Name: Joe Rogan Experience #2303 - Dave Smith & Douglas Murray
Uploaded: 2025-04-10T17:00:19.000Z
Description: Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe Rogan Experience #2303 - Dave Smith & Douglas Murray' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2025-04-10. Transcript available.

Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe Rogan Experience #2303 - Dave Smith & Douglas Murray' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2025-04-10. Transcript available.

Joe Rogan Experience #2303 - Dave Smith & Douglas Murray

Joe Rogan podcast, check it out.
The Joe Rogan experience.
Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day.
All right, we're up.
Hey, this is coming.
Good to see you guys.
What's happening?
Are you going no headphones?
Oh.
Keep the do?
I'll do that.
I'm not quite sure what they add, but yeah.
There we go.
All right.
The goal of this is every time I see people that disagree,
with anything that's happening, any gigantic world events.
It's one of these retarded shows where they're screaming.
There's the word again.
We brought it.
We were just talking about that.
You did it early.
The word retarded is back, and it's one of the great culture victories
that I think is spurred on probably by podcasts.
But these things are always like Pierce Morgan-y, which is fine.
You know, where everyone's screaming over each other,
and there's five different people talking over each other.
There's never just rational conversations where you discuss things.
And I respect both of you.
I think both of you are brilliant.
And I thought, I bet you agree on a lot of things,
and I bet you disagree on a lot of things.
And it would be fascinating to see your perspectives on these things.
So that's why you're here together.
Okay.
Well, Douglas, can I ask you something?
Yes, sir.
Since the war in Israel began, and since the war in Ukraine began,
you've had quite a lot of people who are very against both in different ways.
Yes.
Do you think you've had enough people on who are supportive of either war?
I don't know that word enough, if that's a good word.
Let's say enough people who are on the side of Israel instead of wild critics.
Well, I've had a few.
I mean, I believe God Sad is on the side of Israel.
For sure.
Jordan is on the side of Israel.
You had Mike Baker, Coleman Hughes.
Coleman did it for like 20 minutes.
It wasn't why he was here.
No.
I mean, none of them.
None of them is why they're here.
You know?
It's a good question.
Do you think you've tilted one way?
Me personally?
No, no, no.
Just with the guests you've had.
The guests?
Yeah.
Probably more tilted towards the idea that perhaps the way they've done it is
barbaric.
But why do you think that is?
Just out of interest.
I'm just interested in your selection of guests.
You're like the world's number one podcast.
Yeah, it's not.
I don't think about it that way.
I just think I'd like to talk to this person.
But can I just.
Sorry, it's your show.
Sure, sure.
If you're going to interview historians of the conflict or historians in
general, why would you get somebody like Ian Carroll?
Yeah, but Ian Carroll, I didn't bring him on for that purpose.
I brought him on because I want to find out, like, how does one get involved in
the whole conspiracy theory business?
Because his whole thing is just conspiracies.
Sure.
But do you have any, I mean, there's been a tilt in the conversation, in both
conversations in the last couple of years, and it's largely to do with people
who have appointed themselves experts who are not experts.
You mean like Ian?
I don't think he appoints himself an expert in anything.
Who's that other dude who thinks he's an expert on Churchill?
Oh, Darryl Cooper does not think he's an expert.
In fact, I think it's everybody else is always calling him an expert, and he's
like, I'm just a history nerd.
Have you ever absorbed any of his material?
Have you ever consumed any of his podcasts or anything like that?
I've tried.
Yeah?
It's pretty hard to listen to somebody who says, I don't know what I'm talking
about, but now I'm going to talk.
Or, I don't know about this.
Or, I'm not capable of debating this historian, but I'm going to just tell you
what I think.
Yeah, but that's not exactly what Darryl was saying.
I mean, Darryl's point of view, however you feel about this, what Darryl's
saying is he doesn't really like doing debates.
He likes to do long format stuff where he can really explain his position.
If you throw a lot of shit out there, there's some point at which I'm just
raising questions is not a valid thing.
You're not raising questions.
You're not asking questions.
You're telling people something.
Do you think Darryl's doing that?
I think there's a whole bunch of guys doing that.
I think Dave is doing that.
Very obviously.
Dave's a comedian, but he's now mainly talking about Israel.
No.
I don't know if I'm mainly talking about Israel.
That's all I see.
I have opinions.
Yeah, but that's you.
Well, that might be what you've seen, but I don't think that's.
But that is also your shtick now, isn't it?
Well, what do you mean by that's my shtick?
Well, you're not a geopolitics guy in general, are you?
I don't even know exactly what you're asking.
I'm saying you've decided, being a comedian,
you've decided now to become somebody who talks about Israel as a conflict.
I think you're incorrect.
I don't think it's a decision.
I just think you have long-form conversations, multiple of them.
It's a huge event that's in the news, so it comes up.
I don't think it's a thing.
I think if you're on the outside, you'd say, oh, look, they're trying to get
attention by talking about this very polarizing issue publicly.
But you do get attention from that.
If you'd spent the last year speaking about Myanmar, you would not be on my
lips.
Yeah, but he does talk about Yemen constantly.
He talks about a lot of things that aren't in the news constantly.
Well, I tend to talk about the conflicts that my government is directly
involved in, which I think is reasonable to me.
But I don't quite get, like, what's all the appeal to authority stuff?
I mean, would you have to be an expert or what exactly makes you an expert?
I think authority matters, and I think that if you just throw a lot of shit out
there and then say, I'm not interested in the alternative views on this, and
particularly when it's a counter-narrative that is wildly off.
And when you get people – look, I just feel – we should get it out straight
away.
I feel you've opened the door to quite a lot of people who've now got a big
platform who have been throwing out counter-historical stuff of a very
dangerous kind.
You mean Daryl? Are you talking about Daryl?
Daryl, who's the other one?
I don't think Daryl has – there only is anything dangerous about what –
What's the other guy? Daryl – what's his name? Cooper, is it? Which one is it?
No, that's Daryl Cooper.
Daryl Cooper, who's the other one? There was one I just checked on the way here.
Daryl Cooper, and then – oh, yeah, Daryl Cooper, Ian Carroll.
Look, these guys are not historians. They're not knowledgeable about anything.
No one's calling Ian Carroll a historian.
No, but then why listen to their views on Churchill?
Daryl is incredibly knowledgeable.
He's not. He's not. He's wildly –
Several reasons. One is when he was offered to debate the current greatest
living biographer of Churchill,
he said, I can't because he knows much more than me, and I admire his work, and
I've learned from it,
but I can't possibly debate him. That's Andrew Roberts.
Right, but you don't have to be able to debate people to have opinions on
things.
No, no, no, no, you don't have to debate people.
If it's not your thing.
But if you, for instance – well, okay. But if you say, I've decided that
Churchill is the bad guy in World War II –
It's not what he said. It's not what he said. It's not what he said.
Neither Carroll nor Cooper have said that?
Well, listen, I don't know what Carroll said, but Daryl Cooper has not said
that.
What he said was he jokes with his friend, Jocko, who's an Anglo-Saxon. He
jokes with him, you know, I think that Churchill was the secret villain of
World War II.
And what he's saying is by Churchill's actions, the war escalated. He's not –
he's not – he's not saying anything –
He's not just asking questions, then, is he?
No, but the claim isn't that he's just asking questions. He has a point of view.
You can explain this better. He literally says he's joking.
He said in the comment – he goes, listen, I'm being hyperbolic – and then
he once again disclaimed – he goes, and I'm not claiming Churchill committed
the most atrocities or was the worst part.
But in many ways, I do view him as the chief villain, as my hyperbolic,
provocative statement.
But Douglas – what's the point of that?
Well, okay, but Pat Buchanan wrote an entire book on this. Is he not allowed?
Is he not an expert? Is he not allowed to be interviewed?
He's certainly not an expert. He can be interviewed. I've watched Pat Buchanan
debate.
I watched Pat Buchanan debate against Churchill historians, and he was
absolutely leveled.
Because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
When did he – when did Pat Buchanan debate and get leveled?
About 20 years ago.
I'm just curious.
He debated against Andrew Roberts and several other historians at Intelligence
Squared in London. I was there.
He didn't know what he was talking about. He had a contrary view, and it was
interesting and stimulating to hear.
But if you only get the contrary view, which is, isn't it fun if we all pretend
Churchill was the bad guy of the 20th century?
At some point, you're going to lead people down a path where they think that's
the view.
And that's horseshit.
Of the most profound kind.
I don't think that's what he's trying to do.
I think that's exactly what they're doing.
And the problem is, is that because you – I mean, your own platform has come
about because you're a very successful comedian and much more,
and you do ask questions, and you are interested.
But there are a lot of people who have come along, partly, I think, because
they've come on this show, who have come along and they've decided, I can play
this double game.
On the one hand, I'm going to push really edgy and, frankly, sometimes horrific
opinions.
And then if you say, that's wrong, they say, I'm a comedian.
But wait a minute.
No, no, no, no.
What am I – how can you tell me I'm just a comedian?
I'm just throwing stuff out there.
What horrific opinions that's wrong are you talking about, specifically?
Once guys like this get into very obvious stuff, which is –
Guys like Daryl?
The ones I'm describing.
Very clear.
You need to listen to Daryl to really understand what he's – if you take his
– Daryl's words out of context, Daryl has some of the most nuanced, balanced,
and charitable views on all the figures in history.
Well, particularly Hitler, it seems.
No, no, you're wrong.
You're wrong.
He doesn't.
What did he call him?
How did he describe him?
I think he compared him to a methed-out psychopath who was holding an entire
nation of people hostage, I believe was the way he put it.
He also said on here that he wasn't anti-Semitic until the Holocaust.
There were no speeches of Hitler's in the 1930s.
No, again, this is –
No, no, no, no.
Listen, man.
No, he said he was not public about it.
He said he was downplaying it to win – he said there was a period where he
was downplaying it to win over popular support in Germany.
It was his argument.
There is no historian of World War II who thinks that Hitler was downplaying
anti-Semitism in the 1930s.
That was what he wrote a book about it in the 1920s.
He got to power on it, and he grew his power on the back of it.
The idea that you can argue that in the 1930s Adolf Hitler was downplaying the
anti-Semitism, like, there's no historian who would agree with that.
So why would you throw out the idea that in the 1930s Hitler was not being anti-Semitic
in public.
That was what he was doing in public.
He announces to the German parliament what he wants to do.
So when you're throwing out claims like he was keeping it down in the 1930s,
first of all, what are you doing?
And secondly, why?
Okay.
I mean, I think that it's kind of hard because I don't even know exactly what Daryl's
point on that was.
And so I'm not really in a position to argue what he was saying there.
I don't think you're giving him the most charitable interpretation.
I don't need to give him the most charitable interpretation to be able to see
what he's