Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out.

>> The Joe Rogan Experience.

>> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY

NIGHT. All day.

>> Yes. Andrew.

>> Hello.

>> Good to see you, brother.

>> Good to see you, too.

>> Um, it has been, you said, 6 years

almost to the day. The last time. So,

>> lots changed.

>> Right before everything went crazy.

>> That's it.

>> Right before.

>> Yeah. The whole world sort of shift

>> cuz everything went kooky around March,

right?

>> Yeah. Yeah. So, it was February 2020 and

then then we have COVID and then we

have, you know, we've had Trump in

between of that. We had BLM. That summer

of 2020, everything just exploded and

went mad and um

>> yeah, and then everything shifted.

>> And then you wrote a book. It's called

The End of Woke. How the Culture War

went too far and what to expect from the

counterrevolution.

>> Isn't that how it always goes though? It

goes like we go too far and then we

overcorrect and we become Nazis or

>> That's it. Exactly. Well, you know,

>> or it's the opposite. We go socialist.

You know,

>> it's a big pendulum. I get that. It sort

of goes back and forth. I mean, I was

trying to in that book, I'm trying to

make the point that what woke was was

like a kind of the latest manifestation

of a kind of innate authoritarian

impulse. I think human beings are by

default quite uh inclined towards just

shutting people up if they don't like

them.

>> Yeah.

>> Just imposing their authority. And so,

woke I mean a lot of people are annoyed

that I've called it the work. I'm not

saying it's all over. Let's just go

home, forget about it. It's still going

on. But the point about it is is that in

its current manifestation, things are

changing now so rapidly. We are moving

into some sort of new phase and that

authoritarianism which we've associated

with the left might come up from the

right. It could come up from anywhere.

It's what you say about the pendulum. So

you just have to be kind of vigilant

about it. I don't think we were

vigilant. I think that's why woke

happened.

>> We weren't vigilant against this

prospect that you know authoritarianism

could emerge in what we thought was a

free society. Well, authoritarianism

authoritarianism, it snuck in through uh

a sheep costume.

>> Yeah. You know,

>> a wolf in a sheep's costume.

>> Yeah. It was a it was a costume of

being more inclusive, being more

open-minded, being a better society,

being kinder, you know? It it it led to,

you know, child trans surgeries, led to

chaos. It led to like a lot of like

really [ __ ] freaky things that you

would have never expected. people people

saying that the First Amendment is not

important. What's more important is

protecting people.

>> Well, that was the key, wasn't it? The

point was that the way it worked was

that it was gulling people through

language that sounded really sweet and

kittenish and fluffy. You know, things

like equity. Well, that sounds a lot

like equality, doesn't it? But it

doesn't mean equality. It means treating

people unequally to ensure uh equal

outcomes according to group identity.

That's a very different thing. You say

you're talking about let's make

everything inclusive, but what you

really mean is let's exclude anyone who

disagrees with what we've got to say. So

you're using language to mean the exact

opposite. They say gender affirming

care. Do they mean that or do they mean

affirming what is effectively a

pseudoscientific belief among vulnerable

people? So it's it's all about misusing

language because most people I think or

I like to think are pretty decent. Yeah.

>> Like most people want to be kind and

want to be fair. And when you hear these

activists saying be kind, be

compassionate, or else, right? You know,

you kind of think, okay,

>> well, maybe their intentions are good,

but also they're pretty scary. I mean,

there's there's a there's a weird there

was a weird thing with the woke thing,

which was that on the one hand, it

proclaimed to be this sort of great,

virtuous, kind, uh, progressive right

side of history. How often did you hear

that phrase?

>> Right.

>> And at the same time, they're like

dangerous dogs. Like you're you're like,

I better not piss them off. I better not

say the wrong thing in the workplace cuz

they'll they'll destroy you.

>> Well, I always find that the most

preposterous the idea is and the the

least capable it is to stand up to

scrutiny, the more violent the

enforcement of that idea will be because

you cannot combat that. You can't defend

that idea with logic. So, you have to

defend it with fear and force and and

just

>> just shouting people down. And that's

what we saw. And that's it's a natural

impulse of human beings. Absolutely.

Like when you're arguing with a kid, you

know, when you're a kid and you're

arguing with the kid and you say

something, you don't even know you you

shut the [ __ ] up. Like they just start

scaring you. So why is it though that

some countries and some societies seem

to protect themselves better than others

>> against that against that impulse and I

feel at the moment that the UK is kind

of failing where America is to a degree

succeed not in obviously in all ways but

when it comes to the idea of freedom and

free speech like I think UK is pretty

far has pretty fallen to the kind of the

the woke insistence that you need to

control people's language so that you

can create this perfect society which

can never come anyway it's just

>> well I think it's been co-opted

I think whatever organic version of that

emerges naturally from society where

people where there's an overcorrection.

I think in the UK because you guys don't

have free speech laws

>> cuz it's just different over there.

Yeah.

>> You can get away with a lot of crazy

[ __ ] like the first of all like we

should explain what we're talking about.

More than 12,000 people have been

arrested in the UK in the past year for

social media posts. And if you read some

of those social media posts, they're not

even remotely terrifying. It's not like,

"I'm going to grab a knife and go cut

the head off of every immigrant I see."

Like, "Hey buddy, maybe we should lock

this guy up and evaluate him. He sounds

like a crazy person." Like, no. The

immigrants are coming into this [ __ ]

country and creating all this crime.

Knock on the door. You're going to jail.

>> I worry that Americans think we're mad

sometimes. I think we do. Yeah. Do you

>> We do now. Yeah. We think you've lost

it. Yeah. We think, well, we also think

something happened where your leaders

are intentionally trying to tank your

country. It seems like they're trying to

bring in as many migrants as possible.

Um, cater to them, not to the British

people and do it openly so that everyone

knows what they're doing and then create

chaos on the streets because of it.

>> Yeah. I mean, people have a phrase that

anarot tyranny, you know, where you

where you punish people who aren't

breaking the law, but but you protect

those who are. And I I think with the I

mean I don't know to the extent that

Americans know the I mean the stat you

quoted that came from the Times

newspaper in London which had a freedom

information request to the police found

out that it's 12,000 a year on average.

So that's like 30 a day not just being

investigated or looked into but being

arrested.

>> But over the last few years only if you

go back it's only like a,000 or 500.

>> It was 3,000 uh last time we spoke back

in 2020. 3,000 years back then.

>> Yeah. Oh my god.

>> So, we already had that problem. I mean,

we

>> I didn't know it was that many. That's

crazy. Even back then,

>> it was already really high. I mean, we

had stuff like the old stories of like

um there was that guy in 2010 who made a

joke online about he was at Doncaster

airport in the UK. He said, "Oh, if this

queue doesn't hurry up, I'm going to

blow up the airport." Just a stupid

funny tweet. He went all the way to

court. That was a full trial. Or so

these these laws and I think I think

what happens with this stuff is people

don't realize how long this has been

embedded in the UK. We have hate speech

laws that are encoded in a number of

different legislations. We have a thing

called the Public Order Act. We have a

thing called Malicious Communications

Act. That's from 1988. We have

Communications Act from 2003.

And all of these things criminalize. I

tell you, I I kid you not, the language

in the statute books is if it's grossly

offensive. That's the phrase. If you

post something that is grossly

offensive, you can go to court. You can

be prosecuted. But, you know, I find

>> so subjective.

>> Well, that's it. What does that even

mean? I find laws against free speech to

be grossly offensive. So should the the

British state be arrested? I don't know.

And there's one I think it's in the um

malicious communication communications

act where it talks about needless

anxiety causing needless anxiety can get

you arrested. And you think you think

that's not a thing? I can give you a

specific example.

>> You smoke cigars? Uh, I have once my

friend Winston Marshall, who think I

worry that if I try it, I'll cough and

I'll look really wimpish and and

pathetic and it'll won't be good for

your arguments.

>> It will backfire. It will I tell you,

it'll undermine everything. It'd be like

I'm sitting here with a paper hat on at

Christmas, undermining all of my key

points, right?

>> Um, I I see I like I like the flavor and

I like being around smokers cuz my

grandmother used to chain smoke around

me. So, it's kind of

>> Oh, boy.

>> Well, she's Northern Irish, you know.

It's the way they do. She used to give

me whiskey when I was three to calm me

down, you know. So, it's that sort of

family.

>> Um,

>> that's an old thing they used to do with

kids. They just put it in their babies.

They put it in their mouth.

>> Like they would dip their finger in

whiskey and rub it on the inside of a

kid's mouth.

>> If you're struggling with a child, get

it drunk.

>> That's how you It's old Northern Irish

wisdom.

>> I don't think you should scoff at it.

It's a good It's a good thing, but I'll

be more than happy to

>> It's grossly offensive.

>> It's grossly offensive.

The example I was going to give uh was

this um guy called Darren Brady. And

this sounds made up. And whenever I tell

people this, it sounds made up. He um

posted a meme. I don't know if you saw

this meme where it was the four Progress

Pride flags, you know, that's got the

crazy triangles and stuff in it now.

>> Uhhuh. And you put them all together and

they become a swastika.

>> Exactly. That right. And that was going

everywhere. And he posted it and there's

a video of him being arrested, put in

handcuffs. He's an army veteran, by the

way. Right. Put in handcuffs by the

police. And the policeman says in the

video, "You caused someone anxiety." So

the actual language from the law is

being used for this rearrangement of the

And you know what? That's quite a good

satirical point.

>> Yeah.

>> That he was making. It wasn't even his

meme. He was just retweeting a meme. But

even if it was some horrible offensive

thing, who cares?

>> How was that offensive?

>> Well, I guess I mean, well, you could

find that's the problem. You could find

anything offensive. M

>> you could find anything grossly

offensive if you're extremely sensitive.

>> You could. And but wasn't there a point

to that? I mean, he was kind of saying

that the LGBTQIA

plus movement has become quite

authoritarian.

>> Yeah.

>> He's not saying they're actual Nazis.

And he's saying, "Oh, isn't it quite

funny that when you put them together,

it looks like a it looks like a swast

sticker." The idea that you get

handcuffed for that,

>> especially for a retweet, that's crazy.

>> Yeah, that's crazy.

>> It's retweets, it's tweets, it's posts.

Uh we've had memes are the big ones. So

there was a guy called Lee Joseph Dunn

who went to prison for eight weeks. That

was last year I think for three memes

that he posted.

>> Eight weeks.

>> Eight weeks in prison. One, right? So

again, the I'll tell you what the most

offensive of the three memes was and you

can tell me whether you think it was

worth prison time.

>> He put a picture of some immigrants uh

with knives and underneath it said

coming to a town near you. And that was

it. So I don't know if you think that's

worth prison time. That's the most

offensive one

>> of the three. That's the most

>> What's the least offensive one?

>> I can't remember what the other two were

>> because I remember I looked at them. I

thought that's not even worth that's not

even worth thinking about. But this one

was the one that really cuz because they

say in England you're stirring up hatred

against minorities through the the the

spreading of the meme,

>> right?

>> You know, but that's clearly not

sufficient. You know, I and I think in

the US you have you have far more

protections. I I wonder whether it's to

do with the fact that in the US you have

the first amendment like so you have

something codified. Yeah.

>> That says you can say what you want.

>> We've never had that.

>> It's very important and it didn't seem

important 20 years ago or 30 years ago

>> because no one ever looked at England as

being that kind of a country that would

just put people Well, obviously this was

all preocial media and England has

always been a fairly polite society.

Yes. And and but the thing is like now

pub talk has become illegal, right?

Yeah. Like if you say something

offensive in a pub, you're subject to be

arrested and they're asking people to

turn people in.

>> There's a thing called the banter ban,

which the Labor the Labor government was

trying to put in. Here's the logic of

the banter ban. Um I I I've forgotten

about this, but now you mentioned it.

They wanted to introduce this law so

that for instance, if you're working in

a bar or a pub and you overhear someone

who says something against your

protected characteristic, say you're a

gay bar man and someone says, "Oh, I

don't like the gays." or something and

you overhear it, your employer has a a

duty to protect you from that kind of

hate speech, that kind of harm, so

therefore there's going to be a blanket

ban on speech in on certain kinds of

speech within the the pub, right? I

would say the guy who's eavesdropping,

he's the problem, right? you shouldn't

be listening in on other people's

conversations. That so that's that's a

real thing.

>> Yes.

>> And I guess it all comes down to this

view which I think is completely wrong

that words and violence are the same

thing. Uh that words can create a more

violent society that there's a direct

causal link between the stuff that

people say and the stuff that people say

online to how people behave in the real

world. And I think you guys have got it

right because you've got the Brandenburg

test. Do you know about the the the the

test for incitement to violence in the

US?

>> No. What is that? It's it's basically a

test that was established I think back

in the 60s. Uh it was a KKK leader

called Clarence Brandenburgg who was

prosecuted for incitement to violence.

And the test was that was established

since that precedent was that any words

uh that can be convicted for incitement

to violence they have to be intended to

cause violence likely to cause violence

and the violence must be imminent and if

you satisfy those that that threshold

you can be prosecuted in the US for

incitement to violence. So it' be like

kind of imagine a demagogue surrounded

by all his fans whipping up a frenzy and

then pointing to a guy on the front row

and saying kill him now. That would

qualify for the Brandenburgg test.

>> But in the UK, because we don't have

that test, all we've got is whether

people found it offensive. That's the

that's the difference of the threshold.

So it's a it's a massive difference

between what the US has and what the UK

has.

>> Massive.

>> It's insane. I mean to give the most

obvious recent example cuz I don't know

if people know about this. There's a

woman called Lucy Connelly in the UK. Uh

I don't know if this was reported over

here at all. Do you remember we had all

these riots last year during the summer

when uh against hotels which were

housing asylum seekers and people were

setting fire to them. There were

genuinely racist stuff going on right

during those riots. And this was off the

back of a guy who'd murdered a bunch of

little girls in a dance class. And there

were rumors going around that this was

an asylum seeker, right? And this one

woman, a mother who'd lost her daughter,

very sensitive about the idea of um Lucy

Connelly, very sensitive about the idea

of loss of kids. She tweeted in an in a

fit of anger. Go and burn down all the

hotels for all I care. Uh if that makes

me racist, so be it. And take the

government with you. Something like

that. And she deleted it within a couple

of hours. She went out, walked a dog,

she deleted it. She thought, I really

that's not me. That's not who I am.

Deleted it. police came, went to court,

sentenced to 31 months in prison for

that deleted, swiftly deleted tweet, and

she served over a year.

>> Oh my god.

>> Now, I'm not saying the tweet was nice,

right? The tweet was a horrible tweet,

and she says it was a horrible tweet,

that's why she deleted it. But because

we don't have that Brandenburg test, we

don't have a test for incitement to

violence because the key is that tweet,

there was no way it could have, she was

a nobody, you know, she wasn't someone

with influence. She didn't have many

followers. um she no one was going to

read that and go and act upon it and if

they did that would be on them right

because yeah

>> this is a myth this myth that people act

on cue to what they read online

>> well isn't real

>> it influences people for sure but it

what point are you required to have

sovereignty over your own mind and your

own actions

>> yeah well I think what it does is it

raises the temperature particularly when

political leaders do it

>> right

went political. But my point is like

it's not going to incite you to

violence. It's not going to incite me to

violence. So who are we talking about?

This is part of the thing is like

they're protecting the dumbest members

of society. This is like the thing about

>> banning, you know, crazy talk online. If

you're talking about witches or, you

know, whatever it is, flat earth, like

we have to stop misinformation from from

who? It's not working on you, right? You

don't believe it. So, who are we

protecting? We're protecting the dumbest

people.

>> Also, aren't you kind of letting them

off? Like, if someone goes and commits

an act of violence and said, "Oh, I did

it because someone told me to do it."

Aren't you kind of letting them off the

hook?

>> Right. Exactly.

>> And sort of displacing the blame. You

know, it's like that guy who shot uh

John Lennon who said catcher in the Ry

made him do it. Reading the book Cat.

Are we now blaming JD Salinger, right,

>> for the murder of John Lennon? It was

John Lennon, wasn't it? I think he did.

Yeah. So do do you I think the safest

approach is to say people are

responsible for their own actions. I

think the best that you could say is

when political leaders and people with

clout

say things like that sort of and say you

know it's fine to go out and commit

violence. I think what they do is they

create a kind of impre of approval. They

create this kind of sense that if you do

it the people in charge will have your

back. If you do it it's okay. Well, this

was the argument with Trump for January

6th, and that's why the BBC edited his

speech to make it look as if that's what

he was saying. Do

>> you see you saw that clip, right?

>> Oh my god, it's [ __ ] crazy.

>> I I mean, I've been saying for a long

time, the BBC has a real like Well, I

will say in the BBC's defense is they've

always been pretty good at being party

politically neutral. Like, they will uh

interrogate someone in the the right and

someone in the left in a pretty neutral

way. They don't I think they do a pretty

good I know people will be annoyed at me

for saying that but I think they do. But

I think in terms of the ideology, the

woke ideology, they got captured. They

have a thing at the BBC called the LGBT

desk or they had it up until recently

which could veto any news story which

meant that any story that was slightly

critical of trans activism or or

anything like that just didn't get

reported. So I'm not surprised that the

BBC

>> they gave them veto power.

>> They gave them veto power. Yeah.

>> That's crazy. This all came out in a

report, quite a recent report just a few

months ago, which led to the resignation

of Tim David, the director general, and

he resigned ostensibly because of that

Trump clip, which by the way, that

wasn't the first time they did it. There

there was another clip about a year a

year before in a different program that

did the same thing, took the clip,

re-edited it, and made it look like he

had said something he absolutely had not

said. So, I think the the BBC quite

obviously has an ideological bias if not

a party political bias,

>> but that's more than a bias.

>> Well, it's misleading, right? It's

>> it's completely deceptive. You're you're

editing something and change I mean you

took out a giant chunk of his speech.

>> Yeah.

>> This episode is brought to you by

1800flowers.com.

Valentine's Day is coming up. It always

sneaks up on people. If you want an easy

way to absolutely crush it this year,

this is it. 1800 Flowers roses. They're

bigger and actually last. Plus, they

back it with a 7-day freshness

guarantee, so you can feel confident

that you're sending the best. Here's the

deal. Right now, they've got this double

blooms offer. You buy one dozen roses,

they double it to two dozen for free. No

catch. Same price, way bigger statement.

They also do same day delivery

nationwide. So even if you waited longer

than you should have, you're still good.

This is one of those rare situations

where doing something big is actually

easy. Go to 1800flowers.com/rogan

to get the double blooms offer. Buy one

dozen, they double it to two dozen roses

free. That's 1800flowers.com/roganogen.

I forget how many minutes it was. They

leapt like 45 minutes or something like

so he said

>> something crazy like that.

>> Yeah. He said it made him look like he

was saying go and commit the

>> Yeah. Exactly.

>> And instead he he was in tongue and

cheek talking about the very fine center

that they're doing a great job senators

and congress people and said all this

other stuff.

>> It's said you have to fight like hell to

keep your country.

>> I mean no offense but you can find daff

stuff that Trump says pretty easily,

right? You don't you don't you don't

need to edit that stuff down.

>> Well, it's cuz they had an opportunity

to like like what we were saying before

earlier. We were talking before the

show, you can put out a narrative and it

doesn't have to be true and then that's

the one that sticks. So, that's the one

that spreads wide and then when

>> all these years later they have to have

this, you know, trial and everybody

finds out it's not true, but the damage

is done. I mean, that's what they did

with Trump during the whole uh steel

dossier. Yeah. you know, the the hookers

and peeing on people and you know, all

that crazy [ __ ] Remember that?

>> I remember the idea that he'd hired

hookers to urinate on the bed that was

once occupied by the Obamas.

>> Something along those lines.

>> The reason I didn't believe that is I

don't think Trump is that avanguard. I

don't think he's that creative like

that. Like if he'd have come up with

that, I'd have been actually applauding

that. That's kind of amazing. But

obviously he didn't do that.

>> That's not even something to appla That

just sounds like a work of art.

>> Ridiculous.

>> Getting urination on the bed of your

enemy through the medium of

prostitution. I think that's kind of an

artistic thing to do. But I don't think

he did it. I obviously didn't do it.

None of it's true, right?

>> But you put that But isn't that weird

that that in partic That's like

something I don't think anyone seriously

could believe.

>> Well, there was plenty of people that

believed it and they don't Yeah, they

don't have to believe it. They just say

it. Like that was the whole point about,

you know, the trial where he got

arrested and con or and convicted of 34

counts that are a felony. None of which

are actually a felony. That's all

bookkeeping deception. It's that was the

paying off of the girl. So now you can

say he's a convicted felon. You can just

say that. And even though all those

counts were misdemeanors, all of them

had passed the statute of limitations.

>> But for some reason through no legal way

that anybody could ever really honestly

explain, they decided to label it a

felony. And it was just to turn him into

a felon.

>> I saw the I saw even left-leaning

anti-Trump lawyers saying, "This is not

how the law should work. You can't

artificially elevate a misdemeanor to a

felony outside the statute of

limitations. Crazy.

>> The thing is if you do that, they're

going to do that to you. It's like we're

going to give that kind of power to the

Republicans and now when they're in

office, they're going to start doing

things like that. Are we crazy?

>> Well, also this really bothers me. Like

one of the key things that I think's

happened over the past few years is this

complete lack of filty to the truth from

both sides. It's whatever is convenient

matters more. a complete lack of

intellectual curiosity, a complete lack

of um of of of investigating and looking

and and and thoroughly checking. And by

the way, with the BBC that really

matters because unlike the the the news

media here, which can be as partisan as

it likes, the BBC is the state

broadcaster. It's got a responsibility

by charter to not be to, you know, to be

balanced, to be evenhanded. And it

completely failed. And I saw today, just

this morning, some people, you know,

we've got all the mania about the

Epstein files at the moment. Some

activists have now said JK Rowling once

invited Epstein to the opening of her

theater, her play. Uh, never happened.

But because there's a Ferrari about

Epstein at the moment, they're just

saying it happened. It gets spread all

over the place.

>> That's all you have to do.

>> And that's all you have to do. And then

then the dam and then that gets

repeated. Oh, didn't this happen?

>> I know.

>> Like what you say about Trump is right.

I always hear that he's a convicted

felon. He's a convicted felon.

Why don't you pause for a minute and

assess whether or not that conviction is

sound or whether it was politically

motivated or how helpful that is.

>> But like you say,

>> also it's like it's such a dangerous

president to send. It's terrible. Like

if you do that,

>> it look right now in the United States

the the media predominantly leans left

except for Fox News, the mainstream

largecale media. I guess CBS is probably

going to lean more right now. Yeah,

>> it seems like it's in the process of

that. But for the most part, when you

watch CNN, if you watch MSNBC, if you

watch the mainstream news, it's very

leftleaning.

>> Yeah.

>> But if the [ __ ] if right-wing people

started if if it was like more common

for the news to be right leaning and

then they started doing the exact same

thing about a left-leaning candidate.

Yeah.

>> This is so dangerous. And the idea that

the left doesn't recognize that, which

are the people that have always been in

support of free speech, it's never been

a right-wing thing to support free

speech until now. It's always been a

left-wing thing. When I was a kid, it

was famously the case of the ADL

>> defending Nazis having the right to

protest and saying, "Look, we we think

what they're saying is abortant, but

it's very important that you get the

right to say whatever you feel." And

then the way to combat that is with much

better, more concise speech that's much

more logical and makes sense. And this

is what you do. This is what debate is

for. This is this is we we've always

known this.

>> Yeah. But I mean I I agree. I'm so

dispirited by that that very thing that

you've identified that the left used to

be about this. The left used to be all

about I mean that example you mentioned

of Skoi, wasn't it in Chicago? The the

Nazis marching through Skoi and the ACLU

saying we're you know we're defending

this. There was a book by a guy called

Aya Nia who was the head of the ACLU

called Defending Miami.

>> Yeah, it wasn't the ADL. It was the

ACLU.

>> It was the ACLU and and and he was

saying um you know he's you know he's

Jewish. He's got uh he family members

who died in the Holocaust but he's

writing a book saying I'm defending

neo-Nazis right to free speech not

because I support them but because I

don't and I want to defend the principle

whereby I can tackle them and that's

speech right.

>> So the in other words the the principle

is so much bigger. I mean the thing that

I think has been lost and now by the way

the ACLU complete about turn. I mean

there was a a lawyer for the ACLU

tweeting about how he wanted Abigail

Shrier's book banned and he said this is

the hill I will die on. You know that's

a guy called Chase or was it a guy I

think it's a trans activist called Chase

something? I can't remember. Anyway, but

but the point is how far have you fallen

when it comes to these free speech

issues? Left or right it's nothing to do

with it. It's it should be about this

principle of it's not whether you agree

with what they're saying and the

substance of what they're saying. It's

whether you want the principle intact.

And that principle applies to us all.

The very same principle that allows the

Nazis to say all their crazy stuff is

the principle that allows us to to

challenge it to to to tackle it.

>> Well, it's it's a very shortterm win.

And it's basically they're playing chess

and they decided I want that rook no

matter what. And then they just

sacrifice their queen. Like look what

you've done. Look what you've done for

this short-term victory. You're

essentially tanking civilization for a

decade where we have to sort this out

and like wa let the ship wash itself

back and forth until it writes.

>> Yeah. So how how and how do you ensure

that it's not going to happen to you?

Like I think about that there was a

national conservative conference in

Brussels about a year and a half ago.

The local mayor said I don't like this.

And he had the police rush it shut it

down. And you had mainstream right-wing

figures like Nigel Farage Sella Bravan.

How do they not think, "Hang on a

minute. If we establish that precedent,

well, you can just shut down your

political opponents through the use of

police force. How will that not rebound

on me? How will that not happen to us?"

>> Well, this is the argument that they're

using right now for Trump going after

his political opponents,

>> right? Right. Cuz they opened that

Pandora's box, right?

>> You guys did that with him. You and

everybody was saying how damn dangerous

it is. You can't [ __ ] do that. Even

if you hate the guy, if like if there's

a real crime that you can get someone,

but when you take a crime like the

bookkeeping stuff and turn it into a

felony that could put this man in jail

for the rest of his life for doing

something that turns out to be legal,

you can pay people to shut up.

>> Yeah.

>> And this is so it's just it's so weird

that people for this short-term gain are

willing to tank, which is essentially

this whole structure of our civilization

that allows free discourse. You need it.

It's so important. It's so important to

be able to communicate and talk. If

podcasts didn't exist, there was no way

to talk through ideas

>> other than mainstream news. We would

still be stuck in some very bizarre

1990s or 1980s narrative about how the

world works.

>> Yeah.

>> We would have real problems. We'd have

real problems if there wasn't

independent journalism like on Twitter

and on wherever they can post.

>> Yeah. So, why don't they get it? I mean,

we've had like people in left-leaning

papers in the UK calling for Elon Musk

to be arrested because he's allowing

free speech on X or Twitter, whatever

you want to call it. Like what?

>> Well, their offices got raided today in

some country. There was a country where

ex's offices got raided.

Um I think one of the things was they

somehow another let there were I think

something had to do with child

pornography.

>> Where was that? France.

>> France. Fresh investigation into Grock.

>> And what is it? What are the

>> Oh, so you know what this is all about.

>> Suspected offenses, including unlawful

data extraction and complicity in the

possession of child pornography.

>> Yeah, but that's not what this is about.

This is because people have been

misusing Grock to like put bikinis on

women they like or even in a few

horrible cases creating child child

sexual.

>> You can do Wait a minute. You can't

create child pornography.

>> I don't think you can. No. or or at

least I think that's very much been shut

down and safeguarded, right? I think

that's what's happened.

>> I mean, unless there's like some sort of

a loophole where you could get it to do

it. Among potential crimes, it said it

would investigate where complicity in

possession or organized distribution of

images of children of a pornographic

nature, infringement of people's image

rights with sexual deep fakes. Okay. The

sexual deep fakes. Yeah. So, sexual deep

flakes is like if you put Hillary

Clinton in a bikini and made her hot,

that's a sexual deep fake.

>> Okay. Right. fraudulent data extraction

by an organized group. I think you can

still do some of that stuff.

>> You can put people in bikinis.

>> Yeah, I think you can do that. So like

if you wanted to take Shaquille O'Neal

and put him in a bikini, you could say

you're sexualizing him.

>> Okay. I Yeah, I mean I guess you can do

that.

>> Yeah.

>> So but that's what So that would be why

you know recently Kia Star, Prime

Minister UK said he wanted was

considering or not necessarily he was

going to ban X but it wasn't off the

table. It's something like he as though

he's going to do that. But this is

always the excuse like we're protecting

children,

>> right?

>> And and look, no one wants that sort of

stuff, right? No one wants deep fakes of

kids obviously.

>> But there's far I mean looking at the

stats on that. There's far more child

sexual sex sexual exploitation on

Snapchat for instance.

>> But they don't go after Snapchat because

Snapchat isn't the form where Kia

Starmer is getting criticized every

single day and brutally hauled over the

coals by by people checking his facts.

One of the best things about X recently

is the community notes. Checking

checking journalists and politicians in

real time with facts. They hate it. They

hate that. So, no wonder they're going

after X.

>> Yeah. Biden got cooked by community

notes multiple times to the point where

the administration was taking down

posts.

>> Yeah. So did the uh the Guardian, the

left-leaning newspaper. It flounced off

X with a big statement saying, "We're

going to Blue Sky. We've had it. We're

off to Blue Sky. It was such a flounce."

And of course and then of course

everyone was retweeting all the their

community notes. We had loads of them.

>> Of course,

>> just absolutely loads of

>> because it's not true. And you know,

especially when it's open to the whole

world and people that aren't stuck under

your guidelines like in America, we

could just talk [ __ ] And I think the

reason why it's in France probably has a

lot to do with Candace Owens.

>> It Oh, yes. That makes complete sense.

>> Yeah. Mcronone and like I mean, how many

times did that get shared?

>> Yeah, exactly.

>> I mean, that is

>> that makes sense of it. Now,

>> by the way, there's a real quick way to

solve that. Open chromosome test. Go

ahead.

>> I thought you were going to be a bit

more graphic than that.

>> Well, you don't have to

>> because that doesn't really solve it

because you could if unless I mean

there's no operation, but if she's gone

through a surgery, then you know you

could show a picture and it's probably

pretty realistic, especially when was

the last time you saw a 70-year-old

lady's

>> cter last week.

>> Oh, yeah. Congratulations.

>> I'm just interested in that sort of

stuff.

>> Well, you know, you're allowed to be

curious in this country.

>> That's actually a really good example,

though, isn't the just something so

obviously not true just going all over

the world like like in a in a matter of

moment

>> is it not true though

>> well that um Macron's wife is a man yeah

that's not true

>> 100%

>> well you know the burden of proof is on

those who want to say that it is true

>> the reality of the story is weird enough

without it being true like the

40-year-old man and the

>> he was wasn't she his his 40 yeah she

was 40 if it was it if it is actually a

woman she was 40 and he was 15 that's

crazy And everyone says, "Well, they're

French." That's that seems to be that

seems to be the thing.

>> What a wild country.

>> That that's that's

people just say that's the way it works

in France. Yeah. But again, look, I

would say with all of this stuff, you

need some sort of proof. You need like

when when you wasn't it the Carl Sean

thing about extraordinary claims require

extraordinary evidence. I think that's a

pretty safe dictat. The idea that okay,

anything could be true, you know, or you

know, there have been crazy conspiracies

that turned out to be true. So, I'm not

I would never rule anything out, but

what I'm saying is if you're going to

make a claim like that, you better be

damn sure you've got really solid

evidence about it.

>> She's got hours long documentaries on

this.

>> Yeah. And are they are they persuasive?

>> We I haven't watched them all. You think

I have that kind of time, dog?

>> Well, you should do what? You should do

your research before you're part of the

problem. Outrageous.

>> I can't do research on that. I I I want

to wait till it plays out in court. But

whenever I do do re like I'll give you

the the example from this week just

because I'm reading it now. A woman's

written a book claiming that Shakespeare

was a black woman.

>> I saw that.

>> Yeah. Um so um this is a major spoiler

alert. Shakespeare wasn't a black woman.

By the way crazy.

>> Yeah. I've got the book. I'm I'm reading

the book now. Um it is worse than you

imagined. Part of the evidence.

>> How could it be worse than I imagined?

>> Because because it's obviously not true,

first of all, of course. But but but um

she basically says in the book that um

it's important that it should be true

and therefore Yeah. And in fact the book

opens with a picture of Shakespeare as a

black woman which was drawn by the

author.

>> That's that. So

>> is it a good drawing?

>> It's okay. I get I don't want to mock

someone else.

>> Can I see it?

>> If it's out it's the it's the first Oh,

that's the

>> That's actually pretty good.

>> No, no. That's No, no, no.

>> That's a black woman.

>> No, no, no. That's a portrait of Amelia

Lanya, who she says was Shakespeare. And

she says that the portraits at the time

were whitened to disguise her blackness.

In in the book itself,

>> convenient.

>> In the book itself, you won't be able to

get in the book, I don't think, Jamie,

but in the book itself, there's a sketch

that she's done. So, it's like I can

imagine a publisher saying, "Oh, what

evidence have you got?" And she's like,

"Oh, well, I'll I'll go and draw it for

you." And that's sort of what

>> Oh, she's black and Jewish.

>> Yeah. Black Jewish. Well, actually, I

mean, Amelia Lanya was part part

Moorish, but wasn't black, and she

wasn't particularly dark skinned,

>> and she was Jewish as well.

>> Yeah, part Jewish.

>> Okay. So, who is this woman that they're

saying actually was Shakespeare?

>> Uh, so she's called Amelia Lana or

Amelia Basano. Um, and one of the

arguments is that Shakespeare at the

time, if she was a woman, wouldn't have

been able to get published because women

couldn't get published. But Amelia Lana

was published. She had a book of poetry.

So all of this stuff falls apart like in

two seconds flat. And she all right this

is the best one. She even says in the

book that um the word Shakespeare is an

anagram of uh a she speaker.

I'm not making that up. That's what she

says. I mean,

>> you know, listen,

>> it's a cover up. How'd she crack the

case?

>> Well, actually, it's an old theory. It's

It's like a 20-y old theory. Is it

really? I tell you,

>> 20 years old.

She's just sort of rehashing it now for

this identitarian postwoke world where

we're all like we're desperate for

Shakespeare to be a black woman and and

it's so

>> that's so funny.

>> It's so pathetic.

>> This was my first encounter with

conspiracy theorist because my

background is I did a doctorate in

Shakespeare. My background was teaching

Shakespeare back in the day like before

I did comedy and before I did anything

else. And it was the conspiracy

theorists around Shakespeare saying

Shakespeare couldn't have written his

work. They are the most intense, the

most angry, the most evidence-free

cohort of people you can. They get more

They're angrier than the woke. I promise

you. Like I've tweeted I've written

stuff about Shakespeare online. I I

recently did some lectures about

Shakespeare for the Peterson Academy

because I'm really into help. I I love

the Peterson Academy. I love what

they're doing. And I did these

Shakespeare lectures and the conspiracy

theorists were on to me online saying it

wasn't Shakes here. You the guy from

Stratford didn't write this. And what

all these theories have in common is

they've just made they there's no

evidence. There's no evidence. The key

point about Shakespeare is if you're

going to say it wasn't the guy who

everyone thought it was, you have to

answer one key question. Why does

everyone who knew Shakespeare wrote

about Shakespeare, say that it was.

>> Can I stop you because I'm confused. I

didn't even know that there was a

conspiracy about Shakespeare.

>> Oh wow. Yeah, there's lots. I had heard

one person say that Shakespeare wasn't

real and that it was really someone

else's work that he plagiarized. Yeah, I

had heard that,

>> but I never even bothered to [ __ ] around

with it.

>> Well, it actually came from America.

It's you guys. Um, it was the best.

>> We're number one.

>> It was a guy called Lo Guy called Looney

actually from America.

>> That's hilarious. You got to listen to

that guy.

So he we're going back like 60 70 years

or something but he came up with this

idea that Shakespeare was actually an

aristocrat called Edward Dvere the Earl

of Oxford. Problem is Edward Deve died

in6004 that's before McBth that's before

Anthony and Cleopatra that's before

Corolanus that's before the Tempest. So

he managed to I think they get around it

by saying he wrote these plays and then

he and then he died and then the

>> Shakespeare found them

>> or or something. Yeah. So, so even

though some of those plays actually have

cultural references from the time after

Dvere died, but it doesn't matter. Maybe

he was a prophet as well,

>> but but but all of the all of the you

speak to these people, you'll you'll see

what I mean. Edward Deve, they think

some people think it was Francis Bacon,

some people think it was Christopher

Marlo, some people think it was

Elizabeth the first, like all all of the

candidates they put up, right? The key

thing is they're all aristocrats,

they're all posh. Why? Because

Shakespeare was a middle class, lower

middle class, not very rich,

>> didn't go to university, came from the

Midlands, you know, upand cominging guy

who, and they say, well, how could

someone like that write about kings and

lords and ladies? It's snobbery. They're

basically saying working-class people

can't do can't do art. That I mean,

really, that's what it is. Otherwise,

they wouldn't be going after all these

aristocrats.

>> And the it's the opposite in America,

oddly,

>> is it?

>> Yeah. So if you were a Rockefeller in

America, you're from the Rockefeller

family and you wrote an amazing novel,

no one would believe it,

>> right?

>> They would say, "No, that has to be like

some guy who or some woman who's like

grinding, drinking coffee and smoking

cigarettes alone in their apartment to

write something as brilliant."

>> So I wonder what it is about the UK.

Well, although like I say, a lot of it

comes from America. And is it just the

the need to tear down an icon? Is it

that is it? Yeah. I mean, I get it now

with this woman who who's saying

Shakespeare is a black woman.

>> I get that at the moment because we're

in this moment of identitarian group

identity mania, right?

>> So, that makes sense. She's got a

political reason why she wanted to be a

black woman. So, I kind of understand

that more.

>> But what is it? I think it might be more

to do with the idea that

>> this guy changed civilization, changed

literature. No one else has achieved

what he achieved in writing. He's up

there with Michelangelo, Bark, you know,

all of that. Let's tear that down. Let's

tear down Western civilization. Let's

say none of this is based on anything.

This is all this is all untrue.

>> I think it's to do with the that innate

iconoclasm, that innate, you know, just

just tearing down the great things about

our culture.

>> Yeah, for sure. That's always been the

case. And and people always want to tear

down idols. They want to tear down, you

know, whoever it is, no matter what. I

was watching this video we were talking

about the other day of this woman

talking about how the Beatles are

terrible,

>> right?

>> And this woman's not very articulate,

not particularly interesting, doesn't

seem that compelling. Yeah.

>> And she was going on and on about how

bad the Beatles were. Like,

>> you're not going to convince anyone.

That's just not going to work. But

people are gonna [ __ ] try. They're

gonna try no matter what. No matter who

it is. Hendrick sucked. I've heard that

before. Really?

>> Hendrick sucked. Like, stop.

>> But at least that's based on an opinion,

right? There's a there's a difference

between saying Jimmyi Hendricks sucked

and Jimmyi Hendris was actually a woman

from Liverpool called Maud.

>> Well, you know the theory about Jimmyi

Hendricks in America. Do you know that?

>> No.

>> Okay. So, it's the people that are like

deep into the CIA and CIA conspiracies

and what is it called? Strange Tales

from the Canyon. Is that what it's

called? The book. Um, so there's a book

on there's a bizarre connection between

a lot of the countercultural figures of

the 1960s and and the intelligence

community.

>> Uh, one of them is Jim Morrison's father

was like a high-ranking military

officer. And then there's different

people from different bands that were

like a key part of the countercultural

movement that all have parents that were

either in intelligence communities or

closely connected to it

>> like a suspicious scenes inside the

canyon. It's a crazy book. It's uh it's

fun. It's kind of fun. Um

>> is it crazy as in like the revelations

are crazy or that it's just not true?

>> Well, it they they make some broad

leaps, right? So there's a lot of and

then a year later he died in mysterious

circumstances or a year later he died

from suicide or a year later he died

from an overdose. You well well okay

you're hanging out with a bunch of

people that are doing drugs all the time

and they're all near dwells and they're

all hanging out in Laurel Canyon. If you

don't know Laurel Canyon, Laurel Canyon,

at least at the time I mean when I first

moved to Hollywood it's like all the

weirdos would live in Laurel Canyon,

right? Like all the weirdos were like

right there above Hollywood and there

was all these crazy parties up there. It

was like Laurel Canyon was nuts

>> and they all knew each other, right? So

they're all part of that circle.

>> I mean this was like when I moved there

in the '9s this was the case.

>> My friend Dave Foley had a house up

there, right?

>> And it was like all these kooky people

and he's telling me about all these

kooky parties and all this different

[ __ ] It was like Laurel Canyon was

always like kind of so of course a bunch

of people are gonna die. Of course, a

bunch of people are going to be

connected to bands and and different

>> counterculture movies. The theory is

that the CIA

>> um sort of engineered this this culture

>> to I don't know why. I'm I'm not exactly

sure cuz I haven't gotten all the way

through the book. I'm like only like

half. Are

>> you still still reading it? Okay.

>> No, I pick it up every now and then.

It's just like it's too kooky. It's

>> it's not grabbing you. Well,

you can't make Jimmyi Hendris in a lab.

Okay, you can't. It's just you can't

[ __ ] do it. You can't make someone

that good. It's not possible. You can't

tell me that if they did, why haven't

they done it since? Why don't they do it

all the time?

>> Right.

>> Greatest guitarist of all time. And

you're telling me the Central

Intelligence cooked that guy up?

>> So, they invented him like he's like

their clone or something.

I just think that they had some sort of

an influence on these people on Jim

Morrison. Like there's a thing about

Morrison the Mor the Morrison one like

what is the connection between Jim

Morrison's dad and the intelligence

agencies? There's some like tangible

connection with Jim Morrison's dad. But

wouldn't you just normally assume that

if your dad was some high-ranking

military guy, first of all, never home.

Yeah. Okay. So where are you? You're out

running around with your friends smoking

cigarettes and [ __ ] drinking and

you're in a band and it turns out you

got a lot of angst and pain because

you're being neglected as as a child cuz

your dad works 16 hours a day trying to

[ __ ] the country over and so what do you

do? You go counterculture. It's like

it's so common. The preacher's daughter,

she becomes like a harlot, right?

>> So there we high ranking US officer with

Yeah. Right.

>> But that is okay. But again, like this

is a perfect example.

>> Wow. He's involved in the Gulf of Tonkan

incident. Whoa. But that's not proof of

anything.

>> No, no, no, no, no. But his dad is.

>> Yeah. But but but you know, but this is

the thing. They'll take something like

that. They'll take various strips of

coincidences and they say this leads us

to this conclusion. But all they're

doing is coming up with a conclusion

first and working backwards. Like th

this sort of stuff you see it again and

again.

>> So this is how this connects with

intelligence agencies. Maccgawan. I

guess that's the author. Core move is to

group Morrison's father with other

Laurel Canyon musicians parents who

worked in military defense or

intelligence linked roles and to frame

this as evidence of a broader covert

program around the 1960s rock scene.

>> Come on.

>> Yeah.

>> So, are you saying that the CIA were

trying to influence the culture through

the medium of rock music?

>> Uhhuh. And that's somehow tied to

espionage. And

>> they also have that film

like studio.

>> What's that?

>> What?

>> Jared Leto bought that place. That was a

film studio in Laurel Canyon, too.

>> Oh, well, it's a base. It's a It's an

actual base. Yeah, Jared.

>> A lot of films.

>> I was talking to Jared about that. I had

I had dinner with Jared Leto one night.

He's very cool, by the way. Very very

nice guy. Very normal. And by the way,

he looks like he's 30. He's 50 years

old. It's crazy. I'm like, what are you

doing with your [ __ ] skin? You look

great. Lookout Mountain Laboratory, Air

Force Station.

>> So, he bought that place and converted

it into a home.

>> It's where he lives. It's a dope spot.

>> Sound stage.

>> Looks quite nice.

>> Sound stage, film laboratory, two

screening rooms, four editing rooms, an

animation and still photo department,

sound mixing studio, numerous climate

controlled film vaults.

>> And this is connected to the conspiracy

somehow.

>> Well, this was an actual military base

>> located in that same neighborhood.

>> Okay. So this Air Force station,

whatever it was, I wonder what they were

doing. Like why do they need all that

film capability? Why do they need to be

>> in theory? I guess like when they would

show the atomic bombs going off and

would play it in the movie theater for

people to see it. That's like that's how

they would make the actual like, you

know, reals and whatnot.

>> Well, that makes sense. Right. Makes

sense that they were right there in

Hollywood if that's what they were doing

>> on top. I don't what other other things

they made. See, like here's a the still

from Okay.

>> Lookout Mountain Lab. It's a studio

then, a special effect,

>> but it's in that same neighborhood at

the at the same time.

>> But so what I mean I I think with all of

it,

he's not arguing for it. God damn it,

Jamie.

>> The so what of it is that there wasn't

that many of them to begin with and just

they all happen to be in their but I

think with all of this stuff from each

other again and again the pattern is

>> either there's gaps there's gaps in what

we know and people decide to fill them

in themselves because there's a kind of

comfort to that. There's also some kind

of comfort with I know something that no

one else does. I've got the answer.

There's a status element to that. I

remember I read a book when I was a kid

like teenager called the sacred virgin

and the holy [ __ ] and it was about um

sort of books I read and it was about um

Jesus and it was trying to prove that

Jesus was a woman and and and as you're

reading it you're thinking yeah oh yeah

Jesus is a woman I can't believe I look

at that and then you get to the end you

think what the hell did I just read and

and it's that thing of you can marshall

any kind of uh halfbaked fact or any you

can marshall certain things that we can

see and fill in the gaps yourself and

lead to a crazy conclusion. What

concerns me isn't so much that people do

that cuz people have done that forever

as long as they've been human beings. Is

that now people are leaping at it and

falling for it in a way that I haven't

seen, maybe it is just social media,

right? But it

>> can I give you an example of this?

>> Yeah, please.

>> A recent one which I just thought was

nuts. Did you see the portrait of King

Charles III by an artist? I think his

name is Yo Yo. Um a red It's a big red

portrait which currently hangs in

Buckingham Palace.

>> Oh, I have seen that. It's crazy. If you

take a qu a quarter of it, invert it,

flip it, add a bit and squint, it looks

like a goat devil, right? But you have

to do a lot of steps to find the goat

devil. Of course puzzle.

>> You could probably

>> How dare you?

>> I'm sorry.

>> How dare you dismiss that puzzle? Let's

So show the photo and show how it's done

cuz it's kind of fun.

>> Can you see the goat? Oh, there we go.

So, can you see the ghost?

>> First of all, just the photo by itself.

Like, hey, man, what the [ __ ] are you

doing? Am I splattered in blood?

>> I've seen it in the flesh. It's It's a

creepy

>> one thing if he did that in all white.

It was an all-white background. That

would be one thing. Like, oh, that's

kind of an interesting look. Or, you

know, pastel.

>> So, what are you saying? Are you already

suspicious? Is that what you're saying?

>> Well, the the photo's nuts. Like, the

painting is nuts.

>> Where's the goat?

>> So, all you have to do is put it

together side by side. You don't have to

do that much. You exaggerated how much

you have to do.

>> No, I saw a video that look at it upside

down. Looks

>> Oh, no. Look, I Well, the other way I I

found a goat.

>> Put it back. Put it back. Show that one.

>> I can completely see the goat now.

>> That's 100% a goat. They did it on

purpose.

>> That is That's a That's a sign. Go back

to the other one, though. Click on that

one. I see a goat there. I see some evil

demon. Look at two eyeballs. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, bro.

>> Where?

>> 100%. Stop. Stop trying to gaslight me.

I see a monster.

>> Oh, well. I mean,

>> you can find something in everything,

man. still looks all superimposed.

>> I mean, you see

>> I can see Martha Stewart in that.

>> The Virgin Mary and a grilled cheese

sandwich.

>> You can see in the clouds and the rocks

and like like there's a term for this

where our brains look for patterns and

things. And

>> I had a conversation once with a friend

of mine that I didn't know was going

crazy, right?

>> And uh he goes, "Uh, hey, you want to

see something crazy?" And he he pulls

out his phone

>> and he shows me a cloud.

>> Yeah.

>> And I go, "What is that?" He goes,

"Dude, I'm seeing this all day." And he

he shows me some other ones. He's got

like hundreds of photos of clouds on his

phone. Yeah.

>> I go, "What are you seeing?" So, these

are UFOs. He goes, "These are

spaceships. This is not a regular

cloud."

>> And I'm looking at the photos like he's

just been taking pictures of clouds all

day and I realized, "Oh my god, my

friend is going schizophrenic."

>> He's I didn't know him well. I say

friend.

>> Yeah. Okay. Okay.

>> The more I talked to him, the more I

realized there was something cracked.

>> Like he's a guy I hadn't seen in like

maybe seven or eight years. And I ran

into him at a comedy club and he was

just showing me photos of clouds on his

phone. And I was like then in during the

conversation I realized like oh he

cracked

>> but but aren't you concerned that that

kind of thing is now kind of common like

that from people who aren't necessarily

unwell people who are just seeing stuff.

>> Well it's fun. I think it's Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. It's exciting for people to

uncover information that the general

public is ignorant of. Right.

>> And so there's here's the thing about

like the Laurel Canyon thing. There's

enough of the CIA meddling in cultural

events that's absolutely true and

provable. Yeah. And that's MK Ultra. And

that's what they did with Charles

Manson. And that's the book Chaos by Tom

O'Neal, which is a brilliant book, which

is very well doumented in details Jolly

West and his influence on the Manson

family and how they were influencing

these people to try to sabotage the

hippie movement. Right? So, the hippie

movement was this change in culture

where all of a sudden people were

rejecting the war movement. They were

rejecting, you know, they were free love

and they were doing acid and people were

freaking out. Their kids were just

disappearing and following the Grateful

Dead around.

>> And they took this guy, Charles Manson,

that's very charismatic con man. They

taught him how to dose people up with

acid and influence them and they got

them to commit murders.

>> But there is evidence for this, right?

So you're talking about a book that is

researched,

>> right?

>> Point, right? you know, you're being

logical and I, you know, you're correct.

But what I'm saying is because of that,

people go, "Well, what else?" Folks,

>> well, what? And so then they make these

big leaps like Jimmyi Hendris is a CIA

creation,

>> right?

>> And which but if you're a logical

person, you just listen to Voodoo

Child's slight return and you're like,

how? How? This is like if that's true,

CIA should get back to work. Make

another one of those, bro. So I wonder

whether this is this is I think this is

the fallout of the woke movement. This

is the the divorcing of reality and

truth. Yeah. The idea that that it that

it doesn't matter not just about what is

expedient but what we want to believe.

I've got friends.

>> I think we should stop saying it's the

fallout of the woke movement. I think we

should start saying it's a natural

pattern that human beings automatically

fall into in order to support their

belief systems and enforce their

particular ideology over whatever

opposing ideology is escalating. It

escalates but it's because of social

media that everything is escalating now.

>> But is it just social media? I mean, I

think another thing that's a major

reason for it, we had co we had all

these people telling all these experts

telling us it's a racist conspiracy

theory to say that it came from a lab in

Wuhan. Now everyone knows that's almost

certainly true. We had people in

positions of authority lying to us. So

it's something about this culture war

that

>> but that's not real culture war that was

using the culture war because they were

trying to cover something up.

>> But but they leapt to race, didn't they?

they linked to because they were using

the culture war to cover up their crime.

>> So if that's but in either case, what

what you've got effectively is a

legitimation crisis. You've got people

in charge. We've been lied to so often.

But but what I don't think you should

therefore do I like I'm all for being

skeptical about people in authority,

academics, politicians, journalists,

they've all lied. But that firstly

doesn't mean that all experts and all

journalists and all people have lied

because there's been some good ones all

the way. But also that doesn't mean that

you automatically leap to any conclusion

evidence-free that jumps before you

without some kind of critical analysis.

The same thing that you're criticizing

those people for failing at. You're

falling into the same trap yourself. I

don't mean you.

>> But you're Andrew Doyle. You're a

brilliant guy who writes books and

you're really smart. The idea is that

you are immune to this stuff because

you're intelligent, but the unwashed

masses are not. I don't think I'm immune

at all. I don't I I I honestly don't. I

wouldn't put myself

>> Well, you're immune to the dumbest [ __ ]

>> I'd like to think so. You are. But but I

But

>> I am.

>> Yeah. But don't you think that all of us

in the right circumstances could end up

falling for

>> 100%. But I'm not in those currently.

But I like to believe and maybe it's a

naivity on my part, but I like to

believe that most people are, you know,

have a kind of natural intellectual

curiosity, you know, have if they are if

they stop for a moment and think and and

uh, you know, and and don't just trust

instinct over reason.

>> I think we're all capable of it. I just

think we're not all realizing it.

>> Well, it's not just that. It's like some

people are medicated, right? So, some

people are on a bunch of different

medications that dull their senses. And

then you've got people that have gotten

to wherever they are in life. Maybe

they're in their 50s

>> and they're set in their ways and they

have no desire to change at all. And so,

they've been living a dumb life for 50

plus years. You can't all of a sudden

say, "Hey, Mark, I want you to be

logical and introspective and think

about this thing and analyze it and for

what it really is." Instead of holding

on to your ideological beliefs that

you've kind of locked yourself into and

you identify with and any attacks on

those is attack on you personally, I

want you to just let's look at the

facts. This episode is sponsored by

BetterHelp. Look, there's a lot of

pressure when it comes to dating,

especially in February. But you're

putting too much on yourself and on your

partner. There's no such thing as a

perfect relationship. Whether you're on

a first date or have been together for

years, it's completely normal to go

through rough patches. And what matters

is how you deal with them. And therapy

can be a huge help during any stage of

your dating life. You can figure out

what you want in a partner or get

perspective for a growing problem in

your relationship. The point is, you

don't have to come up with a solution by

yourself. Now, finding the right

therapist can be tricky, but that's

where Better Help comes in. They have an

industry-leading match fulfillment rate

and they do a lot of the work finding

the right therapist for you. Really, all

you have to do is fill out a

questionnaire and sit back and wait.

Tackle your relationship goals this

month with BetterHelp. Sign up and get

10% off at betterhelp.com/jre.

That's betterhp.com/jre.

>> But you saying that sounds very

persuasive to me. Like the way you put

that. Like if I were that guy, I'd be

like, "Oh, listen to Joe now.

>> [ __ ] weirdo [ __ ] liberals [ __ ]

with your [ __ ] you're just a [ __ ]

they they'll come up with some sort of

>> King Charles is a goat.

>> You're uh controlled opposition or

you're a useful idiot or they'll put a

label on you.

>> I've been called I've been told I get

dark money.

>> Yeah.

>> How do you get any of that?

>> Well, I love it. I want it. I want the

dark money. It's so dark. I haven't seen

any of it. That's how dark it is.

>> What's dark money? I think it's when

it's like um some rich uh ideologue

who's sort of slipping you in money to

say the thing. You know what it is? It's

that thing of I don't believe that you

disagree with me. I'm too narcissistic

to believe that you disagree with me.

You must be being paid to have these

paid off, bro.

>> You're paid off. Trust me, I would love

that. If anyone's out there wants to pay

me off, I'll be a mouthpiece. I'm, you

know, I haven't had that opportunity.

>> It's pretty low. I'm a bit I'm a I'm a

bit of a [ __ ] if if truth be told. I've

got a mortgage. Come on. I will say any

crazy [ __ ] if you want me to.

>> Well, there's certainly a lot of people

that fall into that category, too. So,

people do get nervous about it. I mean,

obviously, you're joking, but there's a

lot of people that will change their

opinion. Oh, sure. If money comes their

way,

>> but I I like to assume people mean what

they say. And my logic behind that is

even when they don't, you can still

dismantle the argument even if it's

authentic or not. You know, even if it's

authentically believed.

>> Sure.

>> So, so that that I think that's just the

best way to go about it.

>> The best way is debate. That's the best

way or at least conversation.

>> But that's what we've lost. So I think I

think that hits on it actually because

>> I say debate but that sounds formal.

>> No, I know what you mean. You mean the

so recent Can I give you an example of

that? My am I um so I went to uh UC

Berkeley, the University of UC Berkeley

in California.

>> They let you leave.

>> Well, almost not. Right. So I what had

happened was you know Charlie Kirk's

tour was planned to go all the way

through and this was the last date the

Berkeley date and after his

assassination various people went and

did the shows because they said because

Turning Point rightly said we're not

going to give an assassin the veto of

our tour. We finished the tour

>> and uh Rob Schneider who I've been

working with in Arizona I've come over

here to work with him

>> the comedian.

>> Yeah. So so I've been This is how I

escaped from the UK I should say. So, me

and Graeme Lahan, who you've had on your

show, the comedy writer,

>> my comedy uh writing partner and friend

Martin Goule, the three of us,

>> we uh decided that things were so bad in

the UK. Uh we'd rather write and do

creative stuff in America. Rob

Schneider, who I'd met many years ago,

he said, "Come on over. We'll set up a

production company." We've been working

in Arizona on all these various

projects. It's so liberating and also

it's the middle of the desert, so I

[ __ ] love the heat. And you know, you

go from England to that, it's kind of

it's kind of exciting.

>> Nice contrast. So, so we've been able

to, you know, we and look, I don't want

to do down the UK or say, but what I

will just say is the creative industries

there are pretty stagnant. They're not

like here. There's so many more ways.

>> How can you be free? How can you if you

worried about going to jail for a meme?

>> Well, got arrested at the airport by

five armed officers

>> right after he left this podcast.

>> Was that it?

>> Yes. And it was

>> he came over, did this podcast, went

back to visit his family and got

arrested shortly after he did the

podcast.

>> So when people say to me that's not a

real problem that I mean Graeme had done

three tweets.

>> One of them was just they were all joke

tweets by the way. They were all jokes

and one of them was just it was

something like ladies if a guy's in your

changing room or in your bathroom

scream, make a fuss, call the police. If

all else fails, kick him in the balls.

And it's obviously a ry way of saying,

"Look, the guy's got genitals. The guy's

>> That was why he got arrested. He on the

night he got arrested, he was texting

me. He said, "I've just been arrested.

I've been taken to the hospital cuz my

blood pressure is so high. The police

took him to the hospital cuz they'd

raised cuz and and you and you say

there's no problem in the UK with

creativity." He's one of our best comedy

writers. He's the most beloved comedy

writer. He hasn't been able to work in

TV for six years, right? uh the like

he's won all the awards going and so we

just

>> how can you be creative in that

environment? He can't.

>> And so we just figured

>> let's let's get on a raft

>> especially someone like you. So for

people who don't know I should probably

tell everybody you are Tatiana McGroth.

>> So yeah

>> well here's what's funny about that.

>> Your satirical character who you created

many many years ago. When did you create

her?

>> 2018.

>> Okay. when you created her, I had you on

the podcast shortly after we we laughed

about it. I have seen her quote tweeted

with people agreeing with her.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Even now.