 Tisha Bav, what a day. So it's the saddest day in the Jewish calendar where we remember the destruction of the temple, destruction of the second temple, the expulsion of Jews from Spain, all sorts of sad things have been purported to have happened on this date in Jewish history. So it's Tisha Bav, 9th of Abba, a fast day in the Jewish calendar. But just a quick thought. I just, I don't want to be a laughing stock, bro. I could never say that or I could never do that because then I'd be a laughing stock. So I just, I can't be a laughing stock, man. So I'm a very respectable man. You should ask people about me. I'm a very respectable man and I can't, I can't do these things because then I'd be a laughing stock. Who am I kidding? Of course I'm a laughing stock. I'm a 55 year old bachelor, bro. I wrote about the porn industry for a decade. I've never been able to sustain a romantic relationship longer than a year. I'm a preacher's kid who converted to Orthodox Judaism. I was hustler magazine's asshole of the month. Who are we kidding here? Of course I'm a laughing stock. It's all right. I go with it. There are all sorts of advantages to being the fool. I am a fool. I am a laughing stock. Like just admit it. Like when you try to fight it, it's like, oh no, I'm not a laughing stock. I'm a very respectable man. Oh, I can't do this or that. I can't make videos with some kind of patch on my nose because then I'd be a laughing stock. Like, get real, bro. Of course I'm a laughing stock. It's fine. I don't mind. It's cool. I'm down with it. Like, I want to have a good relationship with reality. Right? Yes. I hear it's a wonderful thing to have a relationship with God. I'm all for having a relationship with God. But right now I just want to have a positive relationship with reality. Is that too much to ask? So I was struck at the end of my, towards the end of my Thursday night interview with Andy Nowicki, he kept repeating, I think he might have said it three times, I would not want to be a laughing stock. Because if he went back against like his position on vaccines, then he was afraid that his readers would view him as a laughing stock. Come on, man, get real. This is Andy Nowicki. Like, of course you're a laughing stock. This is not a criticism. I'm a laughing stock. You're a laughing stock. Why are we laughing stocks? Because of the decisions we've made. Because of the things we've said. Because of the things we've said about ourselves. Andy Nowicki and I are so much alike. All right? We both talk at great length about ourselves. And I'm not criticizing me. I'm not criticizing him for talking about himself. We do a lot of first person videos and writings. And we make embarrassing revelations about ourselves that most people would never reveal. So it's just weird that Andy kept saying, I don't want to be a laughing stock. Like, what does it indicate when someone says, I don't want to be a laughing stock repeatedly when they're never asked about whether or not they're a laughing stock? It indicates that like in the back of his head, he's afraid he's a laughing stock. But it's okay, bro. You are a laughing stock. I'm a laughing stock. A lot of us are laughing stocks. We're fools. And we can be holy fools. All right? We can be holy fools. We can do so much good out of our brokenness. Out of just owning that we're a fool. Just owning that we're a laughing stock. Just owning that we've made unconventional decisions. Just owning that we've paid a price. All right? We don't have to have a fear of being a laughing stock. We can just embrace being a laughing stock. I'm a laughing stock. And he's a laughing stock. A lot of us are laughing stocks. Like YouTube personalities. A lot of us are laughing stocks. I guess it's incredibly self-destructive act to continually film yourself on YouTube, like a pining about life and sharing very intimate details about your life. You're a laughing stock. It's okay. There's the holy fool. You can create and do so much good. But not when you're refusing to accept reality. So yes, of course I'm a laughing stock and Andy's a laughing stock and I'm sorry that Papa JF's woman has left him. Mama JF. Luke brought on Andy to talk about his book and then didn't ask him a single question about his book. We talked about his book probably for 25% to 40% of the show. And I asked him repeated questions about the book. So you have either an inability to listen or you didn't even, either you didn't listen to it or there's just some like big blank spot in your ability to comprehend. So I asked him a lot of questions about his book and he talked a great length about his book. So why did I bring Andy Nowicki on the show? Because Colin Liddell suggested it. About two or three weeks ago, Colin Liddell said, your first order of business, you must get Andy Nowicki on your show to talk about his new book. And look, I'll just be honest with here, I'll normally I wouldn't reveal the following, but in this time it seems appropriate. I wasn't chomping at the bit to get Andy Nowicki on the show because generally speaking, he's not a great guest and that's not a criticism of Andy because I'm not always a great guest either, right? I was live streaming Friday and after like two hours of my stimulating live stream, my audience was down to four people, all right? So I'm not slamming me and I'm not slamming Andy, but he radiates depression and misery and that's not a criticism of him. Most of my life I have radiated depression and misery. It's not a slam on him. He never chose to be miserable and he never chose to be depressed. So it's not an attack, just noticing the obvious that the man radiates misery and depression because most of my life I too have radiated misery and depression, right? So there's nothing about me being better than him or no attack on him for simply noting the obvious. So I did pause before I interviewed, before I asked him for another interview because I know much, if not most of my audience does not wanna see Andy in a wiki because they just find him too depressing and that's not a criticism of him that he didn't choose to be depressed. He didn't choose misery. I did not choose misery. I did not choose to be a sex addict. I did not choose to be a porn addict. I did not choose to be a masturbation addict. I did not choose to be incapable of sustaining romantic relationships. I did not choose my high level of neuroticism, right? I did not choose to go through life leaving many of the people closest to me feeling betrayed. You did not at any time give him the opportunity to talk at great length about his book, bro. You don't have a clue. We probably spent more than 30 minutes talking about his book. You don't have a clue about Andy Nweki. So I did not do any prep for the show. I did not prepare any questions. I did not read his novel. I just pulled up the Amazon page for his novel because I know when you interview Andy Nweki, yes, he speaks slowly. Yes, he meanders. Yes, he really radiates depression and misery but sometimes he says thoughtful, interesting things but the advantage for bringing Andy Nweki on your show is that you just have to ask him one question. You ask Andy one question and he will go off for 10, 15, 20 minutes in meandering ways just all over the place. And out of that, if you pay just the slightest bit, JF says there's no hope in Western societies for relationships. Again, people just see the world as they are not as the world is. There's plenty of hope in the Western world for relationships but because JF is just seeing the world through his own experience. Just like Andy Nweki, he's writing a dystopian novel because his own life is dystopian. He didn't choose to have a dystopian life. It's not his fault, I'm not attacking him. I'm just noting the things that he says publicly. I've never had any private communication or any private conversation about Andy Nweki's private life. I know nothing about Andy Nweki's private life beyond what he has said publicly, beyond what he pushes out into the world. That's the only thing I know about the man. I have no expertise on him and I know nothing about his private life. I've never talked about his private life. I've never thought about his private life. The only thing I know about him is what he said and what Colin Liddell has said on my show. That's it. So I know if I bring Andy Nweki on the show, I just have to make one question or one comment and then he will go off for 20 minutes. Why all the depression? I'm not depressed, I'm a happy guy. So I've struggled with depression and anxiety in most of my life and I don't currently experience it. Now tomorrow it may all change. Tomorrow, who knows? I may be stuck in a slow depression. Like these things are situational. So for the last five years, I would say that 99.9% of the time I've gone around feeling pretty good about myself. And then for the previous 50 years of my life, I say I probably went around feeling pretty good about myself, maybe on average say 40 or 50% of the time. No, I didn't read the book. Guess what? Most people who interview authors don't read the book. 95% of people who interview authors don't read the book. I'm not into science fiction. There are other books that are more important to me than Andy Nowicki's science fiction novel. I can't remember the last time. Oh yeah, I read Brave New World. That was the last novel I've read. But I think maybe I've read three novels. So in the last, in the last 15 months, I probably read 200 books of nonfiction and maybe two novels. So I don't read much fiction these days and Andy Nowicki's novel is not at the top of my priorities. So I wasn't racing to interview him. I thought I'll just wait until, I usually wait until I get an urge. And then I think Wednesday night, it's like, oh, why would I try magic dosing mushrooms? I'm a happy guy. I feel great. Last five years, as I mentioned, 99.9% of the time I feel great. I feel great about myself. I'm a happy man. And so why would I want to do drugs? I have no interest in doing drugs and no interest in doing mushrooms. So then Wednesday night, I just got a thought, oh, why don't I interview Andy Nowicki about his new book? So I sent him an email, set it up. And I know I didn't need to do any prep because with an Andy Nowicki, you just ask one question and he can just carry the ball for 20 minutes. He's got this meandering, slow way of speaking and you don't have to put much effort into it as an interviewer. You just let him go. The only effort you have to put in is if you're gonna interrupt him and perhaps hold him accountable for what he's been saying. So that was the one thing that struck me about the interview is how outraged he was that I asked him for the sources of his information. Like it just seems like the very opposite of bad faith. Like he made a lot of incendiary comments about COVID and things related to COVID. And then I said, where do you get your information? And he thought that was a trick. That was a setup that I was just trying to make him look bad. Like in what planet do you come on a show that's for the public? Say all sorts of incendiary things that most normal people would regard as at best insane and at worst as downright evil. So you come on, you say a bunch of incendiary things which I'm fine with, I don't care. But then I ask you, okay, what's the basis? Okay, here's what it's the equivalent to. It's equivalent to driving down a freeway at 200 miles an hour, completely intoxicated, and then a passenger asks you, do you think this is a good, on what basis do you think this is a good idea to drive down the freeway while intoxicated at 200 miles an hour? All right, so he was driving down the information highway at 200 miles an hour behaving, speaking as if he were intoxicated. Yeah, the interview is up, it's on my rumble. And then I simply ask him, on what basis do you say these things? And he was offended by that question. I mean, that just seems the opposite of good faith. Like, what is offensive about asking someone on what basis do you say X? Like, no, no decent reputable person who's interested in truth is offended by someone asking what's the basis for what you just said. But he was highly offended and thought that I was setting him up or playing dirty pool or trying to trick him by asking him for the basis of his information. And he couldn't come up with the basis for his information. He didn't, he doesn't have apparently a basis for the incendiary things he says about COVID, which is such a level of recklessness that it's akin to driving down the freeway at 200 miles an hour while intoxicated. Like, he shares that with Richard Spencer. And again, I don't think this is an essential quality of Andy Nowicki, this is situational. I don't believe he's always operated with a complete reckless disregard for the truth, right? So I think this is situational. I don't think Richard Spencer has always acted with reckless disregard for the truth. But Richard Spencer for the past few years has frequently conducted himself as if there are no consequences for what he says and does. And Andy Nowicki was conducting himself on my show. But in many of his live streams and writings, as if truth was irrelevant, that he had no need to provide any evidence or basis for what he was saying and to even question him about the basis of what he's saying was tricky. It was dirty pool. It was trying to set him up. Like, it reminds me of this professor of literature. Okay, you're a professor of literature and you're publicly stating all these negative critiques of books you haven't read. Like, in what world? In what world? You're supposed to be a professor of literature and yet you're publicly making proclamations on YouTube about books you haven't read. Like, how hollow do you have to be inside to do that? And again, I don't think this is an essential quality of this professor of literature. This is situational. Like, he was in a bad way. And so I often say, hey, why are you doing this? You're gonna destroy yourself. He said, oh, don't worry about me, man, I'm fine. My life is great. He said, well, if you don't worry about yourself, you're gonna destroy people who care about you and people who depend on you. Oh, don't worry about me, man, I'm great. Well, guess what? There are consequences for going through life and when you're setting yourself up as a public intellectual and you're proclaiming on books you haven't read, there are consequences. Like, Andy Nnewicki and I are very similar. We pop off. We share our opinions. Like, we overshare about our lives. Right, I mean, that's who we are. This is the life we chose, right? It's like being a football player and complaining about getting hit in a game, right? You wanted to carry the ball, but you didn't want to get hit. Like, Andy Nnewicki wants to carry the ball and give his views on the world, but if you ask him the basis for his views, then somehow you're being out of bounds and somehow that should be illegal. Like, he wants to carry the ball in a tackle football game, but he's outraged when he's tackled or that someone's tried to tackle him. So if you're setting yourself up as a pundit, someone who's making proclamations about the world in public and you've developed the following, it shouldn't be considered outrageous or dirty to ask you on what basis do you say these things? And if you have a hostile or an outraged reaction to being asked the basis for what you're saying, then there's something wrong. You've lost the plot somewhere. So I did a live stream Thursday night talking about a lot of people who believe in conspiracy theories that their life may be falling apart, but they believe that they at least see through the bullshit. And I experienced that. Like at times in my life, when I believed in conspiracy theories, I also, at the same time, I'd comfort myself, yeah, my life is failing in these various ways, but at least I see through the bullshit. Now, Nnewicki made a video this afternoon saying that he doesn't resonate with that at all. Right, this was just like a thinly veiled attack on him. And so apparently one should not discuss ideas if someone else experiences it as a personal attack. My Thursday night video was inspired by my discussion with Andy Nnewicki, but it was about certain ideas that my experience was that a lot of people who believe in conspiracy theories shore themselves up by proclaiming that at least they see through the bullshit. And if you've read any Richard Yates novels, you'll know that in every novel he has insane people who proclaim tough truths that the sane people can't face. So sometimes believers in conspiracy theories and believers in distant politics can really see through the bullshit. Sometimes it's absolutely true, right? But in my experience, looking back on my experience, I think that I grossly exaggerated my ability to see through the bullshit when I was going through my conspiracy theory stages. And I think some other people grossly exaggerate their ability to see through the bullshit. Now, in our interview Thursday night, Andy Nnewicki said that the people who like him, who follow him, who respect his work do so because he's a courageous truth teller because he's the type of guy who could look into the abyss without flinching. All right, so he said on the show, I'm the type of guy who can see through the bullshit. That's in essence what he said. But then he makes his video today going, oh, this means nothing to me. I don't think of myself as some guy who can see through the bullshit. So he completely contradicts himself. The end of our interview Thursday night is like, yeah, people respect me because I can see through the bullshit because I can look into the abyss because I am a courageous truth teller. That's why people respect me. But then today he makes a video going, oh, this idea that I can see through the bullshit, that has no resonance with me. It means nothing to me. It's not my experience. I'm completely contradicting what he's saying Thursday night. So we make a decision and then often things just cascade. And so I've made decisions and things just cascaded. I directed a porn movie, decided to write a book on the porn industry and I was still stuck writing on the porn industry 10 years later. And so Andy Nnewicki, like me, like you, we've all made decisions and then the results have cascaded. So Nnewicki's experienced a lot of bad results from some bad decisions that he's made. And these bad results are just cascading over him and here's the problem. Once you make a decision, then you start closing yourself off to introspection. Like there wasn't much introspection that he might have made any mistakes on the Thursday night show. Now, I think probably because he felt defensive because of my questions, he could not admit to any mistakes or engage in any introspection. But that's also a consequence of making decisions. So for example, two people may believe cheating is equally wrong, but then in desperate circumstances, one of them cheats and the other doesn't. The one who cheats will morally justify it to himself. So he will essentially change his mind on cheating so that he can maintain his image of himself as a good person. So like me, like you, like Andy has made decisions and consequences to decisions, like things start to cascade and he's not able to look at certain basic facts of intellectual discourse such as it's not a horrible thing to ask somebody on what basis do you say these things? As someone, if you're really interested in truth, you will be thrilled to talk about it on what basis. No, I didn't prep Andy with any questions. I didn't have any prepared questions. I just asked him one question off the top of my head to begin the show because I knew he would then take that and run with it. Andy's the type of guy, you ask him one question unless you interrupt him, who will very likely talk for the next 15 or 20 minutes. I mean, that's not a criticism, that's just a description of who he is. So from previous interviews with Andy, I knew I just had to ask one question and he would run with it for 20 minutes. You'd be Andy here and there and I'd have to interrupt him if I wanted to stop him from going 20 minutes answering one question. So I had no prepared questions. I didn't know where I was gonna take the interview. I just knew I'd just have to nudge Andy in a direction and he would run with it for 20 minutes. And during those 20 minutes, I knew he'd say something that I'd wanna follow up on. So all my questions after the first one were follow-ups on things he said. Now, Andy's promoting his new novel, The Insurrectionist. Didn't even read the effing book. No, 95% of people who interview authors don't even read the book. So Andy is promoting his book as the first post-COVID novel. That's how he's promoting it. You go to his Amazon page and in the book description, there are two quotes from people praising this as the post-COVID novel. So I'm sure he had a hand in his book promotion. This is how the book is pitched and situated, the post-COVID novel. So it kind of being a shock to him that I asked him about COVID. It's like you're promoting your book as the first post-Holocaust novel but then when you're asked about the Holocaust, you say it didn't occur. So Andy's promoting his new novel, The Insurrectionist as the first post-COVID novel and then says COVID didn't occur. COVID's a hoax, right? So it'd be like promoting your novel as the first post-Vietnam novel and then saying there was no war in Vietnam. It'd be like promoting your novel as the first post-Polio novel and saying there never was any polio. It'd be like promoting your novel as the first post-US intervention in Afghanistan 2001 to 2020 but then say there was no US intervention in Afghanistan. I mean, how insane is that? And then to be offended when I ask on what basis do you say these things? You're promoting your book as the first post-COVID novel but you're offended when I ask you on what basis do you say these things about COVID? And it's a shock to you that I would ask you about COVID when you're promoting your book as the post-COVID novel and you're promoting your book as the post-COVID novel and simultaneously saying that COVID was a hoax, right? So this is the equivalent of saying what was that disease that people used to die from with their lungs? A lot of writers died from it. George Orwell died from it. I mean, eventually they found a cure but like some kind of lung disease, right? And so you're promoting your novel as this first post-disease novel and then you're shocked, tuberculosis. All right, so you're promoting, you've written the first post-tuberculosis novel, that's what you're pushing out in the promotion for your novel. And so you're shocked, A, when someone asks you about tuberculosis and then B, you proclaim there's no such thing as tuberculosis. So this is nothing about Andy Nuiqi's a bad guy. He's apparently in some ways in a bad situation, in some areas. Like in plenty of other areas, I'm sure he's more competent, more intelligent, more accomplished, more happy, more moral, more ethical, more truthful, more erudite than I am, right? So I'm not talking about Andy Nuiqi, the person as a whole, I'm talking about a particular manifestation of Andy Nuiqi in a particular situation, right? That's why I'm very historicist. Everything, you have to place it in its historical context. Who said it, why do they say it? What did they gain by saying it? What were they reacting to? All right, everything's situational. And it's just bizarre that he would promote his new novel, The Insurrectionist, as the first post-COVID novel, be offended by questions about COVID and then be really offended by asking him the basis of COVID. And then why would you promote your book as the first post-COVID novel and then say there was no COVID? It seems to me you can't have it both ways. You can't proclaim that you're right publishing the first post-COVID novel, but there was no COVID. Unless you're saying, well, yeah, it's, there is no COVID, but I'm reacting to this general presupposition, okay? Which is, okay, that approach does make sense. And no, I don't expect someone in a spontaneous interview to have all their sources of information footnoted, but it's not offensive to ask someone, okay, on what basis, right? You don't have to name chapter and verse, but when you're saying incendiary things, the equivalent of there's no such thing as tuberculosis or there's no such thing as AIDS or there's no such thing as 9-11, all right? So 4.1 million people have died in the world from COVID and certainly in industrialized nations, death certificates are taken very seriously. Nations take death certificates very seriously, right? So there's just no empirical basis of which I know I have to doubt that figure of being dramatically wrong. So Alex Jones got in a great deal of trouble for saying that Sandy Hook did not occur. Like 26 people were murdered in Sandy Hook, right? So Andy Nowicki is saying the equivalent of Sandy Hook did not occur, but multiply that by, oh, my math, I haven't done the math, but like multiply that by 170,000, right? What he's doing by saying that COVID's a hoax is the equivalent of saying Sandy Hook did not occur and then saying that 170,000 times, all right? It's the equivalent of saying 9-11 did not occur, right? 3,000 people died on 9-11 and then saying that for 1,700 other events as well. But if someone questions you about it, it's dirty pool. And if someone asks you on what basis you say this, it's like an outrage that you're even questioned for the basis of what you said. Come on, man, cut out the malaki.