Transcript
Auto-generated transcript. Not time-synced to the video.
All right, ladies and gentlemen. I felt
compelled to do a bonus episode this
week because I kind of jumped the gun
covering a little bit of the Ed Sheeran
story
uh a couple days ago. But the news
cycle, it moves so quickly, so fast that
so much develops over the course of such
a short amount of time that,
you know, I kind of missed the
opportunity to share some thoughts uh
about what's developed since in this
spectacle.
Um, since my last episode a couple days
ago,
uh, opening acts have pulled out of the
Ed Sheeran tour. Mlemore has been
cancelled. It's become this real, you
know, microcosm of the class warfare the
left likes to frame everything through
with the multi-millionaire billionaire
Robert Craft owning a stadium that bans
uh, Mcleammore from performing. and
everyone's trying to manage this and Ed
Sheeran's dragged into the middle of a
situation where uh he's trying to
navigate it in a sort of neutral posture
and he's getting flak from everybody
about that. Anyway, I wanted to share
some thoughts on the matter because I've
had some time to think about it. Okay,
first of all, I find it hilarious and
rich that suddenly the left, the
sensorious
woke left, who's all about cancelling
any infraction, punishment for any sort
of infraction, slip of the tongue, are
suddenly free speech warriors.
Suddenly they're all about free speech.
Let's be honest for a moment.
Let's be honest.
You're
This isn't about free speech, okay? Left
or right, at the end of the day.
You're using free speech as a principle
when it suits your political stance or
narrative or agenda. The left does this
all the time, right? Pro-choice unless
it's vaccine mandates.
Pro- feet free speech
unless uh I don't know, somebody says
something offensive on stage. Uh,
somebody says something offensive, you
know, Dave Chappelle says something
offensive against the trans community,
somebody says something offensive
against someone in your tribe on your
team, but when it suits your narrative
or political stance, you're all for free
speech. So, you're not for free speech
as a principle. You're for it when it
conveniently suits you. Here's an
interesting exercise to test on
yourself. Try this out,
and this proves the point.
If somebody got up and got up on stage
as an opening act for Ed Sheeran and
said, "I stand proudly in support of
Israel and the IDF. I support BB
Netanyahu." And they were protested
against, canled for it, kicked off the
tour.
If a pro propalinian owner of a venue
said they cannot play there anymore,
you'd all be celebrating it.
You'd call them champions, heroes,
advocates, allies. You'd love it if they
if somebody stood with Israel.
So you use it when it politically suits
you. The concept of free speech. Now,
from my perspective,
it's not a free speech issue in the
sense that I apply it universally and
consistently because guess what?
Robert Craft has free speech, too. The
venue owners have free speech. So, when
they decide that they don't want this
message, this ideology, and we'll get
into what that is exactly that animates
Mcleammore statements, when they don't
want this stuff amplified on their
stages, they have the right to say no.
They can't be forced to put out speech
or amplify ideas they don't like and
disagree with. That's free speech.
So, I apply it universally. And yes,
ultimately, it's not about
who gets canceled for what and should we
allow all ideas equally. It's in in the
marketplace of ideas in the culture
where everyone has the right to express
themselves freely. We have to evaluate
the ideas on a case-by case basis. It's
not the fact that somebody said
something and then was canceled from a
tour for it. It's what are they saying?
What are the ideas they're putting out
there?
What's the message?
And then people have a right to respond
in kind. there are consequences for
hearing messages you that offend you.
And the only thing I'll say is that I
can understand the argument that Greg
Lukinoff puts out. He's a he's at the
fire institute. I've had him on the
podcast, a free speech absolutist as am
I. But I can understand that when you
encourage cancellation and reactions
like of this sort to speech, you
encourage a culture that's anti-free
speech which extends into politics. So
you have to be conscious of that. Sure,
I understand that and I understand the
case for that. But that doesn't mean
that so the venue owners, the other
people, the promoters, Ed Sheeran
himself, other people don't have speech
of their own that they now have to feel
compelled and forced to keep this guy on
a tour if they disagree with the
principle of even talking politics at
all on stage. And you'd all celebrate it
in the streets praising brave Ed Sheeran
and all the promoters if this someone
took a stand for Israel, for the IDF,
for the one and only Jewish state. They
stood for it and then they got cancelled
for it. You'd love it. You'd love it.
So, spare me. Spare me the inconsistent
nonsense.
I don't buy it. Now, let's dive a little
deeper. A a little deeper. Let's get a
little deeper into the controversy
because I think it's easy to be tricked.
It's easy to fall for this presentation
of um
you know, what exactly did MLmore say? I
don't get it. What was so offensive?
He's up there talking about freedom for
all people. He's saying free Palestine.
What could be wrong with that? This
isn't hate speech. This isn't
anti-semitism.
Why would he be canceled for that? So,
it's not the uh idea of cancelling
somebody for something. I mean, I think
if he got up there and advocated for
pedophilia or rape and was canceled from
the tour, no one would say, "Hey, free
speech.
Free speech. I mean, how could we kick
somebody off of a stage on a platform?
It's free speech." everyone would would
you know coales and agree there'd be
consensus around oh well those ideas are
obviously repugnant and he should be
kicked off for saying such things but
the thing with the left especially the
woke left and the anti-Israel uh mob
and in general on the left is a lot of
their most dangerous ideologies are
coded in sanitized language meant to
deceive you
mlemore
the whole left-wing platform is all
about progress.
You you know so who could be against
such messages and ideas? Who could be
against affordability? Who could be
against universal healthcare? Who could
be against bodily autonomy? These are
all words and phrases and language
designed to deceive, designed to
actually evade the actual core moral and
ideological issues underpinning them.
Well, who could be up against
affordability? But behind that is a
political agenda that's coercive,
that punishes productive people, that
steals their wealth,
that perverts economic incentives,
that's incredibly destructive, that
gives power,
you know, increasingly to bureaucrats
and rulers to rule over you, to make
decisions for you. But they're not going
to pitch that. That's not a good sales
pitch. Instead, it's under
affordability. The same thing here. What
is it's not just saying freedom for all
people. That's a that's a great idea.
Sure. What's the ideology that's
animating such statements? What does
McLemore actually believe? What did the
protest movement, the encampment
movement that he celebrated? What do
they believe?
That's what matters.
And for all you people wondering, it's
like, remember during COVID when they're
like, "Hey, don't you want to save
grandma?
Don't you want to save grandma and the
elderly and the vulnerable and the
immuno compromised from certain death?
Save the children. Lock them down."
Well, who doesn't want to save the
elderly, save the vulnerable? Who
doesn't want to do that? How could you
be against such a thing? But we all knew
that was linguistic trickery to get you
to comply, to conform. And that's how
you can convince good people to get
behind dangerous, poisonous, toxic
ideologies that are destructive and evil
because you convince them that you put
it on the banner of a phrase of, you
know, a great society. uh you know the
all these movements especially on the
left-wing revolutionary side are under
the guise of phrases and slogans that
seem amazing meant to deceive you
meant to get you to buy into it by the
same token here free Palestine
the encampments calling for justice
who's against justice well what's the
ideology that animates it who are they
supporting on October 8th mind you these
encampments began immediately after the
slaughter and massacre of men, women,
children, and babies targeted because
they were Jews, because they were
Yahood. The kamas resistance fighters
framed as resistance fighters as opposed
to murderers, targeting intentionally
men, women, children, babies, elderly,
Holocaust survivors, taking them
hostage, going to homes and mowing them
down, intentionally, burning them,
setting them on fire.
Sexual violence, rape
is framed as resistance is justified
when people are occupied. That's how
it's framed. And that's what they're all
supporting.
Liberation is actually violent, bloody
massacre,
intentionally targeting civilians,
which is very different than the IDF
targeting those people who committed
these massacres and civilians die
unintentionally in the process. That's
collateral damage and war. It's icky.
It's gross. It's yucky. Nobody likes
this as a state of humanity.
But that's what justice is. It's going
after murderers, not being accused of
being a murderer just because you're
pursuing one and bringing them to
justice. But that's what these people
are celebrating. Make no mistake, they
don't want to even build Palestine. Why?
How do I know that? They simply want to
destroy Israel from the river to the
sea. Inifat revolution. What does inifat
revolution mean? The inifat was a series
of suicide bombs
on buses, malls, and cafes in Israel.
That's you sitting in a restaurant, in a
cafe, having a latte, some matcha tea,
and a suicide bomber comes in and blows
himself up and kills you and all your
friends. That's what inifat means. And
they want to globalize it.
You go to the encampments, that's what
they stand for. That's what and and they
have no love for the West in general or
the United States. They want to burn it
all down.
And McLemore praises their bravery, the
bravery of upper middle class kids who
have no orientation towards anything
virtuous or good. So they want to
project it.
They need to project it and find some
sort of cause. And yeah, there's no cost
to them for supporting such a cause
because it's not at their doorstep. They
can support kamas all day. There's no
rockets flying over their head.
Nothing's easier than doing that. From a
an encampment protest in which you have
an actual nice home to go home to to
parents who are paying your tuition to
be indoctrinated into this
nonsense blabble.
Your parents are funding your education
to be taught to hate them and the
country that they raised you in.
Interesting. That's the ideology
animating somebody on stage like
McLemore advocating for a free
Palestine. And I know that they don't
care to create one because the people
that they're supporting
don't hold any of those values of
freedom, rights,
human life. No, it's a totally different
culture they're advocating for that
supports death. It's a cult of death.
Martyrdom. They have different values.
Martyrdom. Death.
um killing the Yahood,
spreading Islam around the world to have
everybody submit to it. That's the
ideology. That's the values that they
support uh in Gaza and the West Bank.
I'm I'm sorry to say it's people don't
want to accept that. But, you know, I've
spoken to IDF soldiers who've gone from
house to house in the West Bank and find
copies of mine comp
in home after home. Kamas support
everywhere all over the West Bank. kamas
cells and operatives in the West Bank.
For those of you who don't think, "Oh,
there's no kamas in the West Bank."
That's a different thing. When you look
at the images and footage from October
7th, you don't just see militants,
armed
attacking Israeli soldiers as if it's
some sort of armed conflict, one against
the other, guerilla warfare. No, no, no,
no, no. You see mobs and mobs of
cheering crowds elated,
thrilled to be dragging Jewish bodies
through the streets,
spitting on their bodies as they do it.
You hear accounts of hostages held in
civilian homes,
in the homes of teachers who work for
the UN. The people responsible for
educating children in the Gaza Strip are
holding hostages in their attic or their
basement. home after home after home in
Gaza with access points to tunnels. Not
to protect Gazan children from
bombardments, from aerial bombardments.
No, no, no, no. To protect terrorists so
that they can continue to operate and
attack Israel.
I got news for you.
When you commit acts of aggression
against other people, yeah, you lose
autonomy and rights. That's what
happens. Everybody understand that? It's
the basis of criminality. That's the
basis of justice. You lose rights on
behalf of yourselves and your citizens
when you continually
attack your neighbors.
Every gesture that Israel's offered for
peace over decade after decade after
decade has only been met with more
bloodshed, seen as a sign of weakness
because there's an ideological belief
that this land must become Islamic land.
It must be restored and the Yahood must
be killed and fought.
The end of days will not come until the
Muslims fight the Jews. Behold, behold,
oh Muslim, behind a rock there is a Jew.
Behind a tree, there's a Jew. Come kill
him. That's in the Kamas founding
charter. And that's
the culture, the ideology that McLemore
is advocating for when he talks about
free Palestine on stage. That is what it
is. And if it's not, let's have him
clarify it.
I'm all for freedom. I'm all for rights
for everyone, universally, for sure. But
if you have large swats of people that
don't accept that value system and it's
a choice between your own security, well
then it just becomes suicidal empathy.
Because if you grant people political
power over you that seek your
destruction,
you're not only supporting the homicide
of the Jews by their neighbors, you're
supporting the suicide of the Jews by
themselves.
So, that's what uh that's what's meant
by these sugar-coated sanitized phrases
and slogans. How could I not get behind
such phrases and slogans? Well, because
it's the same tactic every single time.
It's the same sloganering to disguise a
very violent, bloody, and evil agenda.
the free Palestine movement, the
encampments, the people that simp for
Hamas or the IRGCA,
they don't want to create a free,
prosperous Palestine.
They want to destroy a free, prosperous
Israel. And they're offended by Israel's
success
and Israel's virtue.
The the place in the Middle East that
upholds those progressive values these
people claim to stand for the most is
Israel without question.
women's rights, gay rights, minority
rights, civil rights.
Education,
art, music, culture,
go to Israel. It'll be very familiar to
you because it's all there.
You want to have this experiment of
providing more autonomy to people who
seek your destruction? Let's try it,
right? Oh. Oh, it did happen. It was
called Gaza 2005. that every last Jew
was removed from the Gaza Strip and what
was it met with? Just like in every
other case, more bloodshed,
more attacks on Israel. Hamas comes to
power and they always take the they
always look at the uh effect and not the
cause. They go blockade, siege of Gaza.
They they control the air, the land, and
the sea. Why? Why does Israel have to
monitor for security measures the air
land and sea? What what happened? Oh
yeah, they're smuggling rockets and
weapons into the Gaza Strip to attack
Israel as opposed to building schools
and infrastructure and roads to take
care of their citizenry and build a
prosperous society with beachfront
property. Could have been a really nice
place, a nice neighbor alongside Israel.
But they didn't do that. They made
choices. Those choices have
consequences. And then Israel has to put
into effect monitoring for security
purposes. And guess what? They were
right. I would say if Hamas didn't
smuggle weapons in and keep firing them
at Israel over these many many years
then you wouldn't have that response. I
don't like seeing a security fence along
the Jude and Samaria and along the West
Bank. I don't nobody likes to see that.
Why did that happen? You know what only
happened in 2002? Why? Oh yes, there was
a surge of terrorism against Israelis.
The inifat suicide bombs in malls and
cafes and buses.
And so they look at the effect. Ooh,
that's an unsightly sight to have to see
a security fence.
But what's the cause? It's not Israel.
It's the attacks against it time and
time again.
And so I hope for a peaceful future. I
would like that. But it's always been to
me clearly demonstrated that when Israel
has the opportunity to seek peace, they
take it since its inception as a modern
state in 1948.
But in Palestinianism, there's a
rejection of such a state.
They don't want a state provided there's
a Jewish one next to it. That's
unacceptable. And that's not a place to
compromise from. That's not a place
where you can dialogue from where how
about we split it? How about we
compromise? How about and they say how
about you all die?
You have no place here in your ancestral
spiritual biblical homeland. I mean, you
can't deny the historical ties of the
Jews to the land. You can't.
But anyway, that's uh there's no room
for compromise and conversation there if
uh there's no partner for peace. If the
so-called partner is elimination
eliminationist to you and seeks your
absolute total destruction,
you know, so you have to prioritize your
own life, your family, your community,
your people. You have to otherwise what
you're asking, you're requesting suicide
on behalf of Israel to destroy itself,
to appease the West and the Arab world.
They don't want to. They're not going to
do that and they shouldn't.
They shouldn't. Now, in a way, this
whole
controversy is interestingly like a
emblematic and a microcosm of the whole
Middle Eastern conflict in a way because
like you have
Mcleammore, a provocator, gets on stage,
hijacks
the audience and the stage that is not
his stage. These are not his shows. He
is not headlining.
hijacks Ed Sheeran's audience and his
stage
and then faces consequences for doing
that to promote his political agenda and
I think a very dangerous ideology as we
discussed and then he faces consequences
for that and then cries victim and
complains
and then everybody gets on the trend
supporting him whether they really
understand it or not. People follow
suit. They think they're being brave.
They're being cowards.
They get on uh they get on the uh
McLemore train and they start pulling
out. Ed Sheeran is kind of dragged into
the middle.
It's very representative of the
different factions having these
conversations about the Middle East in
general. It's like the Mackmore
representing the Palestinian side
provokes and then cries victim.
And on the Jewish side, it's so funny.
of a Robert Craft who's being portrayed
as the powerful Jew, the millionaire,
the industrious, prosperous one with the
power and influence in the same way
people portray Israel as such.
It's fascinating. And then you have this
middle that doesn't know where they
stand because they've been poisoned by
the conversation to believe it's
complex. It's complicated and they can't
understand where to morally stand on
such an issue. and you try to be neutral
and I can actually understand that
because frankly,
you know, Ed Sheeran wants to not focus
on politics, wants to not participate in
this hyper politicized world, wants to
bring people together and unify around
music. And I I think we take for granted
on the pros side, like how close we are
to this issue, how educated we are on
this issue. But if imagine you're not
imagine you just learned about this in
the last year barely from a from very
unreliable sources, Tik Tok, Instagram,
social media, you know, a media that's
completely skewed and biased in all
directions. It's hard to know what's
what, right? And you've been told and
you've been told, well, these are the
positions you have to take. This is the
binary. Do you support genocide or not?
Either this is the choice you're
offered. False a false binary. Either
you support the genocide or you're
against it like us good, virtuous
people, which is what the left always
does. Oh, either you're, you know, oh,
you you're you're uh you're against
abortion. Oh, you must hate women. Oh,
you you don't want to take the vaccine.
Oh, you must want grandma to die. Always
a false binary where you can't have
actual disagreements about such things
and dialogue. You're either with us on
the good left-wing virtuous progressive
side or you're against us and you're
evil. And Ed Sheeran is trying to play a
neutral stance and I can kind of
understand it. And you know,
you ever consider that maybe he's had
some experiences that have informed him
otherwise?
I saw an image a couple months ago, I
think, of of Ed Sheeran, who met Noah
Argammani, someone who was taken hostage
on October 7th.
I'm sure.
That was her. And this was Ed Sheeran
meeting her. Look at this picture.
And so I can understand seeing these
experiences he's had that he at least is
seeing trying to see the humanity on
both sides which there is. Obviously
individual human beings of all sorts
have there's so much diversity amongst
human beings that there are there is
humanity on both sides. There's children
on both sides.
You meet individual people who don't
agree with their, you know, even on the
Palestinian side who reject Hamas,
who reject these regimes that are
radical, that want to see Israel
destroyed, that want to fight the Jews,
who reject terrorism.
you do see it and that's what Ed Sheeran
was trying to appeal to. But of course
the left is dragging him in as a Nazi
apologist and they're drawing all these
pictures of him with blood on his hands,
you know, because he's not allowed to
see the humanity. No, no, no, no, no,
no, no. And so it's an interesting
phenomenon. It's an interesting event, a
spectacle that's happened. And I see it
as that little microcosm of the of the
conflict entirely.
But just know that
you should be a little smarter and uh
more discerning when you see these
slogans and things are thrown at you
like free speech.
Nice phrases
don't necessarily represent the
ideologies they're putting forth, the
ideas behind them. You could put nice
phrases on anything. You could put nice
slogans on anything. It's been a tactic
in politics, especially authoritarian
politics.
forever. And that's how they get you to
believe certain things.
Examine the behavior, the ideology, the
results behind such slogans.
Israel, the startup nation, prosperous,
free. Let's examine it. I'd say the
proof is in the pudding. Free society
that protects the individual rights of
its citizens, upholds them fairly well.
minority rights, women's rights, gay
rights,
successful, industrious,
productive,
free.
Are there complications given the
neighborhood that it's in? Yes,
obviously. Nothing is easier than
pointing to a good country, but pointing
out its imperfections.
But is it true to its underlying
principles and slogans?
Does Israel match up to that? I would
say so. go there. If you any of these
college encampments were staging a
protest, would they be able to protest
the way they are in Gaza? Could you set
up a college encampment protest in Gaza
against Hamas?
You'd have your feet crushed by bricks
and thrown off rooftops. Could you do it
in Israel all the time? Go to Tel Aviv
on any given day. It's protests against
their leadership, protests in the press,
a free press, freedom of religion, all
of those things. any one of these
Colombia students would run to Tel Aviv
if they found themselves in the Middle
East in a heartbeat.
Meanwhile, the progressive language used
to defend terrorists as liberation
movements, as resistance movements, what
kind of societies do they create? What
culture do they facilitate? How do they
raise their children?
Proof's in the pudding. Thanks for
watching everybody. That's my rant for
the day to catch up on this whole
spectacle.
Ed Sheeran, you're welcome on the show
anytime. Uh we can chat about it.
Um and I can understand being in a in a
position like that. Um
so I can offer an olive branch in that
regard. Uh but
I don't take for granted, you know, that
I've been educated on this subject, on
this topic, and have built up enough
protections to see through the
and the nonsense. And not everybody has,
unfortunately. And that's where we find
ourselves. But the counter punch is
coming. I think we're getting enough
distance from this to see just how much
lies have been spread, how much the
propaganda war, yeah, you could argue,
has been won by the wrong side. But that
doesn't mean they're right. doesn't mean
they're truthful or correct. There is a
right and a wrong here. There is a
truth. And uh
I think as time goes on, we'll be seeing
more and more of it.
Thanks for watching everybody and uh
appreciate all of you. Thank you. That's
it for today.