government and was trading and passing on top secret information that was financially incredibly sensitive to Epstein, a convicted paedophile, you know, multi-millionaire US financier.
God knows what Epstein then did with that with his financial friends.
Did he trade?
Did he make more millions?
Quite likely, we don't know.
I'm sure that will all unravel.
But he was doing this, which is an act of absolute treachery.
And I saw Starmer in the House of Commons today, you know, really going after Mandelson.
I'm like, well, that ship has sailed.
You knew what you were dealing with here.
This guy had twice had to resign from government.
You knew he carried on seeing a convicted paedophile, perhaps right up to Epstein's death.
And notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding you didn't know the nature of what they were doing in this ongoing friendship, you take this massive punt of putting him on the global stage again.
And that's why, you know, Mandelson to me, he is facing criminal prosecution and very likely a lengthy prison sentence.
It's hard to think, actually, of a more obvious case, a more prima face case of corruption in public office than what he did.
He sold this country down the river, giving secrets to a convicted pedophile in America.
And here's the real interesting question, sir, because it clearly is high treason.
The interesting questions are, firstly, how did Jeffrey Epstein get so rich?
Because nobody can seem to answer that question.
I sit here and wonder while our elites of Western governments are continually making decisions which go against the will of 95% of the electorate on repeat.
Nobody in the UK wants all of their tax money sent to Ukraine.
We have enough problems in England.
Nobody in the UK wants the small boats to keep arriving, yet they keep arriving.
So we have a democratic system, which is clearly completely corrupted.
There is clearly a compromise on all of the elites inside of our system.
These people are clearly financing paedophiles on the other side of the planet, making them billionaires.
And they're making decisions that nobody is voting for and that nobody wants.
And then to try and deflect and conflate, they take my brother and I and they say that we're dangerous.
Or now we have Kier trying to sell Mandendelson down the river, just as you quite correctly pointed out, when he made the decision himself, our systems are completely corrupted from head to toe.
And Epstein is only the tip of the iceberg.
There are many other secret societies, many other islands, and many other places where these people convene.
And that's where conversations are happening, which completely subvert the will of democracy and subvert the will of the electorate.
And I have to give credit to Donald Trump himself, although it may have got him some smoke because he does appear in the files.
He at least released them, showing that he's maverick enough to try and bring some transparency back to our democratic systems.
Because if Donald Trump didn't win, these conversations wouldn't even be taking place.
And Keir trying to run damage control after not mentioning this at all and trying to keep a lid on it for so long just once again shows there's a lot more to this story than we know.
I mean, a few things you said there I would pick up on and challenge.
There is no evidence that the majority of people in the UK do not support supporting Ukraine.
In fact, it's the opposite.
The majority of people in the UK do support helping the Ukrainians.
You're right about the small boats.
On Trump, you know, I know Trump very well.
I spoke to him a few days ago.
I think on the Epstein files, he's dug himself into a big hole because he made it part of his campaigning in the last election that he would be completely transparent and release all the Epstein files.
I have people in his administration within days of him being inaugurated who came on this show and said, we're going to release everything.
We had Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, leading everybody up the garden path and saying, here are the binders with all the stuff.
And none of it happened.
And then we had Elon Musk suddenly coming out saying Donald Trump's in the files, which is ironic, given we now know so is Elon Musk.
And it doesn't mean I've done anything wrong, but they're in the files.
And you've now got a situation where millions of these documents have been released, but we're told there are still 3 million that may not be released.
Well, how is that ever going to solve a scandal in terms of addressing the raging conspiracy theories if you hold back 3 million documents?
That's not transparent.
So I think if I'm being critical of Trump about anything with this, my main criticism is the failure to deliver on his promise to be transparent.
Perhaps, but he's certainly been more transparent than the governments before, where we know that they had this information for a very long time and an absolute lid was kept on it.
So at least he's beginning the process of letting the people at home understand how corrupt our institutions are.
And myself, I'm in a lot of trouble with many charges from the British government for my speech, saying the things I say are completely unacceptable.
But primarily, my message is challenging the blanket authority and the blanket narratives which are pushed by our institutions.
And now that we see our institutions are completely corrupted by billionaire paedophiles, now we see our institutions have been completely overrun and they're operating in secret rooms and subverting the rule of law.
I think that makes it even more important that people like myself continue to challenge authority and demand answers and demand transparency and not believe official narratives.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
What we know is going to be a fraction of what actually took place.
And if I find it absolutely disgusting, and I don't want to make this about me, that they've managed to do so much damage to my brother and I with no evidence while sitting on such a huge pile of evidence for some of the most important people on the planet.
To mention, to address what you said about Trump, I agree with you.
But I think Trump would have been under huge financial, huge pressure from some of the most important people in administrations all around the world to release nothing at all.
And the fact that he continued to try and be transparent and allow people at home to understand how this world really works, I have to give him credit for because a lot of people would have been in Trump's ear saying, don't release anything.
And yes, he's a maverick, as is Elon.
And if our democracies are going to survive in the coming decade, with all of the problems that exist in our societies, transparency is the most important thing we can push for.
Yeah, but you know, even with Elon, who I'm a big fan of in terms of his business acumen and achievements and everything else, but he's out there every day, all day at the moment, saying, I've led the charge against the Epstein staff.
I want full transparency.
I had nothing to do with it.
I rejected all advances from Epstein and so on.
And yet we're reading emails from him where he's clearly very keen to get on the island, very keen to know what night's the wildest party night and so on, which is a complete contrary, conflicted reality to what he's trying to make us think.
Age hits you like a brick and earlier than you think.
It turns out that most men begin losing testosterone around the age of 30, about 1% every year.
And even worse, a lot of what your body makes is blocked by proteins in the blood.
Well, Mars Men helps turn back the clock naturally and free up usable testosterone.
No needles, no synthetics, just real support.
Users report feeling stronger, their recovery is better, and their energy is steady.
Regret Over Knowing Him00:05:01
Mars Men has eight natural clinically dosed ingredients.
It's made in the United States and it's third-party tested.
They offer a 90-day money-back guarantee with no risk.
More than 91% of users report higher energy and thousands swear by it.
For a limited time, uncensored viewers get 50% off for life, plus free shipping and three free gifts at mengotomars.com.
It's a perfect way to kick off the new year strong.
That's mengotomars.com for 50% off and three free gifts at checkout.
After your purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them.
Please support our show and tell them that I sent you.
Well, yeah, sure.
And there's pictures of you with certain members of Epstein's circle.
And I'm not going to, for a second, going to accuse you of any kind of wrongdoing.
Well, no, but I'm happy to talk about that.
Hang on.
Okay, but look, but you raised that.
So I can, but I have explained that very simply.
All right.
So in 2013, I think it was, I went to a book launch for a guy who was editor of a British newspaper in Manhattan.
A lot of starry people there, Stephen Fry, all these people.
And I was introduced to a woman I didn't know called Ghillain Maxwell.
And the link was that I was editor of a Daily Mirror in the UK, which was owned by her father for many years, Robert Maxwell, who then fell off a boat and probably killed himself.
Maybe not.
We don't know.
And I had a five-minute conversation with Gillane Maxwell, and a photographer appeared and took group pictures.
And then people have cut out me and her and posted it.
Now, I've explained that many times.
That was the only time I've met Ghillaine Maxwell, had any dealing with her.
Never met Jeffrey Epstein or had any deals with him.
Certainly never went to his island or his parties or anything.
That's it.
So my full extent of exposure to either of them was five minutes at a book launch standing there and there happened to be a photographer and that was 2013.
So I've been, I argue.
I believe you.
Yeah, I've got no problem.
People, I've got no problem.
Well, it doesn't, it doesn't really matter.
That's what happened.
And the point being, though, that I believe I've been 100% transparent.
All I'm requiring other people to be is when similar stuff comes out about them, be equally transparent, right?
And my argument about Elon is he's saying one thing, but we're reading a different thing in the emails, which contradicts what he's saying.
That is not being transparent.
You know, if I said this about Gillay Maxwell and someone said, well, hang on, because I've got all these emails of you and her having a good old, you know, chin wagon email or going to the island or the that's then I'm a liar.
Then I'm, you know, I'm lying and I should be judged accordingly.
Nobody has ever said that.
Everyone accepts absolutely power.
I met her for five minutes.
I want people in these files to say, here's what's in there about me.
Look at Bill Gates, right?
So Bill Gates has come out.
We got a clip, I think, of Bill Gates.
This is the so just for viewers who've not followed this.
Bill Gates, it turns out in one of the documents in the Epstein files, Epstein appears to have drafted a note that would have been sent by one of Bill Gates' right-hand men to Gates by way of kind of leverage stroke blackmail for this aide to avoid being fired as he feared he was going to be.
And in it, he says that he protected Gates when he caught an STD from a prostitute and that also protected him when he wanted to get medication secretly to Gates's then wife to stop her getting infected.
Now, what was interesting about this, Gates says this.
So let's take a look at what he has said in the last 24 hours about this.
I met Chepri in 2011.
The focus was always he knew a lot of very rich people, and he was saying he could get them to give money to Global Health.
You know, in retrospect, that was a dead end.
And I was foolish to spend time with him.
I was one of many people who regret ever knowing him.
You know, every minute I spent with him, I regret and I, you know, apologize that I did that.
I was only at dinners.
You know, I never went to the island.
I never met any women.
And so, you know, the more that comes out, the more clear it'll be that although the time was a mistake, it had nothing to do with that kind of behavior.
Compare and contrast that with the reaction.
Well, I want to play the reaction now of Melinda Gates, his ex-wife, when the same story is put to her.
She said this.
I wonder what your dominant emotion is when you read these news articles with these details.
Sad.
Just unbelievable sadness.
Unbelievable sadness, right?
I left my marriage.
I had to leave my marriage.
I wanted to leave my marriage.
I had to leave the, I felt I needed to eventually leave the foundation.
So it's just sad.
That's the truth.
Yeah.
I felt more human level, incredibly.
I felt very sad for her.
Sad Truth About Marriage00:15:33
But the point being, she didn't deny that story, right?
Which would have been very easy to do.
So I think that Bill Gates is going to come under a lot more heat for the veracity of his distancing statements here about it.
And look, it may well be he's done nothing criminal either, but you know, it looks damning.
Absolutely, it looks damning.
And you're talking about him being under a lot more heat.
I would argue that he's not going to face a fraction of the heat that I have.
He's not going to lose Microsoft.
He's not going to go to jail in Romania.
He's not going to be locked in his house for four years.
And it's important we understand context.
I believe everything you said about your relation with Lachene because I know that rich and powerful people know each other.
And sometimes you meet at social events, these things happen.
But also I know that people who do wrong things don't often admit to doing them wrong.
And it's the job of the authorities to investigate people who perhaps they have evidence that they've committed crimes, investigate them fully and clearly, and let the people at home know the rule of law applies.
How can the British state have endless resources to try and put myself in jail, endless resources to lock people up for tweets, endless resources to knock on doors for people who are unhappy with their government, but do not have resources to investigate this huge pile of evidence that we have that huge, important members of the British establishment have a serious link with a convicted paedophile.
It is because it is two-tier policing.
It is because Kier and his government and the government previous are so corrupt to their core that they want to ignore these pieces of evidence and go after the people like myself instead who talk about them.
And this reeks of absolute governmental corruption.
Yes, there are people in the files who did nothing wrong.
Yes, there are people in the files who did a lot wrong and are lying about it.
This is the job of our policing structure.
This is why we pay our taxes, sir.
We need to know exactly what happened to guarantee the electorate that we are not living in some kind of dictatorship, some kind of tyranny, where foreign paedophiles are made billionaires based off the back of dodgy contracts and unexplained sums of money while also influencing government in real time because they have huge amounts of compromise on some of the most important people on the planet.
I want investigations into every single person inside of the Epstein files that I have suffered.
I have suffered investigations.
Why don't these people suffer investigations considering there is far more damning evidence on any of them than there is on me?
And I would argue that investigations can take place against Elon and Trump also.
And the reason they released the files is because they believe they will eventually be found innocent.
But investigations must take place.
Course, Bill Gates is not going to sit up on a video and admit what he did wrong.
He's not going to ever tell the truth, but we have enough evidence to at least question him.
So you have to ask why these people, why these people could meet on an island, why this evidence has existed for 10 long years, why all the governments were aware of this evidence, and why they were refusing to even investigate, refusing to even question these people, despite them having such strong evidence, and instead going after the people like myself and other members of the public who highlight distrust in the exact organisms, the exact organizations that are supposed to be doing this work.
I want to turn just to some things you've posted in the last week, which you then deleted.
And I want to ask you why you deleted them.
So the first one.
Sure.
You said the thing I'm not supposed to say about the Epstein files is that women have become such lying whores that it's impossible to take any of these unsubstantiated claims seriously.
Women have sex, then cry rape so often that real victims never face justice.
Now, notwithstanding that a lot of people will be highly offended by the language you've used there about women in a generalized manner, why did you delete it?
Yeah, so there are so many members of the public, unfortunately, which try and abuse judicial bodies.
And we do have a problem.
And I think you're probably prepared to admit this.
We have a problem in the West now where girls who may not get a handbag they want will make false claims to the police and people's lives are ruined.
And this is truly disgusting, not only because men's lives are ruined, but because when we have a scandal like this, where there's real victims and real justice must be done, we have too many people involved or too many people who have previously cried wolf, which makes it very difficult for the investigative bodies to get to the truth of anything.
So it's truly heinous that women lie and pretend to be raped when they're not and make real victims, put real victims in a position where they cannot trust the police to get them justice like they deserve.
So why delete it?
It was deleted by my PR team as I slept.
As you know, I'm facing a criminal case in the UK for a lot of the things that I've tweeted because they think that my speech is somehow Jess Phillips and Kier Starmer believe my speech is the most dangerous thing that exists on the internet and that the UK society cannot function while I highlight distrust in these institutions.
At the same time, of course, they're promoting Peter Mandelson to some of the highest levels of government.
So they're corrupt.
Yeah, but you see, what I would say, but what I would say is, I can totally understand why your PR team would do that because you don't say a small number of women or qualify in any way.
You just say women have become such lying whores.
And I find that deeply offensive.
I'm not even a woman.
Why generalize about all women in that way?
Why say women have sex, then cry rape so often?
The real victims, why not phrase it in a way that might engender some empathy for your situation rather than actually make every woman who hears that think that you hate women, you're a misogynist, you think they're all liars, they all cry rape.
Why talk in that generalized inflammatory language?
Well, it may shock you to believe that women absolutely love me and my largest fans are women and I'm approached every day by women.
I don't say things to try and elicit sympathy for myself, peers.
I made a brand on saying what I believe to be true, even if it's shocking, even if some people find it confrontational.
My point is that we have a massive scandal now where genuine victims exist, where we have compromise on the highest levels of government, and we have women who are wasting police time with false accusations.
And many men's lives have been ruined by exactly that.
And it's disgusting because rape, I have many daughters, is probably the most heinous of all crimes that exists on the planet.
And you like to believe that Also, okay, but you also know that only in the UK, about one percent of all rape cases are successful.
99 do not lead to conviction.
You must accept that that also is outrageous and shocking and has to change.
Well, that's outrageous if the 99 are genuine rape claims.
Of course, we can't try and get the number up without evidence.
My point is, of that 99%, how many are fake?
We don't know.
We live in a world now where, very unfortunately, women can get huge financial gain and they can also get huge social media gain by falsely accusing men who never did anything.
And that makes it extremely difficult for the judicial authorities and the police to find true victims.
If we didn't have all these fake rape claims being given to the British police all day, perhaps they'd have more interest, I doubt it, but they'd certainly have more time in investigating a serious pile of evidence of over 6 million files of people who were spending a lot of time with a convicted paedophile.
Hello.
Hi, Joc.
Welcome to Spillertruppen.
Many thanks.
Jo, thank you.
Where are you now?
I'm on the way in front of the city.
We're in Long Toy, which is completely in Bangkok.
I'm in Norwich.
I think it's two minutes in a tour to Houston.
With the stadium right here.
You can now listen to Spillertruppen, kun on Podimo.
A new episode every Thursday.
My name is Kasper Stenbach, and this is podcast, where the players talk.
These things are not mutually exclusive.
Of course, we need to try and prevent any kind of fake accusation of crime happening.
Of course, and of course, crying wolf makes it more difficult to discern what is true and what is not true.
But it is very clear that huge piles of evidence exist here inside of the Epstein files, which have been ignored.
And it's not only because of fake rape claims, it's because of systemic corruption inside of our democratic systems.
And the democratic system has all of the resource it needs to come after the people like myself who highlight these corruptions, as opposed to trying to fix the problem.
Yeah, but on the one hand, on the one hand, your position is that the Epstein files should be all released.
These awful men should be held to account, blah, blah, blah.
I think the whole men should be investigated, sir.
Okay, but on the other hand, you then say, but the problem with the Epstein files is women have become such lying whores, it's impossible to take any of these unsubstantiated claims seriously.
How do you square these two positions?
It makes it very difficult for a judicial authority when they get a claim of rape, knowing that 99% never lead to conviction, to take them as seriously as they should.
So this is a two-pronged attack.
Of course, the police need to heavily investigate every single accusation of rape, as they did on my brother and I. Of course, they took that extremely seriously and failed to reach conviction.
So you're inferring that the 2,000 women, you're inferring that the 2,000 women who've made allegations about Epstein and other men involved with Epstein, none of their claims can be taken seriously.
That's not actually what I'm inferring.
What I'm inferring is that when you understand information warfare and you understand how important it is for them to try and shape a narrative to save themselves, if one of those women have lied, they're going to take her story, prove it's a lie, amplify it, and try and discredit all of the women who have actually told the truth.
That's why it's so important that women do not lie to judicial authorities about things like rape, because it's extremely important.
Why don't you talk more respectfully?
All right, but why don't you talk more respectfully about women in general?
But save your anger for the small minority of women who do what you say they do.
It's not the vast majority of women.
You know it and I know it.
It's not like all women that make these allegations are making it up.
You know that.
And it's the way you talk in this generalized term is why people think you're a misogynist and hate women.
And you may work.
I don't know if you are or not.
But I do know that when you use language like this, which even your PR team then take down, I mean, look, another one you posted that they took down.
I presume they took it down.
You can clarify.
You said, I miss human trafficking.
The emotions ran high.
Been chasing dopamine ever since.
Yeah, it's hyperbolic.
I think you're aware that the internet has changed a lot across the last five years and that the entire nature of conversations has changed.
And it's hyperbolic to highlight exactly how ridiculous it is that I was accused of human trafficking in the first place while we have members of the Labour government, which are spending time on an island with a convicted paedophile.
And everybody else at home understands that.
The internet is heavily hyperbolic.
It's heavily sarcastic.
This is the way the internet currently functions.
So I don't think anybody at home really believes, one, I'm a human trafficker.
I've yet to meet anybody in real life who said anything other than they're trying to stitch you up, Andrew, for highlighting their corruption.
And secondly, even if I was somehow convicted of human trafficking, that people would believe that I'm going to tweet that that's what I want to do.
It's called sarcasm.
I'm sure you understand it very well.
The nature of the internet is.
Why did you take it down?
Or was it your and who took it down?
I'm not going to answer the question.
And these gotcha moments are five or six years out of date.
Nobody cares anymore about these gotcha moments.
Everybody knows that I've been completely unfairly treated by the judicial authorities, that my business and my reputation has been slandered by the exact people who were doing the crime.
Hang on, what do you mean?
Okay, let's unpick.
Let's unpick this.
What do you mean by gotcha moment?
By you saying you tweeted this sarcastically and you can't say that.
I don't think anybody's interested in this anymore.
We have a much bigger and more, I didn't know what I didn't know what you were doing with this tweet.
All I read was what you wrote and then it got deleted, right?
Which infers that either.
Well, who deleted it, first of all?
I understand if you don't understand sarcasm.
My point is, we have a much while.
While I was asleep, members of my staff deleted the tweets.
And I perhaps in my bid to fight the UK government to the very end, perhaps where I'm so pressing on the point of truth, perhaps where I try and highlight how corrupt and how disgusting these people truly are, perhaps it would be more sensible for my own freedom to not tell the truth about some of these things and not be so pressing and not and go away and be quiet because that's what they've been trying to make me do since the absolute point I would make.
No, I don't think that's I don't think that's what your PR team was saying.
I presume they were reading the words, I miss human trafficking.
The emotions ran high, been chasing dopamine ever since.
I don't think it's a gotcha of me to read back your own words and to ask you what you mean by them.
Your own PR team deleted them.
It's clearly sarcastic and hyperbolic.
And I think that to sit here and talk about tweets, which are sarcastic, as opposed to the systemic corruption that involves, that exists inside of all of our democratic institutions is probably a waste of time.
We can talk about it for the rest of this interview.
But clearly, what's far more interesting is the fact that we have a ruling class which is ignoring the electorate completely.
There's two-tier policing taking place.
People are spending time with convicted pedophiles and sending them billions of dollars.
And me highlighting in a hyperbolic and sarcastic way how ridiculous it is that two young boys from Luton were accused of human trafficking, slandered, investigated, and put in jail, while none of these people face 1% of the punishment my brother and I have been through.
I think that highlighting that ridiculousness is actually quite important.
It is absolutely insane that my brother and I have been investigated more heavily than anybody else inside of those files.
Let's turn to another controversy you were involved in recently.
This was the night you went to a nightclub in Miami with Nick Fuentes, Myron Gaines, Sneeko, and Clavicula.
You all came under heavy criticism because in the van that you were traveling in with people live streaming from it, you were playing Kanye West's song Heil Hitler.
And that song was then requested to be played once he got in the club to the DJ who played it unwittingly.
There's been a lot of backlogs.
Why was the DJ?
Let's be professionals, Piers.
Why was the DJ unwittingly, what he was unaware of what the song was?
Well, he claims to have been unaware of what he was playing.
So we'll come to that in a moment.
Let's go through chronologically what happened here.
Whose idea was it to play that song in the van?
Well, I didn't play the song in the van.
And the great thing about this entire event is that it was live streamed and you could see me say, what is this?
And leave the van quickly.
I also think it's pretty ridiculous for us to, once again, as we highlight that all of our institutions are completely corrupted to the core by satanic pedophiles and completely ridiculous for us to sit here and ignore a genocide that just took place and complain about a song being played.
I'm not going to sit here and say that it's okay.
Well, hang on.
Well, hang on.
We're complaining about a, and it's ironic because we're complaining about a song being played that idolizes Adolf Hitler, who waged one of the all-time worst genocides against the Jewish people.
So actually, it couldn't be more relevant.
And I'm glad you mentioned the genocide word.
Ignoring Genocide For Songs00:08:00
So let's just, let's just stick to what happened because I'm curious.
You're all in this van.
The word is that it was Sneeko that put the record on in the van.
Is that correct?
I believe it was Sneeko.
It certainly wasn't me.
Somebody else played it and it's all on video.
I'm sure that you and your team can do an investigation and work out who it was.
And by association, being in a van when someone else plays a song, to try and grill me for that, considering that you were at a book launch and accidentally took a picture with somebody who's now in jail for pedophilia, you understand very well.
Sometimes you're just in a place and somebody's not.
But I'm not judging you.
I'm not judging you in any way.
I'm asking you what happened.
This is your chance to clarify what happened.
You have sort of clarified it in other interviews.
So again, you know, it's easy to characterize what I'm doing as a gotcha.
I'm not after a gotcha.
This thing happened.
It got well reported.
You got hammered along with all the others for it.
I'm just asking you in your words to clarify what happened, right?
So you said, unless I misheard you earlier, you said that the moment you heard this being played, you didn't like it and you got out of the van.
Why didn't you like this record being played?
Well, I think the best thing for people to do at home, if they're interested in this, instead of the satanic pedophiles, which are ruling their lives, if they find this far more interesting, that the entire event took place on video and they can watch it themselves.
Yeah, but why don't you just answer my question?
That's the easiest way.
Why would I answer the question when people can look up the video and they can watch it themselves and come to their own conclusions?
And anybody who is more concerned about the fact I was in a van when someone else played a song, as opposed to the fact they're ruled over by demonic pedophiles, well, then they can raise that with me.
I think there's far more pressing concerns.
I think there's far more interesting things happening in the world.
I think we're living in a system which is completely corrupted.
I think we're living in an empire of lies.
I think our votes are not real.
The judicial system's not real.
The media isn't real.
The education system isn't real.
They're lying to us.
They're scamming us.
They're trying to effectively genocide us on our host nations.
And I don't think the fact that I was in a van when someone else played a song one month ago is worth our time.
Okay.
But you do accept, I suppose, that for young people, but collectively you have tens of millions of people that follow you on all your social medias, that that imagery of you all apparently celebrating this song, Heil Hitler, which in itself celebrates one of the most genocidal monsters in history.
I'm literally shaking my head.
That is.
Okay, so I'm asking you what your reaction is to that song because it happens in the van.
We're now looking at footage of it happening in the club.
You can see the others dancing along to it.
You, to be fair to you, do not look like you're quite as celebratory of it as they are, but you're laughing and shaking your head.
So what are you actually thinking as Heil Hitler is being played in that nightclub and Fuentes and Sneaky and the others are celebrating?
Yeah, I'm smiling and shaking my head because I believe it's deliberately provocative.
And some people on the internet are trying to be exactly that.
They want to be deliberately provocative to get clicks and get attention.
With all due respect, Piers, you've been known to do it yourself.
I wasn't interested in trying to be deliberately provocative.
I went out because it was the first time I met some of those gentlemen.
I stood in the club and repeatedly said, this is boring.
I want to leave.
People can watch the video themselves.
And I think it's far more interesting and far more concerning that members of our government that our democratic institutions were supposed to believe in are corrupted to the core.
And we're sending billions of dollars to convicted paedophiles.
It's really amazing that me standing in a club playing a song or me doing absolutely nothing wrong is going to get endless media smear, me lose my companies, lose my banks, lose my passport, go to jail, locked in my house, try and take my children from me when I've never been convicted of any crime.
And we're going to pretend I'm the boogeyman.
Jess Phillips and Kier Starmer are going to sit here and mention that video along with other things and say I'm the boogeyman and I'm dangerous, as opposed to discuss the fact that our entire democratic institution has been infiltrated by satanic pedophiles, Piers.
That is far more interesting to me.
It affects far more people's lives.
And it is truly disgusting that the media and its machine manages to conflate and distract and bring up garbage to take away people's attention from what truly matters in this world.
We live in a democracy.
The electorate should be respected.
There should not be secret rooms where deals are made and decisions happen outside of the view of the electorate with or without satanic rituals, with or without sex.
And it turns out there is all of this happening.
And we now have some degree of transparency.
Thank very much to Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
And I hope that the people who appear in the files are fully investigated to the full strength of the law, as I have been.
You know, the easier answer, far be it from me to teach you how to answer questions and interviews, is to say that you find what's in the Epstein files utterly disgusting and reprehensible.
Well, that's clear.
And you find, and you find the idea of a bunch of very well-followed influencers with big influence over young men in particular celebrating the song Heil Hitler is also disgusting and reprehensible.
And you wish you had not been there at the time, because obviously it reflects badly on everybody involved.
That's the simple answer.
And if you'd said that, I could respect it.
Instead, you go on a long, torturous non-answer, which makes me think, well, did you care or not?
Well, perhaps, Piers, and I want to be honest with you, because we've spoken quite a lot of times.
Perhaps after going through the hell I've been, after going through the hell I've been through, and it's been truly hell, after going through the endless decimation, attacks, the endless slander, after going through what I've been through while witnessing a genocide in real time.
Remember, I was the first person to tell you on October 9th that it was a genocide before it was popular to say that.
After watching all of these things, after understanding that we're ruled over by satanic pedophiles, after understanding that our entire judicial system is corrupt, after understanding that Jess Phillips and Kier Starmer are trying to put me in jail when I've done it all this, yeah.
Well, while covering for pedophiles, perhaps the idea that a song played in a nightclub that I stood in, perhaps it just doesn't register on my metrics of importance.
Perhaps I've just been through so much and I've seen so many terrible things are happening in the world right now that I don't think it's the biggest news story.
And I really don't think it's worth your time or mine.
You're an extremely well-known, established journalist, and we're talking about a nightclub playing a song one month ago.
If a nightclub played a song about killing black people or rape or murder, which is basically every single rap song that exists, nobody would care.
So I think this is all highly ridiculous.
And the more important thing is that Donald Trump and Elon Musk has allowed us some degree of transparency, the tip of the iceberg into the insanity of what we believe is our democratic institutions and how corrupt they are.
And I want every single person inside of the Epstein files, including the innocent people, including you, including Elon, including everyone, to be investigated to the full force of the law because it is not down to them to admit wrongdoing.
That is why we have a rule of law.
Criminals do not admit they did things wrong.
They go to court and they prove they did nothing wrong.
And what I am saying is that the British state has plenty of time.
They have plenty of time to arrest people for tweets.
They have plenty of time to arrest people for nothing.
So they should be investigating this huge pile of evidence.
And the real questions are these.
Why did they ignore the pile of evidence for a decade?
One.
Two, who paid Jeffrey Epstein and made him so rich?
Three, what were they paying for?
They made all these points.
What decisions have taken place that have affected the lives of British people based on the back of bribe money paid to paedophiles as opposed to the will of the electorate?
What more need to be undone?
Andrew, you've made all these points and I agree with many of the points you made in relation to that.
I just think on the Heil Hitler thing, it is beyond pathetic to see influential young men celebrating Adolf Hitler.
And in your case, given how strongly you feel about genocide, to be party to any of that in any way and not just come out and straightforwardly condemn it unreservedly is a shame.
Investigating The Evidence00:00:38
Because if you really care about genocide, you would want nothing to do with a song that celebrates Adolf Hitler.
But we're not going to agree.
I'm going to leave it there.
And I appreciate you coming back and uncensored.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir.
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
To enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing.
Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored 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.