DAVE SMITH IS NOT ANTI-WAR, HE’S ANTI-ACCOUNTABILITY

Who won the debate? I must know. You must know. Everyone needs to know.

But the truth is that nobody really won. Nobody really lost, either. I agree with most of the things Douglas Murray tends to say, and I usually cringe from secondhand embarrassment at the things Dave Smith tends to say. And yet, I’d call this one a draw.

Any listener of classic rock will be well aware of bands like Steely Dan and The Doobie Brothers, and may specifically know about a guitarist who played in both groups—Jeff “Skunk” Baxter.

To call Jeff talented is an understatement if you’ve ever heard his solos, but there were tons of talented guitarists in the 1970s, even if he was among the best of them. What sets Skunk apart, is that his intelligence translated across disciplines, and led him down a completely different path later in life.

One day, out of mere curiosity, Jeff decided to start reading about missile defense systems. As he’s since mentioned in a few lectures, his interest stemmed from seeing a connection between music recording technology and data compression algorithms used in the military. After going down the research rabbit hole for some time, Jeff had the chutzpah to write and submit to the government a five-page paper on his recommendations for anti-aircraft missiles. Again, just for shits and giggles. By the 1990s, he had more security clearances than Joe Biden probably has now, and became a professional consultant in Washington.

Some might think to use this anecdote as an excuse to trust all kinds of unorthodox self-researchers. However, Skunk’s appeal to the Pentagon came not from the novelty or nonconformity of his ideas, but from their utility. They made sense to the engineers, they were economically feasible, and most importantly they worked in practice.

Yes, you can decide for yourself exactly who is and isn’t trustworthy on a given topic. You can’t pretend that the entire concept of expertise doesn’t exist for a reason. Whether you believe in it or not, it still is. Background knowledge is not a social construct.

But somehow, the idea that seeing something firsthand has value became an object of mockery, because Dave Smith smirked on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

Kamala was correctly criticized for having never been to the U.S. border. Is it Dave’s view that someone can be just as capable of handling the migrant crisis from a desk in Washington? Or, would it be far more educational and comprehensive to meet directly with border patrol agents and sheriffs on the ground, and see the Rio Grande for oneself? No, Dave Smith is not in charge of solving any issues of importance, but he’s certainly speaking with conviction about what’s happening in a particular place that also has children dying—children whose parents aren’t holding people hostage and stockpiling RPGs. And he’s appeared to level strong accusations against Israel a lot more than he’s simply asked questions about it.

Yes, accusations require evidence—especially accusations as grave as “Israel is intentionally killing civilians.” Otherwise, any woman can claim that Dave Smith violently raped her best friend. She’s neva beeeen near his cock, but does that mean she can’t talk about it anymore? If Dave attempts to sue said woman for defamation, he’ll only be stifling the passionate discourse he claims to defend. If Dave requests any kind of forensic testing for confirmation, everyone can mock him for trusting the experts instead of letting the accuser rely on her own research. She never said she was an expert. She’s only asking questions. Why can’t she ask questions about Dave Smith raping her friend?

If no credible evidence can prove that the incident actually occurred, the public can be persuaded to believe that the judge, jury, and even prosecution lawyers have been bought off by the anti-feminist lobby. Dave is now only a free man walking the streets, because his slimey connections allowed him to get away with everything. By his own logic, he’s created this precedent. After all, this hypothetical woman never said she’s an expert. She’s just a comedian who talks about Dave Smith everyday. Most people might point out that they’ve never heard her tell a joke, but that has never stopped Dave.

Dave Smith is free to talk out of his ass about anything he wants. That doesn’t enable him to tell Douglas Murray what he saw with his own eyes, if he wants to be considered any more principled than Brian Stelter. 

It is very likely that Dave let out a sigh of relief after hearing his favorite E-word. Phew! Now I don’t have to prove I know anything about humanitarian aid or Hamas stealing it from their own people, or Arab-Israeli history before 1948. I can spend the next fifteen minutes being pedantic about something superficial, like about how put off I am by Douglas’ tone, and then start rattling off some of my prepared talking points.

Dave still dwells on trigger words like “expert” or “framework,” all so he can deflect from hypocritically using the World Bank as a source for his anti-Establishment perspective. Maybe Douglas was indeed wrong about his optimism for Ukraine’s abilities against Russia (I don’t know much at all about this topic so, unlike Dave, I’ll forgo whatever cheap engagement people get for mouthing off anyway). Douglas at least provided an explanation for why he thought that way at the time. He also admitted he was wrong about that. All Dave could do for his arguments, was gaslight Murray about something he saw with his own eyes—aid being sent into Gaza.

Douglas Murray is undoubtedly accustomed to speaking in the cadence of William F. Buckley, Jr. and, no, that is not a winning strategy for informal conversations. As I’ve discussed elsewhere, you can be right and still be blindsided with questions you didn’t realize you even needed to answer. Murray’s biggest weakness currently, is that he still doesn’t completely understand the degree of propaganda and brainrot influence he’s up against.

Criticize Douglas Murray’s Simon Cowell attitude, by all means. I’ll agree with you one hundred percent (An overly dramatic gay bloke? Get outta town!). You still haven’t convinced me that he’s wrong. And yet, fixating on the pompous delivery, while praising Dave’s appeal to emotion, seem to be the go-to responses I see from Podcastistan. It’s a sea of accusers trying to place the burden of proof on the accused. Of course, Mr. Smith’s following is quick to point out the sexuality of any critics as well.

This well-researched media personality has certainly inspired his fans to judge arguments on their merit. Not at all aiming downward.

The more productive debates, despite their faults, are scored not on general audience approval or hype, but on whether or not their minds have been changed. This is true of the Munk debates like that involving Douglas Murray and Matt Taibbi against Malcolm Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg, which are still admittedly subject to mob mentality depending on their samples. After the Patrick Bet-David COVID debate featuring Smith and Chris Cuomo, however, PBD simply asked X, “Who do you think won today’s debate?” Moreover, the host had shown nothing but disdain over time for people like Cuomo, and few on the opposing side would have been caught dead listening to his podcast or using Elon’s platform. CNN viewers were likely not watching that conversation.

At the end of the day, no one had their mind changed, and the only thing that X poll measured was how well Patrick delivered for his fans—95.6% approval, of course. The point is, there’s no distinction in the score between whether Dave made a substantive case, or simply had enough fans who wanted him to win. And I’m saying that as someone who mostly agrees with the winning side! Smith was very much playing to the energy of the crowd, and treating Cuomo like a drunk heckler at The Stand in NYC. It felt cheap, and I felt a little dirty for having expected anything with more integrity.

Dave’s bread and butter on the Israel issue is omission, since he spends a lot of time worrying about the potential of radicalization among Gazan children. Not so much time worrying about the radicalization of Israeli children in Ashqelon or Sederot. That double standard doesn’t require having beeeen to Israel to understand, just a two-second glance at a map. Also omitted in Dave’s arguments are Egypt’s Philadelphi Corridor, or the reason why Jordan exists, or why Jordan’s flag looks a lot like the Palestinian one, or what an Iraqi keffiyeh has to do with Palestinians. He forgets to address the audacity of expecting Israel to supply electricity and water to the people trying to erase it, using water pipes to build rockets for just that purpose. He omits the existence of Pallywood, or why there’s any necessity for it, if Israel is indeed committing a genocide that should provide Gazans with more than enough real footage.

Dave rarely if ever talks about ending Hamas’ violence. He talks about optics, and blames anyone/anything else that may have played a nebulous role. Even Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, has admitted that Hamas is the sole culprit in the current conflict. Dave has yet to catch up. He’s more concerned with the angry or friendly words uttered by government officials on either side of the conflict, than actions on the ground. Dave has yet to explain how a genocidal country has managed to maintain among the best combatant-to-civilian ratios, and also supplied aid to the very enemy that strives to destroy it—all while informing the public of every major operation before it occurs, and telling the innocents where to seek safety. Can he point to even one genocide in history where the aggressor has taken all of these measures? Stalin? Pol Pot? Fucking Jim Jones?

One glaring red flag during the entire episode, was that Dave spoke erratically and defensively, while Douglas remained relatively calm and measured in his words. Clearly and slowly, he listed and articulated his points. Did he misread the room and use the wrong lingo amongst an audience (Dave’s, that is) with a short attention span that doesn’t like the word “expert,” regardless of its context? Definitely. Did Douglas still have complete thoughts, in contrast with his opponent’s patched-together data points and speculation? Yes. Even if done while condescending to an American, Murray was recounting what he’d witnessed. Dave was keeping a tally on the scoreboard for his ideology. Murray was more substance, Dave was more style, and the overall episode saw these two forces cancel each other out. All the while, Joe was taken aback by his own ignorance and unpreparedness to facilitate such a conversation—everything from his inability to mediate, to the Bill Maher-esque mismatch in guest booking.

A good rule of thumb when determining someone’s credibility, is the fragility of their ego. How concerned are they about being seen as weak, rather than incorrect? How much energy are they using toward proving a point, versus looking dominant for the camera? Are they showing you who knows more about the topic being discussed? Are they making you feel more informed about that topic? Or, are they teaching you more about rhetorical tricks to catch your opponent in a gotcha moment? Which of these things do you see exhibited mostly by Douglas, or by Dave?

Andrew Tate would win a confidence battle against most any other male in a podcast studio, including Joe Rogan. His bragging about treating women as subordinates and conning naive men is fitting for memes and shock laughs—at least as fitting as kicking infants might be. Try any of his tactics in real life, and you’ll end up an unemployed, single deadbeat with cracked ribs and a few restraining orders. Tate doesn’t teach you anything. He only offers DJ Khaled-level entertainment.

If you feel that Douglas is the one, the only one, who descended into non sequiturs and ad hominem attacks, please prove that Dave hasn’t also done just that. If you point to a claim that Dave made during the episode, then prove that he wasn’t just spouting Hamas propaganda, as he accused Douglas of doing simply by being in the proximity of IDF soldiers. Since Dave has mentioned multiple times on multiple podcast appearances that he stands for “morality” (as if that, too, hasn’t been used to justify undue violence), it would serve him and his followers well to prove how he has any moral high-ground compared to his opposition. Instead, I see way more of this:

Dave, in truth, is as anti-war as AntiFa is “anti-fascist.” Repeating a phony label for yourself doesn’t at all make it real. This claim of his is no more honest than Andrew Yang’s insistence that his Forward Party would be any different than the Democrats or Green Party. One is not anti-war if they enable murderous, authoritarian thugs to do as they please, whether or not this is allowed intentionally. Being anti-war means you want to end war, not kick the can further down the road so you can continue to virtue signal. And just as AntiFa pushes the narrative that they aren’t an organization, Dave pushes the narrative that he’s not claiming to be an expert. Actions speak louder than words.

One of the more parsimonious theories as to how Hamas was able to breach the Israeli border, is that years were spent by Iran and the proxy group taking advantage of Israel’s complacency with its neighbors. Many average Israelis were more upset with Netanyahu than with security threats before October 7, as the common sentiment was that Hamas seemed more focused on conditions within their own borders than on murdering innocents. Bibi was being protested over his effort to maintain power over the Supreme Court, and there was a push to bring even more Gazans into the Jewish State to work and earn an income on a regular basis. This was the same program that was exploited by the Gazan “civilians” who then informed Hamas and supported them in murder/rape/kidnapping missions during the attack. No Jews or Israelis in Gaza during that years-long planning. No airstrikes or ground operations from the IDF. That peaceful ceasefire period was considered weakness by what some Westerners still don’t understand are terrorists.

But congratulations, Dave. You’re anti-war. Let me know where to address your Nobel Peace Prize.

Much like his non-Jewish counterparts, Dave is anti-war as long as it’s only Israeli women, children and babies who have to remain in danger. There’s an almost Marxist slant to his focus on power dynamics between Israel and Gaza. He brings up the difference in IDF capabilities, not for a second imagining the impact if just one Gazan civilian would use the weapons cache in their home or hospital or school to fight back against Hamas—the way even Holocaust concentration camp inhabitants rose up against their oppressors. Dave’s arguments assume the less powerful must be the less culpable, as if a penniless heroin addict on the street couldn’t have done anything to cause his own downfall.

Dave lives in a world where negotiation works just as well as—or better than—brute force, with a group who not too long ago disemboweled an IDF soldier, then threw the body into the streets so other “civilians” could further desecrate the corpse. Israel was still diplomatic enough with the Palestinian people, that in 2011 they not only released Aziz Salha—one of the main assailants in the lynch mob—but they also released over 1,000 other violent criminals along with him, just to get one of their own soldiers returned in a swap. That doesn’t sound to me like a country that purposely stirs shit up with Gaza for political gain. It sounds a lot more like a country who, until recently, spent way too much time caring what useless do-nothings like Dave think. He’d rather support the strategy employed by Uvalde police officers than risk any hope that the death and carnage could be over at some point.

Dave Smith quite frequently embodies a quote by Jordan Peterson: “If you’re harmless, you’re not virtuous. You’re just harmless.”

Comedians may have finally jumped the shark. Joe Rogan opened the Comedy Mothership in Austin and, along with others in his sphere, defended free speech during the first Trump presidency, DEI/CRT tyranny and Covid-19 shutdowns. They’ve risked their careers and relationships in order to push back against this injustice. But as often happens, this earned trust in one limited area led to a desire to grow their clout in others. For some reason, a number of these people decided to leave the comedy and First Amendment lane, ultimately becoming health gurus, religious influencers, armchair attorneys and political party operatives. Even when I agree with a number of their statements, I struggle to see how this differentiates such comedians from Gwyneth Paltrow, George Clooney or Sean Penn. Just seems like more of the same self-righteous savior/martyr complex, offering tons of advice but little utility.

Yes, Rogan has been able to show both sides of virtually every issue of discussion on his show. That is not because he goes on a podcast tour to dictate what other people should feel. It’s because he mostly listens to his guests, with few exceptions, and does his best to reconcile their claims with available evidence. What some may think is playing dumb is more likely Joe’s openness to honest inquiry. He’s definitely been swindled by opportunistic revisionists and contrarians on occasion, but he also respects the push and pull of varying viewpoints in order to get as close to the truth as possible, and he doesn’t tend to guilt or shame his listeners into any particular direction. That’s why Joe can be wrong sometimes, but still seem to be wrong in good faith.

In contrast, for someone who engages in such an amount of outward criticism, Dave Smith sure avoids a lot of accountability for what he says. He doesn’t show much of an interest in how Murray, or John Spencer, or Dave Rubin, or Ben Shapiro arrived at their conclusions, nor does he adequately explain why he trusts the sources he cites. He knows he doesn’t have to if his only metric is online engagement. What Dave lacks in due diligence, he compensates for with showmanship.

Having a hot take and well-rehearsed TV pundit outrage doesn’t make you brave. Any idiot can do that with little more than a few weeks of media training.

Getting the constantly-online to say “Oh, snap” doesn’t make you trustworthy. It makes you a preacher.

Most importantly, when is the last time this comedian did any comedy of note? Quick, tell me your favorite Dave Smith joke. Tell me your favorite Dave Smith bit, your favorite Dave Smith comedy sketch, your favorite Dave Smith video that features only Dave on a stage, delivering a premise, setup, punchline, crowd work, anything along those lines.

Exactly.

He’s become nothing more than a Libertarian post-1999 Jon Stewart.

What a manipulative, hack waste of time.