Joe Rogan voiced his support for “the deep state” – a conspiracy theory peddled by Donald Trump and his followers that refers to a secret network of career politicians and federal agents – on a Saturday episode of his podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience.”
In an interview with former CIA officer Mike Baker, Rogan made his case. “One of the things that the tinfoil-hat brigade likes to talk about is the deep state,” he said.
“They always like to talk about the deep state. What I was saying is, what if we didn’t have a deep state?” he continued. “Do you know how f–ed we would be if we didn’t have career politicians and career intelligence agencies? People who are there for a long period of time who do understand it.”
Rogan argued that President Joe Biden exemplifies the need for a government staffed by several experienced civil servants.
Editors note: Controlled opposition?
Minds.com co-founder Bill Ottman and activist Daryl Davis went on the “Joe Rogan Experience” to unveil their #ChangeMinds deradicalization initiative.
The team at blockchain-based social network Minds and Davis published a research paper outlining how “deplatforming actually intensifies extremism,” and argue how a new approach to online moderation is necessary.
One part of the discussion had Davis outlining his experiences on having debates with others on the Minds platform. While Rogan brings up how Davis convinced members of the KKK to change their viewpoints on race—as explored in his previous appearance—here the longtime activist refines his main point.
In explaining how a hypothetically intense discussion plays out, Davis highlights the importance of having the other person’s “walls come down.” That is to say, if Davis and a racist who hates black people can listen to each other’s viewpoints, at all whatsoever, it can have a significant impact on the racist in the long run.
Internet entrepreneur and Minds CEO Bill Ottman builds off the “walls coming down” point by adding how neuroscientist Sam Harris previously studied people’s actual brain waves with regards to how an individual subconsciously reacts to being presented with ideas or concepts they don’t like.
The key to #ChangeMinds, according to Ottman and Davis, is building long-term relationships between people of opposing viewpoints as its own main objective.
In describing the research paper, Minds staffers stated that their “paper examines the adverse effects of social media censorship and proposes an alternative moderation model based on free speech and Internet freedom.”
The White House indicated Tuesday that Spotify’s attempts to address what they described as coronavirus “misinformation” on podcaster Joe Rogan’s interviews was not a strong enough response to the freedom of speech controversy.
Spotify announced a decision Sunday to include content advisory warnings on Rogan’s interviews about the coronavirus pandemic with sources dissenting from the government narrative about the virus.
“It’s a positive step but more can be done,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said during the daily briefing on Tuesday.
Spotify acted to address the situation after musicians Neil Young and Joni Mitchell asked the company to remove their music from their platform as part of a protest of Rogan’s interviews.
But Psaki called on technology and media platforms to do more to censor what she described as “misinformation” about the virus.
“That certinaly includes Spotifly (sic) she said, mispronouncing the tech platform’s name.
‘CBS Mornings’ on Monday suggested Joe Rogan is killing people via his podcast when discussing Covid-19.
Corporate media is trying to get highly popular podcaster Joe Rogan censored and tossed from Spotify for daring to discus Covid vaccines and various early treatment such as Ivermectin.
The left-wing media and Biden’s surgeon general called for Joe Rogan to be silenced because he interviewed Dr. Malone and discussed the dangers of the mRNA Covid gene therapy vaccine.
The ‘CBS Mornings’ hosts claimed they support the First Amendment but not for Joe Rogan because his show is “dangerous.”
“You have a First Amendment right to say what you want. You don’t have a First Amendment right to appear on a platform as large as Spotify, that’s the issue,” one of the hosts said.
Covid is a “life and death issue,” the fake news anchors argued.
A slew of reports claiming that Spotify has had $2 billion wiped off its market value because of the actions of Neil Young and others in opposing Joe Rogan’s content on the platform are fake news.
As pointed out by many on social media, however, the drop in value of Spotify stock is part of a longer downward trend that started before Neil Young uttered a word about Rogan.
Indeed, Spotify’s stock has actually increased in value since the Neil Young driven backlash.
American liberals are obsessed with finding ways to silence and censor their adversaries. Every week, if not every day, they have new targets they want de-platformed, banned, silenced, and otherwise prevented from speaking or being heard (by “liberals,” I mean the term of self-description used by the dominant wing of the Democratic Party).
For years, their preferred censorship tactic was to expand and distort the concept of “hate speech” to mean “views that make us uncomfortable,” and then demand that such “hateful” views be prohibited on that basis. For that reason, it is now common to hear Democrats assert, falsely, that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not protect “hate speech.” Their political culture has long inculcated them to believe that they can comfortably silence whatever views they arbitrarily place into this category without being guilty of censorship.
Constitutional illiteracy to the side, the “hate speech” framework for justifying censorship is now insufficient because liberals are eager to silence a much broader range of voices than those they can credibly accuse of being hateful. That is why the newest, and now most popular, censorship framework is to claim that their targets are guilty of spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation.” These terms, by design, have no clear or concise meaning. Like the term “terrorism,” it is their elasticity that makes them so useful.
When liberals’ favorite media outlets, from CNN and NBC to The New York Times and The Atlantic, spend four years disseminating one fabricated Russia story after the next — from the Kremlin hacking into Vermont’s heating system and Putin’s sexual blackmail over Trump to bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, the Biden email archive being “Russian disinformation,” and a magical mystery weapon that injures American brains with cricket noises — none of that is “disinformation” that requires banishment. Nor are false claims that COVID’s origin has proven to be zoonotic rather than a lab leak, the vastly overstated claim that vaccines prevent transmission of COVID, or that Julian Assange stole classified documents and caused people to die. Corporate outlets beloved by liberals are free to spout serious falsehoods without being deemed guilty of disinformation, and, because of that, do so routinely.
This “disinformation” term is reserved for those who question liberal pieties, not for those devoted to affirming them. That is the real functional definition of “disinformation” and of its little cousin, “misinformation.” It is not possible to disagree with liberals or see the world differently than they see it. The only two choices are unthinking submission to their dogma or acting as an agent of “disinformation.” Dissent does not exist to them; any deviation from their worldview is inherently dangerous — to the point that it cannot be heard.
The data proving a deeply radical authoritarian strain in Trump-era Democratic Party politics is ample and have been extensively reported here. Democrats overwhelmingly trust and love the FBI and CIA. Polls show they overwhelmingly favor censorship of the internet not only by Big Tech oligarchs but also by the state. Leading Democratic Party politicians have repeatedly subpoenaed social media executives and explicitly threatened them with legal and regulatory reprisals if they do not censor more aggressively — a likely violation of the First Amendment given decades of case law ruling that state officials are barred from coercing private actors to censor for them, in ways the Constitution prohibits them from doing directly.
Democratic officials have used the pretexts of COVID, “the insurrection,” and Russia to justify their censorship demands. Both Joe Biden and his Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, have “urged” Silicon Valley to censor more when asked about Joe Rogan and others who air what they call “disinformation” about COVID. They cheered the use of pro-prosecutor tactics against Michael Flynn and other Russiagate targets; made a hero out of the Capitol Hill Police officer who shot and killed the unarmed Ashli Babbitt; voted for an additional $2 billion to expand the functions of the Capitol Police; have demanded and obtained lengthy prison sentences and solitary confinement even for non-violent 1/6 defendants; and even seek to import the War on Terror onto domestic soil.