David Vance SubstackRead More
Did you happen to catch one of the most recent Joe Rogan podcasts, the one featuring comedian Dave Smith and UK journalist and writer Douglas Murray? It was one of the most explosive discussions I have heard in a while and thought I would weigh in on it!
Essentially this podcast was a heated debate between the libertarian comedian Dave Smith and the neocon Douglas Murray. The discussion centred on contentious issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict, media responsibility, and who qualifies to speak on complex topics. I felt that by and large Smith emerged as the more grounded and principled voice, dealing quite effectively with Murray’s many attempts to undermine him while defending open conversation and skepticism of establishment narratives.
Dave Smith argued that politics affects everyone, and gatekeeping discourse based on “expertise” stifles free thought—a point that resonated with Joe Rogan and his audience. I was in full agreement and I was also annoyed by Murray’s constant “trust the experts” appeal. No, I don’t. I will make my own mind up, thank you very much!
Smith challenged Murray’s staunch pro-Israel stance, particularly on Gaza, asserting that Israel’s actions, like the blockade, fuel tensions, and that U.S. interventionism often exacerbates global conflicts. His libertarian view prioritised non-intervention and questioned mainstream narratives, which he backed with historical references and quotes from figures involved in the conflict. Murray didn’t like this at all and kept interrupting and patronising which I found annoying.
Smith’s defence of controversial Rogan guests, like the very interesting Darryl Cooper, was solid. He clarified that Cooper doesn’t claim expertise but offers perspectives worth hearing, and that dismissing him outright just reflects elitism. When Murray accused Smith of “throwing out a lot of shit” on topics like Israel, Smith calmly countered by questioning why lived experience (e.g., visiting Gaza) should trump research or moral reasoning. He likened Murray’s logic to saying one can’t discuss Nazi Germany without time travel, exposing the absurdity of such gatekeeping.
Smith’s best moments for me came when he called out Murray’s contradictions. For instance, Murray demanded “experts” on Rogan’s show but sidestepped how often credentialed voices push biased or flawed narratives (e.g., during COVID!!!).
Douglas Murray’s demeanour often came across as condescending, undermining his arguments and alienating listeners who might otherwise engage with his points. The thing is I AGREE with some of what he said but took exception to HOW he said it!
Murray repeatedly highlighted Smith’s identity as a comedian, implying it somehow disqualified him from serious discussion. Phrases like “you’ve decided now to become somebody who talks about Israel” carried a patronising edge, suggesting Smith was out of his depth. This ignored Smith’s years of political commentary on his podcast, Part of the Problem, where he’s tackled complex issues. Murray’s focus on credentials over substance felt like an elitist tactic to shut Smith down rather than engage his arguments. In short, it was smug!
Murray’s insisted that Smith couldn’t speak authoritatively about Gaza without visiting. Why? Can’t I discuss French wines without visiting France? Murray also claimed that he only discusses countries he’s visited, which Smith and Rogan challenged as impractical—do historians need to “touch the ground” to study the past?
Murray’s tone, especially when pressing Smith with “Have you been there?” felt like an attempted gotcha! It implied Smith’s perspective was inferior, regardless of its merits.
On a broader Joe Rogan basis, Murray’s critique of Rogan’s guest choices, like Cooper or Ian Carroll, was laced with disdain for “self-appointed experts.” While raising legit concerns about possible misinformation, his delivery—calling their contributions “counter-historical stuff of a very dangerous kind”—came off as naked scolding.
Murray positioned himself as a gatekeeper of truth, lecturing Rogan and Smith as if they were reckless amateurs. This high-handed approach clashed with the Rogan podcast’s ethos of open inquiry, making Murray seem more interested in control than dialogue. At certain points, you could Rogan was getting annoyed.
When Smith pressed Murray on specific Israeli policies, Murray often pivoted to broader defences or accused Smith of oversimplifying. His exasperated responses, like claiming Smith was “mainly talking about Israel” based on internet clips, suggested he hadn’t seriously listened to Smith’s work. This selective framing—dismissing Smith’s points as uninformed while dodging direct rebuttals—felt like intellectual superiority rather than honest debate. Murray’s polished Oxbridge accent only amplified the perception of smugness. Now maybe it is unfair to say that but he DID sound smug and full of self conceit!
Murray’s repeated call for “more experts” contradicted his own career as a commentator who talks about all sorts of topics without specialised credentials. Smith highlighted this hypocrisy, noting that Murray’s books, like Democracies and Death Cults, make bold claims beyond his formal expertise. Murray’s failure to acknowledge this double standard, while chastising Smith for similar boundary-crossing, came across as haughty and self-serving.
I honestly felt that Murray’s constant condescension—evident in his tone, gatekeeping, and selective outrage—undercut his credibility. Douglas Murray is a smart guy and has said lots of great points BUT this was not his finest hour and I felt that Dave Smith came across as the more balanced guy!
****If you enjoy all the content that I put out here every day, can I ask you to consider to becoming a PAID subscriber, it’s only £5 a month, you can cancel if you don’t enjoy it but I know you will. I want to thank the kind people who already do this, without your help this becomes impossible. Thank you in anticipation**
Views: 70
