Hearts of Oak Podcast

heartsofoak

GUEST INTERVIEWS - Every Monday and Thursday - WEEKLY NEWS REVIEW - Every Weekend - Hearts of Oak is a Free Speech Alliance that bridges the transatlantic and cultural gap between the UK and the USA. Despite the this gap, values such as common sense, conviction and courage can transcend borders. For all our social media , video , livestream platforms and more https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ read less
EducationEducation

Episodes

The Week According to. . . Rick Munn
2d ago
The Week According to. . . Rick Munn
In the most recent episode of Hearts of Oak's news review, hosts Peter and Rick Munn delve into several pressing issues facing the UK. They open by addressing the UK government's decision to provide Ā£536 million in aid to foreign farmers, contrasting this with the increasing tax burdens on domestic farmers. Rick Munn highlights the economic paradox where UK farmers, despite owning valuable land, often lack the cash liquidity needed to manage inheritance taxes, potentially leading to the sale of family farms. The conversation then shifts to Prime Minister Keir Starmer's economic policies, particularly his partnership with corporations like BlackRock for economic growth. Rick expresses skepticism over whether such alliances will truly benefit the average British citizen, suggesting a shift towards right-leaning economic strategies within Starmer's Labour government. They also discuss the implications of a possible ICC arrest warrant for Israeli PM Netanyahu, questioning the UK's potential response to such international legal actions. The episode further includes a cultural critique, with Rick commenting on the concept of 'self-partnering' popularized by pop star Sam Smith, viewing it as a reflection of bizarre modern cultural trends. Finally, they touch on national defense, examining the UK's preparedness for conflict with Russia, and how domestic and social issues might be impacting military spending. Throughout the discussion, there is an underlying theme of accountability, questioning the alignment of government actions with the actual needs and values of UK citizens, and a call for a more equitable distribution of benefits from policy decisions. *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Robert W Malone MD - Make America Healthy Again: A Vision for Reform in Food and Pharma
4d ago
Robert W Malone MD - Make America Healthy Again: A Vision for Reform in Food and Pharma
In this episode of Hearts of Oak, Dr. Robert Malone discusses his recent work, including his successful Substack platform, "Malone.News," where he mixes serious analysis with light-hearted content. He talks about his new book "Cywar: Enforcing the New World Order," now an audiobook, and reflects on recording challenges and its reception. The conversation then turns to U.S. politics, with Malone analyzing recent election surprises and his involvement in political events, including support for Bobby Kennedy. He critiques the current health and food industry, highlighting the need for reform due to corporate dominance, unsafe food practices, and the decline of small farms. Malone expresses hope for health policy changes under potential new leadership, emphasizing the battle against industry lobbying for public health improvements. *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. PRE-ORDER PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order     amazon.com/PsyWar-Robert-W-Malone-MD/dp/1510782958 Robert W Malone MD, MS Inventor of mRNA & DNA vaccines, RNA as a drug. Scientist, physician, writer, podcaster, commentator and advocate. Believer in our fundamental freedom of free speech. Connect with Dr Malone..... š•                       x.com/RWMaloneMD WEBSITE           rwmalonemd.com/                          maloneinstitute.org/ SUBSTACK        malone.news Interview recorded  3.9.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                        x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
Fear, Freedom, and Filming: The Truth behind BBCā€™s Unvaccinated programme 14:27
Nov 14 2024
Fear, Freedom, and Filming: The Truth behind BBCā€™s Unvaccinated programme 14:27
In this episode, Nazarin Veronica delves into her journey from questioning mainstream COVID-19 narratives to becoming a vocal critic of vaccine mandates and media manipulation. She reflects on her isolation during lockdown which led to skepticism towards official information, resulting in strained relationships due to her dissenting views. Veronica discusses her efforts to spread awareness, like handing out leaflets, her disillusionment with mainstream media tactics through her experience with the BBC documentary "Unvaccinated," where she felt her views were misrepresented to serve an agenda. Post-documentary, she leveraged social media to correct the narrative, gaining unexpected support. Now, years later, she sees slow shifts in public discourse towards vaccine safety but remains vigilant about government overreach and continues advocating for critical thinking and personal liberty. *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Interview recorded 31.10.24 Connect with Nazarin Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nazarinveronica/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nazarin.doodman š•: https://x.com/nazarinveronica TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@nazarinveronica YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@nazarinveronica1 The Audacity Network: https://www.theaudacitynetwork.com/   Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                         x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Interview recorded 11.11.24
Calum  Muller: Faith, Science, and the Unborn: A Doctor's Perspective on Life
Nov 4 2024
Calum Muller: Faith, Science, and the Unborn: A Doctor's Perspective on Life
Welcome to another thought-provoking episode of Hearts of Oak, where today we delve deep into the heart of one of the most contentious debates of our time: the right to life. In this episode, we're joined by a distinguished guest, a medical doctor and researcher who has become a pivotal figure in the UK's pro-life movement.   Prepare for an insightful conversation as we explore his transformative journey from a pro-choice stance to becoming an ardent advocate for the unborn, driven by scientific evidence and ethical reasoning. We'll discuss the current cultural landscape in the UK, where despite a prevailing pro-choice sentiment, a new wave of youthful pro-life activism is emerging, challenging the status quo.   This episode promises to unravel: The ethical and scientific arguments for when life begins. The role of religious beliefs in the pro-life movement. Why there's a growing disconnect between UK law and public opinion on abortion. How the pro-life movement is evolving, engaging with media, politics, and church leaders to drive change. Join us as we navigate through these complex issues, understanding the motivations behind one man's mission to change hearts and minds, and why he believes now more than ever, the pro-life message needs to be heard.   This is not just a debate; it's a call to action, a challenge to think, and a journey into the heart of what it means to champion life in all its vulnerability and potential.   Tune in, and let's challenge the tide together. *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Interview recorded 31.10.24 Connect with Calum š• | https://x.com/DrCalumMiller Website| https://www.calummiller.org/   Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                         x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Transcript: (Hearts of Oak) And hello Hearts of Oak, thank you so much for joining us once again with a brand new guest, and that is Calum Miller. Calum, thank you so much for your time today. Thank you for having me Hearts of Oak Great to have you, and of course, I was at the March for Life in the UK, which kind of spurred my thinking, and you're a name that I've seen in many different areas, but actually being at that event solidified it. So I want to get your thoughts on that, the UK pro-life movement, your background, all of that. But people can find you at Dr. Calum Miller on X (formerly Twitter), and of course, callumsblog.com is your blog. All the links will be in the description whether people are watching or listening; everything is there, so make sure to make use of those links. But, Calum, your background as a doctor, you're involved, very involved in the pro-life movement. Maybe I could just step back a little bit and ask you to introduce yourself to our viewers before we get into the actual issue at hand. Sure, yes. I'm a medical doctor, and I actually became pro-life while I was at medical school. So I grew up, like most of the UK, just being pro-choice, at least most of Great Britain, at least. And I think, yeah, it was being at medical school, seeing the reality of life in the womb, seeing the reality of abortion and its impact on the woman as well as the child that convinced me to be pro-life. So I still work as a doctor. I'm also a researcher on the topic of abortion and various other bits and pieces, but that's from an ethical, medical, and legal perspective, whatever it might be. So I try to look at it from every angle and publish on that. And so I've done quite a bit of academic work on the topic as well. And then I do a lot of work just speaking and writing about this as well, so yeah, I didn't expect to end up here when I started medical school, but that's what I've ended up doing because I think it's one of the most important things that can be spoken about, so here I am. Maybe ask you what actually changed your mind? I want to delve into that, your background, and what kind of led you to that. But what kind of led up to that? Because most people, I guess, shrug their shoulders, and they think, you know, if it's people's choice, and you want to do this or that. People don't really think about it in the UK, I don't think, as much as intentionally as maybe in the US, where there are two kind of blocks on each side, and you have heated, and sometimes even constructive arguments. In the UK, it just seems to be, "Bleh," just kind of shrug your shoulders. So, what kind of persuaded you? What led you, as you were studying as a doctor, to the position that actually life in the womb matters? Yeah, it was a number of things, really. I think being a doctor, you have to think about it at least a little bit. That's not to say most doctors think about it much or have a well-formed view on it. But at least in my case, it was something that came up in medical school. And so that sort of provoked me a bit more into thinking about what I thought about it. And then also, you know, reading about it, it was very much academic arguments, you know, thinking through the idea of human rights and equality that convinced me. I thought if humans are equal, then they have equal rights, and that has to include every human. And, therefore, the main question in abortion is just: Is this a human being? And I was, you know, I knew from medical school that it was. And therefore, for me, it was very simple: that if this is a human being, as science teaches, and if every human being is equal, as most of us claim to believe, then it just follows really logically that we should be pro-life and protect the child in the womb just as much as anyone else. And so that was a big part of it. I think, you know, part of what brought it up, you're right, is globalization which normally makes peopleā€”normally it's sort of very progressive Western values going to other parts of the world and making them more liberal. In my case, I think globalization took me the other direction to a more traditional view because, you know, I grew up in a very sort of insular progressive country, and it was actually exposure to the fact that most people around the world don't agree with this, and most of them are pro-life, that was part of the thing that got me to reconsider in the first place. So, yeah, it was a mix of a whole bunch of things: experience, looking at the arguments, but at its core, it was really that conviction about human equality, human rights, and seeing that if we really believe in them, then they have to apply to everyone and not just the people that it's convenient for now. There are two approaches: at the March for Life, you have a strongly Christian approach in that the understanding of the Bible is that we are made in the image of God, and therefore, everyone has value, no matter where they are or who they are; everyone is equal and has value. But you've also got, as you pointed out, an ethical argument, a philosophical argument, which is a completely different take on it. What about you as a Christian, then? How did that affect your approach to this idea? Yeah, it wasn't actually a huge part of what convinced me because, you know, I had Christian convictions before I became pro-life, and I thought that was compatible. Later on, I realized that Christianity does have a clear position on it, but it was really the arguments about science and philosophy that convinced me primarily. And I think one of the striking things in that sense is that the Bible doesn't actually say when life begins exactly. It talks about conception a little bit, and it clearly respects that there is life before birth. And so, you know, at least at some point before birth, life begins. But of course, fertilization hadn't been discovered when the Bible was written. And so when people say, you know, you only believe human rights begin or life begins at fertilization because the Bible says so or because of your religion, it's actually the opposite. The Bible doesn't mention fertilization; no one in religion mentioned fertilization until it was discovered scientifically. And it was because of that scientific discovery that Christians said, "Oh, OK, so we knew that life was valuable from the beginning because the Bible teaches that life is valuable from the beginning. But we didn't know when the beginning was. But now that science has shown us when the beginning is, at fertilization, the Christian position, informed by science, tells us that life begins at fertilization and should be protected from that." And so I think clearly, you know, I think if you believe in Christianity and you believe in science, then there's no way to sort of support abortion. But in terms of that claim about when life begins, I think that's ultimately a scientific claim, not a religious one. And so anyone can agree with it. And if, for some other reason, say you're not religious, you just believe that all human beings are equal and should be protected regardless. Regardless, if you believe that and you believe in science, you should also be pro-life. So religion certainly supports the pro-life position in many cases, but it's not needed for it. And so in my own journey, it was not really connected to religion. It was only later that I sort of united them in that sense. Okay, let me see where I go in this, because I want to pick up. Those are two aspects, I think, and it's interesting your view of being a Christian, and yet not necessarily being pro-life. I mean, I have a, to me, it's a red line as a Christian that actually we speak up, as Proverbs says, for the voiceless, and who has no voice more than the unborn. Literally, they're not able to speak, and therefore it is up to us to speak up for them. So for me, even that Proverbs is enough to actually step up. And if no one comes and says, you know, that's not life because of X, Y, and Z, if there's no argument for that side, then surely the flip side has to be that you speak up for that. And I have, I mean, I've talked to, I grew up Baptist, now in a Pentecostal church, but talked to a lot of C of E vicars who struggle with this and privately have a view, but publicly seem unable to speak. And it seems to be a fear of what man may say, as opposed to a fear of God. I mean, what have your conversations been like with different Christian leaders on actually speaking up on this? Yeah, I mean, I don't think your experience is unusual, especially as someone who goes to an Anglican church. I think we're all, every Anglican is, humiliated by the quality of our leadership, I think, especially at present. That's not about my church; my church leaders are great, but I think everyone knows at this point that Welby's a bit of a clown, and no one, you know, thinks he has much courage or credibility. And so certainly, you know, we don't expect anything remotely controversial or that might upset the sort of powers that be from Anglican leaders, but it's not only an Anglican problem. You know, the only time I've ever heard abortion preached about in a church, as someone who has been going to church most of my life, was I only heard it once, and that was when I was giving a sermon. And that was an invitation by a very bold pastor because he wanted it to be preached on, and that's the only time I've ever heard it preached on in a UK church. So this is a huge problem across denominations. And I think ultimately there's a vicious circle because, you know, people will not know how to speak about abortion in a winsome way. So they don't speak about it. And therefore, the next generation or the people in the congregations don't know what to think about it. And then if they don't know what to think about it, they're even less likely to speak about it in future. And that just sort of reinforces itself. And so I meet quite, you know, the Christian position on this is about as clear as anything could be. It's like absolutely clear. You know, the evidence from church history and from the Bible for the pro-life view is as good or better than the evidence for the Trinity, which is like a core foundational Christian doctrine. And yet I meet a lot of Christians, even otherwise orthodox, kind of Bible-believing Christians who just don't know what to think about this issue. And that is because of this reinforced silence on the issue. So, I would say that in some cases, it is just cowardice; in many cases, it's just cowardice, but in many cases, it's because the church leader might want to speak about this but genuinely has never seen it spoken about in a way that is convincing, full of grace, and full of compassion, and you know, winsomeness. And I think in that situation, at the very least, our job is to present to those pastors and church leaders a way of communicating this message that is winsome, that does make sense, that is compassionate and full of grace and the gospel. And so, yeah, I think, you know, that once we've sort of equipped church leaders with that, then I think we will see which church leaders have a sort of genuine fear that they're willing to overcome once they're equipped and which church leaders are just always going to be too scared, no matter what you do. And I think there'll always be a mix of both in churches, but we're hoping that, you know, over time, once people are equipped, they'll be able to speak out more, and that a lot of them will be willing to do so. I'm wondering, is it a cultural issue? I remember visiting a church in Houston, and in the middle of the sermon, they emphasized the importance of life. Iā€™ve seen similar moments in other large U.S. churches, where they pause to discuss that life is sacred, including life in the womb, which they believe God has created. There seems to be a greater focus on the sanctity of life there. In contrast, youā€™re rightā€”it's rare to come across that in UK churches. For example, in my own church, KT, the former pastor once issued an apology during a Sunday service. This happened after J. John, a Church of England canon, was speaking on the Ten Commandments. When he came to "murder," he paused to say that taking the life of the unborn is also murder. He spoke about it briefly, emphasizing forgiveness at the cross, and then moved on. That Sunday, the church leader made a public apology in case anyone was offended. But when it comes to weighing offense against addressing the issue of life, Iā€™d prioritize preventing the loss of life over potential offense. Is this reluctance to speak out part of a cultural issueā€”a difference between transatlantic perspectives? Yeah, I mean, as you say, there are some great church leaders in the UK. I'm not saying every church leader avoids this topic; J. John is a fantastic example of someone whoā€™s been willing to speak about it. Vaughan Roberts from St. Ebbeā€™s in Oxford is another example, and there are others, so theyā€™re not the only ones. Weā€™re very grateful for church leaders like that. Even among church leaders who are somewhat fearful of addressing this issue, I think there are two main reasons. One is a kind of legitimate worryā€”misplaced, perhaps, but still legitimate. The other is less defensible. The legitimate worry is from those who are genuinely fearful that if they speak out on this issue, they will turn away people who are not Christians, making them less open to Christianity. Of course, Christianity is even more important than the issue of abortion, if we frame it that way. So, thereā€™s this worry that if someone is turned off from coming to church or listening to anything we say because of this issue, they might never come to believe in the end. Their concern is for the most important thing. While I think this worry may be misplaced, I understand it. Then, there are others who are less concerned about the evangelistic impact and simply worried about, as you say, causing offense. The Bible doesnā€™t teach us to go out and deliberately cause offense, but it does tell us to speak the truth. If the truth offends, then so be it. As I mentioned, there are ways to address this issue that are winsome, compassionate, and full of grace. There are certainly ways of discussing it that lack those qualities and can be genuinely harmful. But if a church leader is unwilling to even broach the topic in a good, winsome, and compassionate way, then I think there's a real problem. I would say the U.S. has less of an issue with this, but itā€™s still present. Many pastors there avoid discussing it, and there is a lot of confusion. Globally, one might expect church leaders in conservative regions to be more vocal, but even then, the response is mixed. For example, in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, church leaders are very vocal, clear, and forthright about this issue, without fear or hesitation. In parts of the Caribbeanā€”though not everywhereā€”even where abortion is mostly illegal and Christianity is widespread within a traditional culture, there is often significant hesitation among church leaders to address it. So, even in traditionally conservative cultures worldwide, the response is mixed." Okay, let's look at legislation. Every country will be different, of course. In the UK, there has certainly been a push to extend access to abortion up to birth, depending on certain circumstances. In contrast, as you look further east in Europe, abortion tends to have more restrictions. We also have the issue of buffer zones. Could you update the viewers and listeners on the current situation regarding abortion in the UK? Yeah, so in the UK, we have a law that, in practice, allows abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks, or six months. By this point, the baby is quite developed; theyā€™re viable from about 21 to 22 weeks and could survive outside the womb without their mother. The baby is able to feel pain, has a heartbeat, brain waves, can taste food, and so forth. Theyā€™re very much developed, yet the UK allows abortion up to six months. If the baby has a disability, the law permits abortion until birth. Although it specifies a 'serious handicap,' initially intended for life-limiting conditionsā€”where, for example, the baby might only survive a few daysā€”in practice, nearly any disability can justify abortion until birth. We know of cases where abortions for Down syndrome, for instance, have taken place in the 8th or even the 9th month in the UK. Itā€™s also important to clarify that, technically, abortion is not fully legal for any reason up to six months. The law specifies that itā€™s legal to protect the physical or mental health of the woman. Originally, this was meant to be fairly strict, requiring two doctors to genuinely assess that carrying the baby to term would pose a significant mental or physical health risk. However, in practice, you might go to the doctorā€”or sometimes only a nurseā€”and say you donā€™t want a baby. If you indicate that this would cause you emotional difficulty, that counts as a mental health reason, qualifying you for an abortion. So, in theory, we only have abortion for health reasons or for disability in the UK, but in practice, itā€™s permitted for almost any reason up to six months. This is much more permissive than in most of Europe, where abortion is usually allowed only up to 12 weeks, if at all. For example, Germany has a 12-week limit, and I believe some Scandinavian countries, like Norway and Denmark, also have similar 12-week limits. Swedenā€™s limit is 18 weeks, and, as everyone knows, Sweden is considered one of the most progressive countries in the world. Even they have a limit at 18 weeks, while in the UK, weā€™re a month and a half beyond that. This makes us an outlierā€”not only globally but even within Western Europeā€”as we are far more extreme. Thatā€™s why over 70% of women in the UK believe the law should be stricter than it currently is. Despite a population that is 95% pro-choice, most people recognize that our law is far too extreme and believe it needs to be tightened I mean, does the law state when life begins? Because that's what it boils down to. In the UK, if you talk to liberalsā€”or even family members, as I haveā€”they seem to believe the birth canal somehow bestows the properties of life. The moment a baby passes through that point, itā€™s alive, but 20 seconds before, itā€™s not. I think thatā€™s not really a scientific definition of when life begins; it's more of a positional argument rather than one grounded in the actual question of life. So, in the UK, is there any definition of when life begins? Because that seems to be the central issue. Yeah, not really. I mean, in terms of when a child is fully protected, it would be when birth is complete. There has actually been a bit of legal debate about partial birth abortion, which is when the baby is half delivered. You deliver the legs and body, and then the head is still just inside the birth canal, and an abortion is performed at that stage of pregnancy. Itā€™s absolutely barbaric and grotesque, but it seems to be legal in the UK. So even halfway through delivery, it appears that an abortion can still be performed, meaning that the baby is not considered a full legal person who is protected at that point. The law does actually define pregnancies in two different ways. When measuring the time limit for abortion, it states that it is up to 24 weeks. This is actually measured from the last period of the woman, which is two weeks before conception. In that sense, it doesn't define pregnancy as beginning at conception; instead, it says pregnancy begins two weeks before conception, at the last period. However, when defining what abortion is versus contraceptionā€”what's the difference between contraception and abortionā€”the law defines pregnancy as beginning at implantation, which occurs a week or two after conception. The reason for this is that there are forms of contraception that act after fertilization, technically causing very early abortions. This makes doctors and contraceptive manufacturers very unhappy because it means they would be subject to more regulation. Therefore, they prefer to classify all of these drugs as contraceptives, since the law is less strict about contraceptives. So, in the UK, the law defines a legal person as only being recognized once birth is fully completed. And it defines pregnancy in two different ways: either from the last period or from implantation, neither of which is conception, which is the scientifically accurate beginning of life. So, the law in the UK is a total mess; it's completely contradictory and inconsistent. All I can say is that while the law might not define it clearly, if I were asked in my medical school exams when a human organism begins, I would say that it starts at conception. There's only one answer that would be remotely acceptable, and that would be fertilization. That's the scientifically obvious answer. I mean, how is it that someone can go through the medical field? I went through aerospace, so itā€™s very different. But in the medical field, how is it that someone decides to become a doctor? They must have the intellectual ability and, more importantly, the desire to do good; they want to help. Thatā€™s what they want to do in their career. I scratch my head thinking about someone who decides they want to be a doctor. What do you want to do? Well, I like to kill babies. Is that really an option on the list of motivations? How does someone move from wanting to help people to that being a part of their profession? As someone in a non-medical field, itā€™s quite confusing. Yeah, I think part of the answer is that doctors themselves and some of the public have an unreasonably inflated view of doctors. You know, a lot of doctors do a lot of what they do for goodwill and get into it with good intentions. But it's also a highly prestigious career that earns a decent salary; there are many reasons why people want to be a doctor other than because it helps people. And to be honest, if you really want to help people, there are much more effective things you can do. You could go into banking, earn a lot of money, and then donate it all; that would actually have an impact hundreds or thousands of times bigger than being a doctor. So, that's not to say all doctors are just in it for the money and the prestige, but there's a lot of that, and there's certainly a lot of pride in the medical profession. So, I don't think we should just have this view that doctors are just saintly people. They might be better than average morally, but that's not saying much, and certainly not all of them are better than average. In terms of the ones who might get into it for reasons of goodwill and good intentions, I think it's best reflected by there's a paper on second-trimester abortion. by what's her name, Lisaā€”I've forgotten her surname, I'm afraidā€”Lisa Harris, I think it is, and she writes a paper on second-trimester abortion, and she says we need to stop being dishonest about this; this is, in some ways, a horrendous procedure. And she describes it; she talks about, for example, when she was doing an abortion and she pulled the legs off the baby, and at the same time, she felt her own baby kicking inside of her because she was pregnant while she was doing this abortion. And she said, like, tears were flowing down her face, and this sort of thing. It was a very visceral experience. And so, she's, in that sense, quite open and honest about what abortion involves, and she even says explicitly in that article that abortion is violence. She doesn't hold back; she says abortion is clearly violence, but she says it's an even greater violence to force women to stay pregnant against their will. And so, I don't know if every abortion practitioner thinks of it that way. Probably not. Probably many of them are in total denial and just try to sort of deny the fact that they're doing anything violent. They're probably just trying to treat it as no big deal. But when you get an honest doctor who really knows what they're doing and still does it, I think that has to be something like the justification that they think, "Yes, of course, this is violence, and it's horrible, but it's even worse to force a woman to stay pregnant, and therefore, it's the lesser of two evils." So that's how some people would think of it, at least. I want to get your kind of view on the pro-life movement in the UK. You've been very heavily involved in campaigning for that, being a high-profile activist, and you emceed the March for Life event a couple of weeks ago, a couple of months ago in London. And I'm embarrassed to say that was the first one I attended, and I attended the seminars in the morning and then went for the march in the afternoon to Parliament Square. But 10 years of that, do you want to give us an insight? I mean, half of our viewers are US viewers; I think it'd be good for them to also understand what the situation is in the UK, what your experiences have been being involved in the pro-life movement, trying to win the public over, win public support, win political support, engaging in the media. Give us an insight into what that journey has been like. Yeah, so I certainly wasn't there from the beginning of the March for Life. I've been maybe three or four times now to the UK march, a few times in other countries. I'm told that it began very small; I think it began with just a couple of dozen people in Birmingham about 10 years ago, and then, really incredibly, it has expanded to thousands and thousands in London now. I know other countries do it a bit differently; they do hundreds of marches across the country. So every country does it a bit differently. We have a big one in London each year, and it's been incredible to see how that's grown over the years and how many young people are involved. It's not just some fading generation that's gradually losing momentum and losing ground. If you go to the march, it's absolutely full of young people, and I think it's growing each year. And so, yeah, that's been hugely encouraging. And I think it's interesting because what the abortion lobby is trying to do is to say that this is a settled issue, it's a decided issue, and that there's no room for debate. And they could probably get away with that for many years because there wasn't really much pushback for a good long time. And now, I think we're at the point where sort of teenage and young people's rebelliousness is actually getting, you know, the new conservatism is actually being pro-life. That's the thing; we've had in this country for 50 or 60 years, and people who want to sort of grow up questioning things and going against the establishment are increasingly recognizing that the establishment and the older generations are pro-abortion and that they're trying to maintain that at all costs. And so, I think there is an increasing generation of young people that are beginning to ask questions. And naturally, the establishment's getting very nervous about that and trying to shut it down and pretend there's nothing to debate. And so, yeah, I'm excited about what the next few years might show. There's some polling, and I don't know, it's a little bit mixed, but there is some evidence that the youngest people in the UK are the most pro-life. That's not to say the majority are pro-life; it's still tough being a pro-life person at university. But it does seem to be that the youngest generation is more pro-life than any other, and so our hope is that this will build over the next few years, and hopefully, we'll be able to have even more significant conversations about what is really good for women, what is really good for children, what is really good for society, especially as we see the costs of not having any kidsā€”the economic costs and other things. We're gradually seeing that that's going to cause huge economic problems. I don't know if anyone in my generation is actually convinced they're going to get a pension when they're in their 60s or 70s. I'm certainly not. And that's because we don't have enough kids. And so, I think as those problems increase and get worse, and the economic reality of that hits home, I think a lot of people will be wondering, did we make some mistakes when it came to suppressing childbearing, breaking up families, and encouraging people not to have them? I mean, isn't it, and I was really pleasantly surprised by the number of certainly younger people at not only the event at the beginning of the day but also in the march. And you realize there is hope when you see that, a different generation actually standing up for life. But I mean, in every generation, faces its own issues, and in this generation, it's an issue of it's about me; it's about putting off having children later in life, putting off commitment, actually zero commitment; kind of do what you want. And that different, I guess, focus on life is more on the individual as opposed to collective, much less responsibility towards society, and much more on "I can do what I want, and screw the world" type of thing. That is a difficult concept to bring into this, which is about thinking of others, so how do you kind of marry that with this maybe a more selfish attitude to this issue, which has to be selfless because you're thinking of someone else. It's tough. And, you know, there are arguments that abortion is bad, even if you're self-interested. You know, the mental health evidence is quite clear that if a woman has an abortion, she's more likely to be anxious, more likely to be suicidal, and more likely to do drugs and alcohol and all sorts of things. So even from a selfish perspective, abortion is bad for women and for people making that decision. On the other hand, you know, those arguments haven't persuaded so far. Maybe that's because the establishment sort of denies that evidence, or maybe it's because people just aren't motivated in that moment by theoretical knowledge of what their mental health might be like in the future. It's more of a panic decision. It's more of a, you know, freaking out. "My life's going to be over as I know it," and I just have to get rid of this and change this situation. I'm not thinking about, you know, potential mental health outcomes 20 years down the line. I don't know which of those is the reason that those arguments haven't persuaded. But for that reason, it's always going to be a challenge in a culture that is primarily about the individual and about doing what you desire and what you want, forgetting about your responsibility to others and the need to care for others. I think it will always be challenging to get rid of abortion in that context. So we don't really know how to solve it in that sense. We're hoping that people will wake up. Of course, there is a significant sentiment of helping others; you know, some people call it social justice, while others refer to it by different names. However, this sense of societal responsibility among young people isn't completely dead. They can be very selfish in some respects, and then the next week theyā€™ll spend all of their time at a protest for something that helps societyā€”or at least something they think helps societyā€”in some way. Some of that, I'm sure, is grandstanding; some of it is virtue signaling. However, I think a lot of it is genuine sympathy. I believe that when people spend their Saturdays marching for Palestine, whatever you think of that issue or whoever you think is in the right, many of the young people in those marches genuinely believe that there are people suffering and that it is their responsibility to spend some of their valuable time speaking for them. And so, in that sense, the sort of societal duty and that sense of duty is not gone; itā€™s just very selectively targeted nowadays. There's not a general sense that with everyone around me, with my family, with my neighbors, and with my society, every decision I make has to be something that contributes to them and their flourishing. It's more like, okay, in most areas it's all about me, and I should do what makes me happy and follow my heart. But then there are some things that are just so bad that I have to, you know, give a bit of my time to. I think it's just much more targeted in that way rather than a complete sense of, you know, irresponsibility. So the question is, how can we challenge the sort of channel those remaining desires to do good and to show that they apply to all of society and all of life, and not just to a few select issues? I think once we are able to build that sort of virtue and responsibility in a more global sense, then we might be in a better position to fix this issue as well. How do you look at this from a campaigning point of view? There are many angles you could take, and where you focus is important. Do you look at the media and push the message through that? Do you focus on MPs in the political sphere? Do you look at the church and engage with it? There are many aspects you could consider using for influence. So how do you see the movement, the breakthrough, or the focus for you personally? Yeah, I think it's always going to be a mix of those. I think any societal movement requires getting all the different sectors on board. Even if you look at, you know, people pushing the other way, even when it seems hopelessā€”in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where almost everyone is pro-life, the abortion industry globally will still target politicians, doctors, the media, and even church leaders. Even though they know that almost all the church leaders are against them, they will try to get church leaders on board with them just so they can say this is not an issue where, if you're Christian, you're pro-life, or if you're Muslim, you're pro-life. You can be a Christian or a Muslim and still support abortion, and therefore try to shift the population that way. So, Iā€™d say it involves all of them. But I think the thing that has struck me about public opinion on abortion and how pro-life movements have succeeded around the world is that it is very, very difficult for a pro-life movement to succeed without having, at the very least, a core base of enthusiastic supporters among Christians or Muslims. I think that's just the reality. You know, if you look at the U.S. pro-life movement, yes, 25 percent of atheists in America are pro-life, according to polls. And that's significant; that's a lot of people who are totally non-religious and pro-life. But when you look at people who are actively engaged in pro-life campaigning or volunteering at a pregnancy help center, or whatever it might be, the overwhelming majority of themā€”about 99 percentā€”are Christian. There are some exceptions; obviously, that's why it's only 99 percent. I have some great atheist friends. F or example, Monica Snyder, who runs Secular Pro-Life, does a fantastic job. Everyone's convinced she's secretly a Christian, and I can tell you from knowing her that it's far from the case. There are great people like that, but the reality is that 99 percent of pro-life people who are actually doing something in the U.S. are Christians. Therefore, it's very difficult to even make a start unless you have a core group of Christians who are willing to take action. And so, you know, we can still affect the politics. At the moment in the UK, they're trying to legalize abortion up until birth. Even without the church being engaged, some of our groups working in politics have been able to stop that. And so I'm not saying we should just forget everything until we have the church on board, because we can do a lot even without them. But I think in order to make really significant change long term, I think the place to start has to be the church because that's where people are
The Week According To. . .Karli Bonne'
Nov 3 2024
The Week According To. . .Karli Bonne'
Welcome back to Hearts of Oak, where the heartbeat of American politics resonates loud and clear! In this electrifying episode, we're thrilled to welcome back the spirited Karli Bonne who's not just bringing her trademark wit but also a Halloween costume that doubles as a scathing political commentary. Join us as we dive headfirst into the tumultuous waters of the 2024 presidential election, exploring everything from the grassroots movements stirred by Donald Trump to the unexpected resilience of figures like Steve Bannon. Karli, with her unique perspective, will guide us through the maze of election mechanics, sharing firsthand accounts of voting irregularities, and the urgent mobilization efforts for Trump. But it's not all serious business; we'll also explore how meme culture is reshaping political discourse, making waves in the digital realm like never before. Get ready for a conversation that's as informative as it is inspiring, where we'll tackle the big questions: Can grassroots efforts and the power of social media memes sway an election? How does the current administration's narrative stack up against the reality on the ground? And most importantly, what does the future hold for America in this pivotal election year? Tune in for an episode packed with insights, laughter, and a call to action that might just make you want to hit the polls or start crafting your own political memes. "Hearts of Oak" ā€“ where every episode is a step towards understanding the heartbeat of America. Don't miss out!   Interview recorded 2.11.24 Follow Karli on these links...  š•                          x.com/KarluskaP TELEGRAM          t.me/realKarliBonne (Midnight Rider Channel) TRUTH                 truthsocial.com/@KarliBonne GETTR                  gettr.com/user/karlibonne Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                         x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Follow him on š• x.com/TheBoschFawstin and check out his art  https://www.boschfawstin.com/ The Week According to ā€¦. Karli Bonne Simpsons voting machine malfunction - VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852503346961064105 Bannon is back!  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852501024642080888 Jason Miller discussing the GarbGE TRUCK  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1851777217707008270 TOGETHERā€”WE WILL FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHTā€”and we will WIN, WIN, WIN! - VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852495524730925158 Trump rally in Warren Michigan  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852469179942588533 Gutfield  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852463137456570872 More Bannon  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852388006155399194 Charles V Payne @cvpayne Jobs Report is a disaster and its disingenuous to assume "experts" that contributed to consensus didn't factor into their estimates hurricanes and strikes. https://x.com/cvpayne/status/1852337040865501250 Karli Bonneā€™ šŸ‡ŗšŸ‡ø  @KarluskaP  -  VIDEO She speaks in Gypsy Curses šŸ˜‚ https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852320624602910722 God sent me Donald Trump - RFK Jr  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852186982291558608 Joe Biden biting babies  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852100736865501462 Reactions to Trump in New York  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1851992217411326130 Democrats book of Joy  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1851981600558313519 Trump Campaign Ad https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1851843956557967611 Do you need this: Welcome back to Hearts of Oak, where the heartbeat of American politics resonates loud and clear! In this electrifying episode, we're thrilled to welcome back the spirited CarinBonne' who's not just bringing her trademark wit but also a Halloween costume that doubles as a scathing political commentary. Join us as we dive headfirst into the tumultuous waters of the 2024 presidential election, exploring everything from the grassroots movements stirred by Donald Trump to the unexpected resilience of figures like Steve Bannon. Karli, with her unique perspective, will guide us through the maze of election mechanics, sharing firsthand accounts of voting irregularities, and the urgent mobilization efforts for Trump. But it's not all serious business; we'll also explore how meme culture is reshaping political discourse, making waves in the digital realm like never before. Get ready for a conversation that's as informative as it is inspiring, where we'll tackle the big questions: Can grassroots efforts and the power of social media memes sway an election? How does the current administration's narrative stack up against the reality on the ground? And most importantly, what does the future hold for America in this pivotal election year?  Tune in for an episode packed with insights, laughter, and a call to action that might just make you want to hit the polls or start crafting your own political memes.  Don't miss out! Interview recorded 2.11.24 Follow Karli on these links...  š•                          x.com/KarluskaP TELEGRAM          t.me/realKarliBonne (Midnight Rider Channel) TRUTH                 truthsocial.com/@KarliBonne GETTR                  gettr.com/user/karlibonne Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                         x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Follow him on š• x.com/TheBoschFawstin and check out his art  https://www.boschfawstin.com/ The Week According to ā€¦. Karli Bonne Simpsons voting machine malfunction - VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852503346961064105 Bannon is back!  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852501024642080888 Jason Miller discussing the GarbGE TRUCK  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1851777217707008270 TOGETHERā€”WE WILL FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHTā€”and we will WIN, WIN, WIN! - VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852495524730925158 Trump rally in Warren Michigan  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852469179942588533 Gutfield  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852463137456570872 More Bannon  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852388006155399194 Charles V Payne @cvpayne Jobs Report is a disaster and its disingenuous to assume "experts" that contributed to consensus didn't factor into their estimates hurricanes and strikes. https://x.com/cvpayne/status/1852337040865501250 Karli Bonneā€™ šŸ‡ŗšŸ‡ø  @KarluskaP  -  VIDEO She speaks in Gypsy Curses šŸ˜‚ https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852320624602910722 God sent me Donald Trump - RFK Jr  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852186982291558608 Joe Biden biting babies  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1852100736865501462 Reactions to Trump in New York  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1851992217411326130 Democrats book of Joy  -  VIDEO https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1851981600558313519 Trump Campaign Ad https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1851843956557967611
Abi Roberts: We the People. Personal stories of tragedy and suffering from Covid jabs
Nov 1 2024
Abi Roberts: We the People. Personal stories of tragedy and suffering from Covid jabs
Join us on Hearts of Oak for a powerful conversation with comedian and advocate Abi Roberts as we dive into her latest work, We The People: Letters from Dystopia. In this interview, Abi reveals the heart-wrenching stories behind her bookā€”a collection of real-life testimonies from individuals affected by the COVID-19 lockdowns and mandates. More than just stories, these letters shine a light on the lasting impact of government overreach, personal loss, and the fight for freedom. Abi shares her journey of gathering these voices through her podcast Abby Daily, emphasizing the importance of truth and remembrance, especially in a time clouded by misinformation. With the evocative illustrations by Bob Moran, We The People stands as both a historical document and a beacon of hope. Tune in for a deeply moving and thought-provoking discussion that balances the weight of serious topics with Abiā€™s sharp wit, underscoring her mission to give voice to those who suffered and to remind us all of the importance of freedom. Donā€™t miss this interviewā€”watch it now on Hearts of Oak. Interview recorded 30.10.24 *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Connect with Abi Roberts: X |https://x.com/abircomedian Instagram |https://www.instagram.com/abirobertscomedy/ Website: https://abiroberts.com/ Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                         x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Transcript: (Hearts of Oak) Hello, Hearts of Oak! Thank you so much for joining us. We have a returning guest who hasn't been with us for a while, and we've missed each otherā€”it's Abi Roberts. Abi, thank you so much for giving us your time today. Hi, Peter! Thanks for giving me the timeā€”it's good to see you amid all this craziness we're living through. I'm in my kitchen, and you're in a place that looks much more professional than mineā€”you can even see my microwave. I had to move my oven gloves a minute ago and so you know what. Mine just looks professional. Abi's all about it's all about how it looks isnā€™t it. All about appearances exactly and let's not talk about the big American studios exactly as we were talking about earlier yeah but I mean, you know, I think it's content isn't it, and you know size isn't isn't everything sorry Americans it is. But it's content and it's engagement and it's actually being honest, yeah. I think sometimes people worry way too much about things like lighting or other details. As long as people can hear and see you, does it really matter? I watch different things, and, weirdly, the more 'slick' they areā€”with all the 'hey guys' razzle-dazzleā€”the less interested I am. I know that sounds a bit counterintuitive, but I really appreciate the grassroots approach. Stuff is where it is thatā€™s for me personally. 100% agree. Before we dive into discussing the book, Abi has been involved in, let me just mention that you can follow Abi on Twitter at @Abircomedian. Sheā€™s a comedianā€”or at least just about one! We might touch on that, but today's topic is far from comedy. It's about the tragic reality weā€™re all facing, no matter where we liveā€”in the States, the UK, or Europe. We've all experienced the same tyranny, and today weā€™re here to discuss We the People: Letters from Dystopia, illustrated by Bob Moran and compiled by Abi herself. Now, before people switch off if they get bored of us after two minutes, could you tell them where they can find this book? After that, we'll dive into the background and the journey of bringing this project to life. ]Bless you, Peter. You can get it from lulu.com. Lulu as in, you make me want to shout that lulu.com. Just type in Abi Roberts. And actually it comes up pretty quickly with the people. Designed by Martin Baker, you can find the book on Lulu.com. Importantly, it's also available for free on Amazon Kindle and Apple Books. Iā€™ve mentioned this in a few places, but itā€™s worth repeatingā€”the book is printed at cost, so I donā€™t make anything from it. Itā€™s not like I set out to profit from a collection of people's letters about the harrowing lockdowns and the issues surrounding the vaccines. The harming and killing people. And I'm going to make some money. It's not that. This is people wrote to me when I started my podcast, Abi Daily, which is on Substack, Apple and Spotify. In, I think it was March, April 2022, that kind of time. I asked people to write to me about their experiences during the lockdownsā€”the dreadful, barbaric restrictions and the tyrannies. You know, like being told you canā€™t visit a dying relative in the hospital or that you must get vaccinated whether you want to or not. No one even questioned what was in themā€”you were just expected to roll up your sleeve. So this book is a collection of testimonies, a record not only for the UK but for everyone, especially for doctors, politicians, teachers, unions, and the media, to truly understand what happened over the past four yearsā€”and, unbelievably, continues to happen. The vaccines, for instance, and the return of mandatesā€”it's all fear-based. I was just thinking about this the other day, Peter. People are shocked because weā€™ve seen this kind of tyranny before in places like Soviet Russia. In Germany in the 1930s, in Maoā€™s China, and under regimes like Pol Potā€™s, we saw similar patterns. We looked at those histories and thought, 'That wonā€™t happen here. It wonā€™t happen to us.' But history has echoes, and itā€™s crucial to pay attention. As you mentioned, this book includes powerful illustrations by Bob Moranā€”let me show you so you can get a sense of it. The book looks like this, with all the letters beautifully illustrated. Can you see that clearly? Thatā€™s one of Bobā€™s cartoons alongside the letters. Itā€™s really beautifully done, thanks to my friend Martin, who designed it. The book contains about 37 deeply moving storiesā€”harrowing accounts. Thank you, Peter! Actually, that particular cartoon is one of my favorites of Bobā€™s, because it touches on the theme of worshipping fear, doesnā€™t it? Itā€™s about not believing in God, Christ, justice, or light; itā€™s about worshipping darkness and evil. The book includes 37 letters and cartoonsā€”letters written to me on all sorts of topics. I read one aloud during a show in Ledbury. A woman named Hanni, a podcast listener who had come to the show, had written it. And honestly, Peter, you could hear a pin drop. Iā€™d done some funny material beforehand, but then we shifted to the serious topics you mentionedā€”things that are not funny in the slightest. People need to pay attention and understand the reality of whatā€™s happened. Will people face prison? Will we see justice? No, likely not. Instead, the wrong peopleā€”those who are simply angryā€”will be the ones punished. But weā€™ll get into all that, Iā€™m sure. We will, because I know Abbey could just interview herself. I've got to know he I could try and put on your accent, like insult, like all the Northern Irish. Iā€™d fail at accentsā€”Iā€™m so jealous of people who can do them well. Very jealous! But thereā€™s so much to unpack here, from Bob Moranā€™s genius to the letters included in the book. And that back coverā€”it really struck me; weā€™ll definitely come back to that. But let me ask, because some people might say, 'Abi, we just need to move on. This is in the past. There's so much happening today, and we have a future to build. The pandemic was a blip, and everyone did their best with the information they had. Why spend time rehashing the past?' I hear this argument often, especially from people who arenā€™t fully aware. How would you respond to that? Well, my response would be that all the information was already available to the powers that be, to the government, and to Big Pharma. They already knew that what was going to happen would destroy people's lives: the barbarity, the lockdowns. They also knew that they were experimenting with these vaccines. And so, you know, itā€™s interesting to say, well, obviously some of us woke up maybe earlier than others. I was a little bit slow in 2020, which Iā€™ve admitted to. Itā€™s amazing, actually, that I get more flack than people like politicians who quite happily went all the way through for two years and pushed the vaccines, the so-called vaccines. But you know, thatā€™s just who I am. As you know, Iā€™m honest; I wear my heart on my sleeve. But getting back to it, I think itā€™s because people donā€™t understand the crimes that have been committed. People were told, 'You canā€™t go out,' or 'You canā€™t go to a hospital to see your loved one.' We lost our morals and ethics during the last couple of years. Itā€™s because people just donā€™t understand how important they are. For instance, with the vaccine rollout in particular, there are three stages of crime. I think I tweeted about it yesterday. The crimes are in three parts: coercion without informed consent, or even, in many cases, actual consent. They put sedatives in people with Down syndrome. Thereā€™s a man called Adamā€” not his real nameā€” and they put sedatives in his orange juice Even though he didnā€™t want the vaccine, they gave it to him. So thereā€™s a case going on at the moment. His poor mother is having to fight the Court of Protection. Irony, that term is. So thatā€™s the first part: coercion. The second part concerns whatā€™s in the vaccines. If I were a lawyer, that would be my argument. The third part of the crime is the cover-upā€”the enormous global cover-up. People need to start getting their moral and ethical heads on straightā€”not just focusing on the information, the data, and the statistics. Whatā€™s happening is honest; itā€™s the likes of which we will probably never see again. The crimes that have been committed stem from the fact that people donā€™t read history books, Peter. Theyā€™re too busy saying that nothingā€™s real, everythingā€™s fake. Much of history has been positioned, shall we say, to favor one side, like the causes of the start of the First and Second World Wars. I agree with that perspective, but history does show us truths; it exists for a reason. The testimonies in this book, We the People, will serve as a warning. Iā€™m speaking to my lovely nephew tomorrow about cancel culture and my arrest, and about the importance of having a moral structureā€”a backbone. I think any Christians watching this will understand that importance. Sort of thinking, is this good? Would Christ be? I mean, Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, saidā€”and I quoteā€”'to love one another, as Jesus said, get vaccinated, get boosted.' Iā€™m not a biblical scholar, Peter, but Iā€™m fairly sure that Jesus did not go around suggesting that his followersā€”the good people who were following him, watching him, listening to himā€”should take experimental things. Itā€™s just, itā€™s kind of obscene. And I think thatā€™sā€¦ hope, and I have to thank everybody, by the way, who wrote to me with these letters. Because, Peter, some of themā€”as you know, youā€™ve read some of themā€”are so powerful. Itā€™s important to write down the truth. Iā€™m still getting emails, Peter. Iā€™m still receiving emails from people who have been harmed by AstraZeneca, which, of course, the media is using to downplay the situation. I know what theyā€™re going to do; theyā€™re positioning it to say, 'Well, just donā€™t worry about it; itā€™s AstraZeneca.' By the way, that vaccine was taken off the shelves secretly, so nobody knew it was being rolled out. Iā€™ve had heart-wrenching emails just the other day. After I tweeted, I received a message from a man who got a blood clot that then turned into avascular necrosis, which is, for those watching, an awful condition. If you Google it, you'll see itā€™s a blood clot that actually destroys your bone. Heā€™s had to undergo double hip replacements because he canā€™t walk. So, the other thing I want to say to viewers and your listeners, Peter, is: donā€™t be ashamed. Donā€™t be ashamed that the absolute relentless, military-grade propaganda got to you. People have lives to live. They have families, jobs, and all sorts of things to worry aboutā€”money, etc. Some say, 'No one was forced because no one actually held people down.' Oh my God, is that the level weā€™re talking about? People were threatened and bullied. Iā€™m very much of the view that I will relentlessly criticize the media and celebrities who pushed and advertised the vaccines. And then suddenly, theyā€™ve become ill. Iā€™m afraid I will I reserve the right in my comedy to do that. But we, the peopleā€”the ordinary men and women, and sadly, childrenā€”who have been affected by this, I have nothing but love and sympathy for them. Thatā€™s who I fight for. Thatā€™s why I do it. Not for any other reason. I canā€™t understand people who would laugh or ridicule. And Abi, I agree with your point that we all make decisions. Often, we can regret those decisions, and we can look back and say that was a good decision. The decision to get a jab is one that many people may regret. I think people, after getting two jabs, thought, 'Well, surely Iā€™ve got the jabs; therefore, Iā€™m protected.' And theyā€™ve begun to see through the BS that the media told us. Whatever point you woke up, itā€™s important to wake up. I like the way youā€™re telling the stories, Abi, because this is not about leaving people behind. This is about people who have been damaged. Yes, they may not have heeded the initial warnings, which could have been due to their friendship circle, or because they donā€™t watch certain thingsā€”whatever it was. Yes, yes. And the fact that the media didnā€™t put out any warningsā€”not a single mainstream platform, not the BBC or any otherā€”didnā€™t comply with their Ofcom rules. Itā€™s actually weirdly stated in their Ofcom guidelines. You know, if you advertise any kind of medical product, there has to be a disclaimer. In the Ofcom rules, particularly in their health and wealth section, it states you have to present the other side. But nobody did that. None of the channels said, 'Actually, we have to draw attention to the fact that when the swine flu vaccine was released in 1976 in America, Gerald Ford stopped it because there were too many deaths.' And when I say 'too many,' it doesnā€™t even touch the surface compared to what has happened since the end of 2020 with this. So thereā€™s a real issue here. And again, back to people who say, 'Weā€™ll move on.' Would you say that about...?. Kristallnachtā€”would you say that about Nazi Germany? After that, would you say in 1945 or '46, 'Well, letā€™s move on'? Would you say it after Stalinā€™s purges, the Harvest of Sorrow, the deliberate starvation and annihilation of 40 million people in Soviet Russia? Would they say, 'Well, itā€™s probably just a blip'? I mean, people went to bloody gulags for it. You know, itā€™s that mentality. I do understand, by the way, that people are horrified. Iā€™ve spoken to a lot of them, Peter. When I go out, whether Iā€™m getting a cab or whatever, I get into conversations with ordinary people. I have no agenda; weā€™re just chatting about the last four years, and itā€™s honestly unbelievableā€”the number of people who know it was wrong, who know it was morally wrong, and who regret having taken the vaccines. I didnā€™t have any of the vaccines, and my view is not, 'Ho-ho, arenā€™t I intelligent, arenā€™t I wonderfully clever and educated?' My view is, 'There but for the grace of God go I. And that's what we have to, I mean you don't have to but I would advise that should be people's attitude moving forward and so mixing yeah, I mean I Yeah, the idea that no justice, that nothing will be done is so keenness. I just can't, you know, I just can't. I mean, maybe I should, you know, we should have a crowd funder and build a museum for all the, you know, and put all the stuff in it. So people can see, or some kind of exhibition. In fact, that's just come to me, Peter, so we could do that. Because I just think this is a lesson, this is a warning. This is a warning. And these testimonies, and the last four years, by the way, are only a small part of what they're trying to do to us, as you know. The global, the cabal, the socialists, the third-way socialists, Frankfurt's you know all the things we've spoken about in the past it's part and parcel of we want to control as many people as we possibly can and we're going to stamp out we're going to do this to the individual the divine spirit, the divine flame, we're going to blow it out because we hate humanity because. This does give a little insight into part of what we are facing. You mentioned, and we showed the picture of Bob's artwork depicting the jab vial as a cross. Yes. And on the back was a quote, which is a Bible verse that has been ringing in my ears for the last two years. One of the key verses. And it is this, from John 18:37: 'I was born for this. I came into the world for this, to bear witness to the truth, and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice.' 'TĀ­ruth,' says Pilate, 'What is that?' That line, 'Truth,' says Pilate, 'What is that?' is from when Jesus was arrested before he was crucified at the trial. That was Pilate's line: 'Truth.' And that question, 'What is truth?' has rung through the ages. I think that most generations have had some kind of concept and understanding of what truth is. We now find ourselves in a time where you mentioned Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, supposedly the spiritual leader in the UKā€”our Pope. And yet he has capitulated, is silent, and is more worried about plastic bags or environmental issues than about any other biblical truth. But that concept of truthā€”because what you've done is show something that is true, which is people's experiences. This is the truth, and this is what the media are trying to cover up, saying that this is nonsense. So, I mean, tell me about that idea of truth. The idea of truth. Well, truth, God, Christ, the divineā€”these are the things that weā€™ve lost throughout time, even for people who arenā€™t particularly religious. I heard Alain de Botton, you know, the philosopher, say he doesnā€™t have a particular faith, but he realizes that this is what has been lost: a pillar, something foundational. Christ is who I speak to every day. And Iā€™ll go into itā€”I'm Russian Orthodox, as people may know or may not know; itā€™s a long and complicated story. But whatā€™s happening now makes me realize that there was a point to it; there was real meaning in it, even though it was when I was in my 20sā€”well, in fact, when I was 20, when I got baptized just outside Moscow by a well-known priest, Father Alexander Men. But thatā€™s another story. Yes, weā€™ve lost this idea that there is one truthā€”something we should have in our lives and that we sort of gravitate around. Iā€™m looking at a light on my table; itā€™s a sphere. I think of it like that: we gravitate around it. And if we move too far away from it, then things like what has happened over the last four years will occur. So, we need to navigate our way closer to Christ and God Abi Roberts I can only think of it as something that people should aspire to. Always. And we may knowā€”we look up to it. In fact, we don't look up enough, do we? We donā€™t look up enough and say thatā€™s what makes us humble. Thatā€™s the other thing as well, Peter. I think these letters, these testimonies, these stories from brave, courageous, wonderful human beings, are very important. Itā€™s not about baubles; itā€™s not about awards or, you know, chasing fame or fortune. And that, again, is another thing: having belief in God and the divine makes us realize how tiny we are, actuallyā€”tiny little humble beings, like little ants. But it is important, though, that we do this; itā€™s channeling something. And thatā€™s our, whatever our roles are in all this. Without getting too grandiose, Iā€™m wary of the Russell Brand-esque idea of, ā€˜Well, you know, God spoke to me, and all of a sudden Iā€™m a Christian.ā€™ I think we both know, Peter, that it takes a lot; itā€™s a lot more than that. Itā€™s a struggle, isnā€™t it? Itā€™s a daily process of having to check in with yourself, looking in the mirror, just being quiet for a few minutes, and getting centered. Yeah, itā€™s constant reflection. To me, Christianity is not about big stages or whatever people may think about the recent converts, shall we say. Itā€™s very much about thisā€”about we the people and being humble as much as we can in this weird, I mean, look at us now. Itā€™s like weā€™ve got a mic, and weā€™ve got little bits of jazz hands, kind of showbiz stuff. But itā€™s fine; thatā€™s okay, as long as often enough we take a few quiet minutes for prayer and gratitude. I agree. And for me, itā€™s the same, Abi. Itā€™s about looking to Jesus. If you want to know what is true, remember that Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life.' The way, the truth, and the life. Exactly. Yes, you just said the exact quote. He also says, 'I am the light of the world.' So if you want to find the way forward in this dark world, then for Abi and myself, that would certainly be Christ. I could talk about that for the next hour or two, but Iā€™ll just leave that thought hanging. Letā€™s talk about people writing to you. I think for many, including myself, I've focused more on the data and statistics. You and others have personalized this experience and emphasized that itā€™s not just about numbers; itā€™s about individuals. Can you share your thoughts on how people started writing to you? It must have been traumatic to read these accounts, but how did that evolve into your decision to catalog these stories and publish them? Yes. Good. Very good question. I started gathering everything together at the end of 2022. Initially, it was in PDF form, which was quite basic. However, thanks to my friend Scott, who helped compile it, we realized that it warranted something more substantialā€”a book. Martin and I decided that we needed to set it out properly, featuring Bob's wonderful illustrations. I always feel that calling them 'cartoons' is slightly demeaning; they are more of an artistic record of everything that has transpired. In fact, I wanted to share a letter with you, Peter. I try to read one from different people when I talk to audiences, so I mix it up. This one is from Paul, and itā€™s important to remember that much of this is from back in 2022, reflecting on 2020 and 2021. Itā€™s interesting to read peopleā€™s various perspectives. Hereā€™s what Paul wrote: 'Hi Abi, my 81-year-old mom has undergone a noticeable personality change since her second Pfizer, along with immediate excruciating headaches.' My father-in-law was advised by his doctor that the AstraZeneca vaccine was safe right after he finished chemotherapy. This was a provably false statement, as the vaccine had only been tested on healthy individuals under 55, and he was 79. Within 48 hours, he was hospitalized with lung clots. His lungs were destroyed within a week, and he died an awful death two months later. He never once had a positive PCR test while in the hospital, yet his doctor wrote 'COVID' on his death certificate. It seems they do this to prevent post-mortem investigations. They are bastards. Please keep fighting them. Regards, Paul And there are so many stories like this in here, Peter. For example, thereā€™s a wonderful teacher named Maxine who came to my birthday gathering. I have these gatherings not just for the presents; I invite my listeners who are just ordinary people So, she came to my birthday this year, and she has been actively standing up for children, telling them the truthā€”not just about the COVID nonsense but also about all the other cultural weirdness thatā€™s happening in our schools. As you know, weā€™ve discussed these issues before. Thereā€™s a lot of content in the book as well, and I want people to be aware that there are warnings throughout. Iā€™m just going to find an example of that. Yes, you can phone those people up and they will help you. Yes, they will. Exactly. You can. Itā€™s interesting because during the process, when I had this in the original PDF, Martin and I realized the extent of the situation. We started receiving support from organizations like Samaritans, Shout, and Vaccine Ninja Bereaved UK. Alex Mitchell and Wayne Connington are included in this work as well. As you know, Alex had his leg amputated due to complications from the vaccines that were coerced onto people. I find it astonishing that anyone could think we can just move on from this. Itā€™s absolutely absurd. It reminds me of Dr. Mengeleā€”oh, he was just fiddling around in a lab, right? Itā€™s easy to say we should just move on, but thatā€™s not acceptable. The reality is that many people donā€™t know their history, and I keep coming back to this point. We seem to be a society that shrugs things off too easily, especially with the constant churn of news. So, returning to We The People, I encourage everyone to get it. You can find it on lulu.com, and itā€™s available for free on Kindle and Apple Books. Iā€™m not necessarily happy, but Iā€™m very grateful for the support I've received. Someone mentioned to me yesterday, a listener of Abi Daily, that I shouldnā€™t forget how many people feel theyā€™ve been saved through my podcast. When I first started my little podcast, it provided a space for people to connect and share their experiences with each other. I thought, 'Oh, yes, thatā€™s true!' This listener emphasized how important it is to acknowledge the connections that have formed, especially for those going through difficult times. For instance, Trudy, whose story is featured in this book, faced the tragic loss of her son, Benjamin, who took his own life in July 2020. These little networks are essential for people who are struggling and donā€™t know where to turn. My friend Jules reminded me to mention this today and to recognize how many people rely on my podcast for support. It's so important for personal stories to be told completely. Iā€™d like to touch on the cartoon aspect, particularly about Bob. There are a few illustrations that I remember vividly when they first came out. For instance, I remember this one very well; it really struck a chord with me. And this one here? This was perhaps one of the most memorable for me. It it's sort of like what's his name captain Tom. Yes, Captain Tom! But letā€™s talk about Bob and his contributions. Weā€™re all familiar with his work, but it's worth mentioning that Bob has a unique ability to blend comedy with deep, profound pain. His illustrations evoke a range of emotionsā€”from smiles to moments where you think, 'Oh wow, that was dark.' It's fascinating how he captures different feelings through his art. I've known Bob for a while now, and I think itā€™s important to highlight how the written text and the drawings come together. The combination of words and cartoons creates something incredibly powerful and impactful. Yes, Iā€™m incredibly grateful to Bob for his contributions. He wrote a beautifully crafted foreword for the book, showcasing his remarkable talent as a writer. He has this unique ability to channel thought with both clarity and humor, which really brings the narrative to life. Bob wrote the foreword at the end of 2022, as it was included in the original PDF. His familyā€”his wife, Sal, and their three kidsā€”are always supportive, although they sometimes mention when I swear too much! Sal has had to say, 'Letā€™s tone it down a bit,' especially when there were quite a few colorful words. I have eased off on the more extreme language, though, just out of respect, as they know me well. It's all in good fun, of course! Lovely children. And where was I? Oh yeah, so when I was compiling the lettersā€”because they listened to the podcastā€”they knew I was doing the letters. I said to Bob, 'Can I have your cartoons? Can I put them in?' and he was like, 'Yeah, of course, absolutely!' And the other thing, I'm actually drinkingā€”I don't know if you can see itā€”Iā€™ve got to show this: you know, for my birthday last year, Bob did a cartoon of me Yes, I remember I remember that And then somebody made a mug for my birthday, so itā€™s got the cartoon and itā€™s got 'Be seeing you,' which is my catchphrase. At the end of Abi Daily, I say, 'Be seeing you,' which, of course, is from The Prisoner. Itā€™s funny because I didnā€™t think about that at the time, but when I did the intro for Abi Daily, it was to the tune of 'Sweet Home Alabama,' you know, 'Sweet Home Alabama, where the skies are so blue.' And then, at the end, I remember when I was recording it for the first time in 2022, I said, 'Be seeing you.' I thought, 'Oh, thatā€™s interesting.' It just carried on, you know, the way these things happen; you just sort of do it. But Bob's contribution to this cannot be underestimated. And, of course, heā€™s got his own book out showcasing his incredible work from the last four years. So this is like a little sibling, a little sibling to Bob's book, you know? Itā€™s a companion piece, isnā€™t it? Itā€™s all part and parcel of the same narrative. Weā€™re singing from the same hymn sheet It is. I know weā€™ve learned a lot over the last few years, and it hit me that the reason for cartoons, the reason for comedy, and the reason for imagery is to elicit a response. I remember one of the cartoons he did on Israel. We may have different views on that, Abi, and weā€™ve never really discussed it, but I thought, 'Goodness, that goes too far. How dare he?' I got quite annoyed. But then I sat back and realized that this is the point of a cartoon: itā€™s supposed to elicit a response. If Iā€™ve been upset by something, laughed, or cried, thatā€™s a response, and that is the purpose. He has done his job, and well done to him If I dig deep, I feel angry, and I totally get it. Iā€™ve received flack for doing a thumbs-up on the Netanyahu cartoon. And don't forget, there were other people in the picture; it wasnā€™t just him. There was also Rishi Sunak and someone elseā€”I canā€™t remember whoā€”so it was a criticism of the abhorrence of war and conflict as well. But youā€™re right. You know, I did a Delingpole the other day, and oh my God, thatā€™s causing a real kerfuffle because we actually had a disagreement. Peter, I thought, isnā€™t that what friends do? Itā€™s going to get heated sometimes. Iā€™ve stayed out of the Israel debate a little bit, not because I donā€™t care, but because itā€™s interesting, isnā€™t it? People often use the straw man argument, implying that if you donā€™t speak up, you must be okay with destruction, war, and killing. No, thatā€™s clearly not what Iā€™m about. Itā€™s actually because I can only deal with one atrocity at a time. Itā€™s true. Over the past four years, thatā€™s all Iā€™m strong enough for, along with my writing and my comedy. But thatā€™s no disrespect to my Jewish friends at all, and I hope Iā€™ve made that clear in my podcast. Itā€™s complex, very complex, but... It's a whole area we don't need to touch on; it was just that response that really struck me. Yes, that made you think, really good. Brilliant. Yes, it is brilliant because it does make you think about who wins in these situations. You know, weā€™re back to the whole war machine and the reasons for war, etc. And itā€™s the little people, Peter, who are crushed underfoot, a bit like we the people. Yeah, well, the world needs the war machine, just as some parts of the world need the pharmaceutical industry and others need the food industry. Yes, quite. You realize those lobby groups are hugely powerfulā€”hugely powerful. Can I mention one thing that actually struck me, which is the back cover, and that is the quote? You know, I'm so glad, Peter, that you brought that up about the quote because there was a suggestion on... The back quote caught my eye, and I thought, 'Oh, I like that; that's quite cool.' Iā€™m glad because when we were considering quotes, there was a suggestion to use something Iā€™d written, like a line from an article or whatever, and I said, 'Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. You cannot get better than this. Itā€™s like choosing Adele over Aretha Franklin. Thatā€™s my view. So, in the conversation, should we use a quote from Abi or a quote from God? In the end, we went with the God quote. Yeah, that was kind of the conversation. It wasn't quite... It was, yeah, because, I mean, you can't put it any better than that, can you? There are no words that are better than that. So thank you for noticing, because I want people to realize the beauty of the design as well. You know, Martin, by the way, designed this book for Naut. So, obviously, I compiled it, and he designed it. I'm actually grateful to him for providing me with a microphone and the nice setup because before it was a bit like, 'Crikey! Is Abi going to appear like this? Hello, Peter! I'm doing all like this!' So, yeah, I'm really grateful because there wouldn't be this version without him or without Bob. The other thing that struck me, Abi, was that your name's not on the front, and that is obviously personal. To say that. Obviously, you're not wanting to be rich and famous; that's the first thing. It's always nice to know when you connect with people, because there are some who do want to be in the spotlight. You put Bob's name on it, but it is about the individuals who are involved. You obviously say itā€™s compiled by Abi inside, but that struck me. You give credit to those who arenā€™t jumping up and down to get attention for themselves. Yes, thank you, Peter. Actually, you're the third person who has said that. Lovely Dick Delingpole, you know, James' brother, mentioned that Iā€™m not on the front. I mean, weirdly, that wasn't my decision; it just... that's how it happened. And to be fair to myself, I never once said, 'Oh, hang on a minute. Where's my name?' It just seemed... And where's my picture on the back? Exactlyā€”underneath the statement by God. Yes, exactly. Where's my picture? Next to the best quote of all time. Exactly. In the little kind of, yeah, donā€™t forget about me there. Yes, thank you. Because, well, yes, it is about the people inside the book. So it's not about me, Martin, or, with all due respect, Bob; itā€™s about the people who wrote in. But thank you for saying that because people have noticed. Honestly, it didnā€™t even really occur to me. I was like, 'Oh,' and then people said, 'You're not on the cover.' Well, Iā€™m in the book, Peter. Iā€™ve got quite a long introduction where I share the backstory of these letters, so I thought, 'Thatā€™ll do.' And then God bless the people. Iā€™ve received messages from individuals who knew they were in the original PDF and are now included in this version as well. A lady on Twitter said, 'Oh my God, Iā€™m overcome with emotion; Iā€™m just so wowed that my letterā€™s in here!' They can give that to their friends or their doctor or whoever they want to share it with and say, 'My testimony is in here, so you better read it.' In fact, Iā€™ve ordered several copies, Peter, and Iā€™m going to take one to my GP, who has been very helpful to my husband. My late husband was diagnosed with cancer, and he had a private GP whom Iā€™ve kept in touch with over the last three to four years. Iā€™ve even gone in and deliberately paid to sit down with him to tell him the truth about whatā€™s happened. Heā€™s going to be delighted when I say, 'Iā€™ve got a little something for Christmas. Would you like to read it?ā€ It is a perfect gift. Yes. Last question: just to prove it, Abi's name is on it. So just in case you thought we were doing this just for a laugh.., We picked up someone else's book. There is the content page with all the names. Just my file thought, it's could have been I've talked to people who've written books and putting in the information and often never having written a book often you have to dispense with a lot of you have more than you need yes and this is a perfect example of that that I'm sure you had so many and it's actually you'd want to just take a spread difference of different stories, but actually the book could have been much bigger because of the response I'm sure you've had Yes, it could have been a lot bigger, and that's due to the time and, frankly, the emotional toll. I mean, we did have to take breaks, feeling a bit dizzy from just processing it all, because we can't comprehend some of the cruelty and immorality of it all. But yes, as I say, this is the tip of the iceberg; this is just a sample. My podcast is not like a mass market thing, you know what I mean? Itā€™s not like a Joe Rogan podcast, but in a way, I see that as more important. Itā€™s just something that I wanted to do; it's my little
Dr James Thorp - The Silent Alarm: One Doctor's Crusade Against the mRNA Onslaught on Maternity
Oct 28 2024
Dr James Thorp - The Silent Alarm: One Doctor's Crusade Against the mRNA Onslaught on Maternity
Welcome to another riveting episode of Hearts of Oak, where we delve deep into the stories that shape our world. Today, we're honored to host a distinguished guest, a board-certified obstetrician gynecologist with a background in maternal fetal medicine, whose journey through the medical field has been nothing short of extraordinary.   In this episode, our guest shares insights from a career marked by a relentless pursuit of truth, especially in light of the tumultuous events surrounding public health strategies during recent global crises. We'll explore how personal experiences, influenced by historical figures like Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, have shaped his approach to medicine, emphasizing the importance of standing firm against mainstream narratives when patient safety is at stake.   Our discussion will take a critical look at how health policies, driven by a complex web of government, pharmaceutical, and medical organizations, have impacted the most vulnerable among us. We'll tackle the uncomfortable truths about medical ethics, the silence of influential societal groups, and the personal sacrifices made by those who speak out against the status quo.   This episode promises to be a beacon of awareness, urging us all to question, to learn, and to remember the importance of integrity in the face of systemic challenges. So, join us as we navigate through the ethical dilemmas of our time, inspired by a physician's commitment to never compromise patient care for profit or popularity.   Stay with us as we uncover the layers of this compelling story, right here on Hearts of Oak. Connect with Dr James Thorp Freedom In Truth | Substack   Recorded on 17.10.24   *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.   Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                        x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Transcript: Share (Hearts of Oak) And hello, Hearts of Oak. Thank you so much for joining us. We have a brand new guest today, and that is Dr. James Thorp. Dr. Thorp, thank you so much for your time today. Peter, thank you so much for hosting me on your platform. Great to have you and you're one of the the names that have popped up to those of us in the non-medical field that we have looked to for wisdom and navigating the last four or five years of the the chaos which we've all faced and people if they're not following you they can obviously find you there is your twitter handle and freedomintruth.substack.com. Make sure and sign up to that and get the regular updates more or less every other day that Dr. Thorp puts out. Now, you've got a book coming out. It is not, I think it's out on the 10th of December, and the links will all be in the description for whether our viewers or listeners can jump on that. But it's Sacrifice, How the Deadliest Vaccine in History Targeted the Most Vulnerable, And that's published, I think, by Children's Health Defense Books, isn't it? Actually, this is published by Skyhorse. Oh, Skyhorse. And yes, I think they do have some affiliation with RFK Jr.'s Children's Health Defense. And we've had Tony Lyons on before on Skyhorse. Anything published by Skyhorse is worthwhile getting hold of. But that is 10th of December. Make sure you can pre-order now and get hold of that. But Dr. Thorp, you're a board-certified obstetrician gynaecologist with maternal fetal medicine physician, over 45 years of experience. And you saw 27,000 high-risk pregnancies in four and a half years while serving at one of the largest catholic health care systems in st louis where I was three weeks ago and the best part of your twitter handle is you're a follower of Jesus Christ, so that to me is is the best and immediately I know what your worldview is one of of hope. And your story I think fits in very much with that of what you saw, but maybe you can give us a little bit of kind of touch your background 45 years in the medical field was medicine what you always wanted to do growing up? It was, Peter. You know, my mother was a labor and delivery nurse. And my father, I come from a long line of military heroes. My father was a naval officer, served in World War II and served after World War II. My older brother was delivered in a military hospital. My mother did not have a good experience, so my mother was a labor and delivery nurse and delivered me at home. So, you know, I became very focused on obstetrics, and I became very focused on whom I considered a mentor, and that was Dr. Ignaz Philip Semmelweis. You've probably never heard of him, but he was a mid-19th century. Of course, he died before I was born, but a mid-century obstetrician in Vienna lying in hospital who actually had the fortunate or unfortunate happenstance of being in a time in Central Europe in one of the major academic hubs where we were losing almost 50% of healthy pregnant women who were dying after delivery. And it was a puzzle to everybody and it was largely ignored. But Dr. Semmelweis diagnosed and figured out exactly what the problem was. And the problem was that the physicians were going from the autopsy room, vivisection, up to labor and delivery and infecting the patients and in essence, killing them. Now, back then, they didn't have any idea of germ theory. They didn't have any idea of washing their hands. And they had no idea of doing clinical studies. So Dr. Semmelweis was actually considered, first of all, the father of the germ theory because he developed it and theorized it and believed that by washing the hands with Lyme water, that disease and death and destruction could be prevented. He successfully carried out the first clinical study. So in essence, he's also thought of the father of clinical studies. So you would think, and he proved that he could decrease that rate of death, which he did. Was he accepted and embraced? No, he was mocked, rejected, derided, and thrown in an insane asylum. Some believe he was killed. Others believe he died a very horrible death, a pauper. And it wasn't until 20 years after his death that he was lauded and praised and confirmed. I became mesmerized with that story as a young man. And I thought it was just, I learned a lot of things from his life story. Little did I know that 50 years later, I would be put in a situation, a horrible situation, in obstetrics that would make Dr. Semmelweis' situation look like a walk in the park. So because your your your Substack is called Freedom in Truth and your the tagline on that is my dedication to uphold my deepest convictions has no price. I will never sacrifice the health of my patients for a pay check so when I was called by God to pivot, I did so. Tell us about what that pivot meant because it's easy to go with the crowd we've seen many individuals have become leaders I think over the last over the COVID tyranny, because they've chosen to speak what they believe is true as opposed to follow the crowd but what was that like for you personally? Yeah. For me personally, my mother, I've always been a follower of Jesus Christ. Of course, it's a very young age, but like most followers, there's been periods in my life where I've taken it less seriously and then more seriously. I became then the next person that had a huge influence on my life, another gentleman, again, who died before I was born, but I looked to as a hero, as a follower of Jesus Christ. And his name was Dietrich Bonhoeffer. And does that name ring a bell to you? It does. It does. So you stood by his beliefs. Dietrich Bonhoeffer taught me a lot. And, you know, the third person currently, and all three of these people have converged in my walk in faith with Jesus Christ and in my professional work. They've converged to a time such as this. And that person is Eric Metaxas. Eric Metaxas is the author of the probably the greatest treatise on the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. And then he's published two books, many books. He's an incredible author. I had the opportunity to visit with him and meet him last week. But he has solidified the Bonhoeffer experience. Bonhoeffer was a prophet to the American people today, and we are ignoring him. This is Metaxas' theory. In his book published last year, A Letter to the American Church, and his book published this year, religionless Christianity. And Metaxas highlights the essence of my existence and the reason why God put me in this situation in the last four years. And that is that we as physicians, as an American society, and as an American church have failed miserably to heed the warnings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Dietrich Bonhoeffer begged, he begged the German people to wake up and smell the coffee or they would be a catastrophic destruction of Germany. In the early 30s, he warned against Hitler, against anti-Semitism, against the evil regime. And then when Hitler was in, when he was elected into office in 33, he continued that. And, you know, what Bonhoeffer did, and, you know, this is emblematic of Metaxas, what he's doing now. Bonhoeffer was a prophet. And whether Metaxas wants to admit, you know, he's a strong follower of Jesus Christ. He, too, is a latter-day prophet. He doesn't proclaim himself as such, but he is. A prophet is somebody that proclaims a message from God to the fellow, to the world, to the believers, to the alleged believers, to the church. That's what a prophet is. And both of these gentlemen were prophets. So in Bonhoeffer's day, there were 18,000 pastors. Okay, there were 3,000 that were strongly supportive of Hitler. The majority, 12,000, remained silent. So we had 84% of the pastors that supported Hitler by actively supporting him or remaining silent. Peter, today it's worse. Whether you look at the American people or you look at the American church, it's worse. You're looking at 95% of the American people that they think that they would have gone on the side of righteousness, you know, of the horrible, authoritarian, murderous regime of the Hitler. They like to believe they would, but they wouldn't. 95% of the Americans are remaining silent or more, and 95% of the pastors are corrupted. They don't, they're fake Christians. They're false Christians. They're demonic. They resemble nothing. Of what the Bible tells us to believe. If Jesus were here today, he would have railed on 95% of the churches worse than he railed on the religion of his time, the Sadducees and Pharisees, whom he called vipers, whom he called satanic. He called them their father, Satan. He was very angry. He was very aggressive and demeaning of the religion of the time. If Jesus Christ were here and when he comes back, he will be more critical. So this is where the rubber meets the road, where Eric Metaxas says, you know, are you going to be a true follower of Jesus Christ? Are you willing to die for truth or are you going to be a fake Christian and promote all of this ideology of transgenderism, which is a social contagion, this ideology of murdering babies, this bail worship? So are you going to promote the truth of this COVID-19 vaccine and this pandemic, what has been obvious now, or are you going to continue to parrot this state, Stalinistic. Communistic narrative that is safe, effective, and necessary? Can I pick up, because Eric Metaxas, we've had him on, and his letter to the American church is a clarion call to the church to wake up and actually be the body of Christ and to do what he did. So, I've followed Eric Metaxas for many years, so I echo everything you say about Eric. But you touch on, at the top of your, I think, a Substack, you have Psalm 139, which was that we are knit together and we are fearfully and wonderfully made and and that understanding of being made in the image of God. And therefore everyone has value the unborn has value from the moment life is conceived someone at the end of life has value and we're fighting against the assisted dying bill which assisted suicide bill in the UK and we've got all those pressures against life. Is that one of the issues why there was no concern about the effect of a new job to the unborn. Is it that failure to understand that we are all made in the image of God and then every life has value? I'm just trying to work out why there was silence, really, of the impact to the unborn of a new medical procedure. Yeah. Well, just remember, this is nothing new. You know, in 2003, after the turn of the century, you know, again, I'm board certified obstetrician, gynaecologist, and I'm board certified maternal field medicine subspecialist. There aren't many of us around the United States. I've heard only 1,200 of us now practicing. At the turn of the century, there were only 2,400. There's 60,000 OBGYNs, but after the turn of the century, you know, God had kind of put me in the right place at the right time after my fellowship at University of Texas, Houston. And, you know, I had the opportunity to treat the fetus inside the womb as a patient, right? So I had done many, many, arguably more than most other experts. Closed fetal surgical procedures, closed fetal surgeries. So, I wouldn't open the womb up, But through ultrasound guidance, I would do closed fetal surgeries on many fetuses, maybe as many as 2,000. And at the turn of the century, the Bush administration dared a maternal fetal medicine doctor to step forward and to help them take down the partial birth abortion bill, which is a gruesome procedure for those of you who don't know it. Basically what they would do is take a baby. It could be the day before the due date. And they would basically put a massive trocar in the baby's brain, suck the baby's brain out and pull the baby out piecemeal. It's a gruesome procedure. So the Bush administration asked me to testify in my experiences treating the fetus as a patient, which I knew would destroy my career, which I was happy to do. Many declined that because they knew the results. There's been a cult of baby killing in every dynasty, every social, every kingdom since the beginning of humanity. Baal worship has, you know, throwing babies in pits of fire, honoring this false satanic gods. This is nothing new. And this is what the United States of America has done. This is what the Democratic Party stands for. Listen, remember, they've extended killing babies to afterbirth. Now, you remember a few years ago, they lit up the New York City Bridge when they passed the ability for an obstetrician to decide to kill a baby after birth or kill a baby after an abortion that failed. And they celebrate this. Whether they know it or not, this is a satanic death cult. So this is what they focus on, what Jesus said, Satan comes to kill, steal, and destroy. And that's his mission. And that's what the globalists are doing. That's what the Democratic Party are doing. They are either demonically controlled or indwelt by Satan or unbeknownst, useful idiots of Satan following this death cult. So in 2003, the Bush administration successfully overturned the partial birth abortion, only to be reinstated by one of the most dangerous presidents who began destroying the United States of America. And that would be Barry Sartoro, more commonly known as Obama. And Obama's mission, he's also a satanic death cultist of the globalists. And by the way, he was a Manchurian candidate. He was installed as a president to achieve the globalist goal to destroy the United States of America. And, of course, the Clintons and really many others since then have succeeded in his goal. Tell me about, right and I 100 agree with everything you've said. That's why this election is so so important and I say that as a Brit that actually is for freedoms worldwide and for the freedoms for Christians to actually live their faith and for the issue on life it's so many, so many parts of our very existence are at stake. On the 5th of November can I ask you about putting pen to paper for this book, Some might say hey that's kind of all old old news you know move on look forward but there's something essential about a record being put down for people to actually be aware of what's happening because that's the only way we can learn from our mistakes in the society. But tell me about your thoughts of actually writing this book and why you've spent the time doing that. It's been a long journey. It's been four years. When I went into this pandemic in 2020, as you stated correctly, I was arguably one of the most senior, busiest clinicians, MFMs in the country, if not the world. I'm 71 years old. I've been in practice doing this for 45 years at that time. And by the way, I was fired from that job for testifying in the United States Senate and for being on many shows, including Tucker Carlson's many hundreds, if not thousands of platforms. So, yeah, I think that I saw that in 2020, it was business as usual. I knew that this was false for many reasons, which I don't know we have time to go into. But after the vaccine rolled out, I just saw death and destruction. I saw almost 28,000 high-risk obstetrical patients before and during that pandemic. I had my fingertips on the pulse of obstetrics, like really arguably no other experienced maternal fetal medicine physician in the world. I saw what was going on with my own eyes. And then I saw the corruption. I had the opportunity to surround myself with some brilliant researchers on my team, one of whom is Maggie Thorp, JD, a brilliant attorney, just happens to be my wife. And I said, Maggie, what happened was in the period of a gestation, about 280 days, about nine and a half months is a pregnancy period, from December of 2020 to September 27th, 2021. The narrative completely went backwards right out of Isaiah 520. Woe is those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, bitterness for sweet and sweet bitterness. This transpired in the period of 280 days, a period of a pregnancy, ironically. And the narrative went from, you know, we're not going to use this in pregnancy. There's no safety record. Nine months later, September 27th, 2021. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists colluded with the Department of Health. The United States Department of Health and Human Services. CDC and FDA, they took massive, massive amounts of money, secretive, unethical, immoral, illegal, hidden from the American people. Remember, a public or a governmental organization capturing a private NGO that controlled 60,000 OBGYN doctors and that you have this money and we'll continue to give more money. Okay, but you've got to sign this cooperative agreement, which was a legal contract, binding them to push the Draconian narratives of the CDC, COVID-19 narratives of the CDC and FDA on ACOG and all their 60,000 members. And then in that letter, an email, they sent that out. They had the audacity to send that out to 60,000 OBGYN doctors, and they colluded with the other medical organizations that have the teeth, okay, to strip away licensures. That would be the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. And then a third foot of that stool was the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine, my specialty society. Now, these organizations had honored me my entire career. I was a board examiner in the 90s for the American Board of OBGYN. I was a board of director for three years for the Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine. I was given research awards, teaching awards by ACOG. So this, they became captured organizations. And then in that email, they said, if you dare deviate from the narratives, we will destroy you by taking away your licensures and by taking away your board certifications, which essentially destroys us. We can't practice without that. And I said, no, you're wrong. You're dead wrong. This is not going to happen. I got a hold of George Wendell, the then director, executive director of the American Board of OB-Joints. That I was a colleague of mine that I examined with in the 90s. I said, this is fascism. This is communism. You don't do that. I'm a former, I'm a disabled military veteran. I swore an oath to this constitution. You don't act like that in the United States of America. This is unprecedented in medicine and in the United States of America, not happening. I said, shut up or you're losing your license. I said, we'll see. So I wrote a 98 page letter. Anybody can get to it. 98 pages published it in January of 2022. Okay. This is a 98 page letter that reviewed the government's own data, reviewed some Brits and other experts all over the world showing how it was catastrophic in pregnancy. And if that weren't enough, if that weren't enough, Peter, I read and studied over a thousand manuscripts, to be exact, 1019 manuscripts published in just 12 months after the release of COVID vaccine, documenting that it caused death and injuries. And I put the reference in abstract for every single one of those 1019 articles in this letter. I sent it to ABOG, ACOG, and SMFM. And I not only did that because I knew they'd ignore it, I published it on multiple platforms. It's still available today. Just Google James A. Thorp, open letter to ABOG. And guess what? I defeated them. God defeated them. They knew that they were wrong. They broke the golden rule of pregnancy. They knew I was right. And crickets, they never touched me. They never threatened me again because they knew if they did that I would sue them. And if I sued them. There's this process called, in the United States of America, in a lawsuit called discovery, right? And discovery, I would obtain those documents. But my research team went further. I charged my research team. I said, I know they've been captured. Let's do a Freedom of Information Act and let's prove it. That we did. Attorney Maggie Thorp, JD, executed a brilliant FOIA, Freedom of Information Act request. And this was published a year or a couple of years ago, 18 months ago. It was published in, I want to say, May of 2023. Finally, we got it. 1,400 pages between the government, CDC and the American, a private organization. They redacted half of those pages, but they gave us enough information that we struck gold. We proved it. So basically I've been accusing them now for three years of, you know, genocidal killing, you know, killing and injuring the most vulnerable, thus the name of my book. This is Sacrifice, how the deadliest vaccine in history targeted the most vulnerable. My patients, my pregnant women, pre-borns and newborns. It's out there for the world to see. SSM Health, St. Louis University, who employed me. I knew I was going to get the axe after I testified in the United States Senate to this data. Multiple other state senates. Multiple other senates around the world. And on many platforms, they also had to fire me while acknowledging that I was a model physician for their healthcare system. CEO Kevin Alledge last summer called me up and said, listen. We've decided to terminate you for no cost. It's in your contract. And this is, you know, you've been a great physician, but we're having financial difficulties. He lied. They terminated me because they too signed the cooperative care agreement, which my research team, again, thanks to Maggie Thorp, JD, and others, proved that in, and we published this in early 2021. The United States Department of Health and Human Services paid over $186 billion, Peter, to over 420,000 hospitals, including SSM Health. Same deal with the American College of Obstetricians. You keep this money, but if you deviate from the Draconian narratives, And if you don't push it in all your employees and your employees push in all the patients. You pay us back. So I got too vocal. I was telling too much truth. And so they had to be faced with either terminating me or paying back $306.9 million that they took. Again, an illegal, unethical, immoral, secretive contract that violates the First Amendment. It violates the First Amendment. And of course, these are all secretive agreements. And then they tried to bribe me with almost $100,000 to sign a non-disclosure agreement or a non-disparagement clause, which was the most aggressive non-disparagement clause my legal team had ever seen. And I said, no, thank you, Mr. Kevin Elledge. If you're having financial difficulties, you keep that money. And in my contract, I had another 120 days to work. You know, they could have fired me or I could have fired them, but I would get another 120 days to work and receive pay. After I refused the bribe, they sent an email to the entire system. The very same day I was seeing patients Dr thorp is no longer with us. Okay, tell them because you talk about those 27 000 pregnancies at risk and that you saw met doctors all over the country in the US and the UK. They would also be seeing abnormalities and really be joining up the dots and you talked about the the power of the the associations that give the licenses to a doctor to practice you also meant touched on a big pharma is it those two or the two levers that basically keep people in place? It's much more complicated than and extensive than that and in our most recent publications of my research team this summer, part one and part two, and it's published. But we have gone through what I refer to. You know, right from Isaiah 28, I think it's verse 15 through 18, Prophet Isaiah 2,600 years ago talked about in the end times the covenant with death. Now, I don't think this is the ultimate fulfilment of the covenant of death, but I termed this cartel the covenant with death, these cooperative care agreements with a lethal deadly vaccine. I coined the term covenant of death from Isaiah 28. This covenant of death is a circle of people, entities, powerful entities that have been in operation for 50 years, but it's really accelerated. It's the government, specifically HHS, CDC, and FDA that have colluded with multiple, multiple, mainstream, powerful academic universities as one component of the circle of death. Another one is the medical journals themselves. Another component is the pharmaceutical industries. And this is a circle of self-gratification, a circle of control, a circle of using the American people and spreading disinformation, false information, by mainstream medical journals. And I'll give you just one example that we outlined in our recent publication. And this was perpetrated. This is a classic example. You take the two most powerful journals in the world. One is one of your journals, Lancet. Another one is the New England Journal of Medicine. We'll take the Lancet, you know, the Lancet In 2020, they were used by a cardiologist, Mandeep Mara, at Harvard University. And what they do is these entities, the Pfizer and the pharmaceuticals, ghost write these manuscripts, right? They had to falsely villainize and execute Hydroxychloroquine because it was extraordinarily safe, extraordinarily effective. And it stood in the way of blocking the emergency use authorization. So, they had to villainize it and they had to execute it and they had to rewrite history because before that, just years before, I had used hydroxychloroquine for 40 years in pregnancy. The CDC and FDA were promoting it as very safe and effective in pregnancy, in breastfeeding moms and women. They deleted that. And then they colluded with a company called Surgisphere. Surgisphere manufactured false data to falsely villainize, demonize hydroxychloroquine. And they did it through Harvard University. They wrote the manuscript. They, in just five months of the pandemic, the first five months, this is a joke. This is a sick joke, but it's true. In five months, they allegedly took 95,000 patients with COVID from all around the world. They synthesized that data. They performed the study. They analyzed the data. They did all the statistics, they wrote the data, the manuscript, and they published it in just five months. That's impossible. Anybody with a brain, I've been publishing, you know, I published, you know, well over 250 publications, 270, you know, in my career. And, you know, that would have taken five years, you know, maybe expedited two years. Okay. You don't do that in two months. It's impossible. But they did it. And the Lancet published it. And game over. The media was bought. They put it all over the world. And hydroxychloroquine, the Trump administration, had procured 62 million doses with Dr. Stephen Hatfield, Dr. Peter Navarro. And if they had deployed those to the American people, the pandemic would have been over in the United States of America by August of 2020, just eight months later, it would have been over. They executed it with false data. Now, when anybody with a brain like myself saw that article, they knew it was fraudulent. We called for, let us see the data. They couldn't procure it. It didn't exist. So they retracted the article five months later in October, but the damage was done. And, you know, Mandeep Mara is still in good standing. You know, these people who executed, these people committed genocide. They killed and injured millions of global citizens, right? Not only by paving the way for the vaccine, but by withholding early treatment. Such as Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, that is now proven to be 99% effective, right? So these are mass killers. They not only committed fraud, but they should be indicted to criminal courts. So that's what happened. And then a year later, the same thing happened with the New England Journal of Medicine. They colluded Rochelle Walensky, the main editors of the main editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, Eric Rubin and Richard Morrissey, had Walensky. And they did a publication that was published April 21st, 2021. And then a second article that very same day was published by Shima Bakuro and 20 other federal employees. Both of these publications pushed the vaccine as safe, effective, and necessary in pregnancy. And it was fraud. It was criminal. They, too, should be indicted for crimes against humanity, not just spanked. They need to have criminal charges of genocide brought against them, and they need to be tried in a court of law. They breached their own ethical guidelines that are published in the New England Journal of Medicine that says you must reveal your conflicts of interest. Well, there was massive amounts of money that flowed from Rochelle Walensky's organization to the Massachusetts kind of laundering through the Massachusetts Department of Health. Then to the Massachusetts Medical Society. Massachusetts Medical Society owns the New England Journal of Medicine, Peter. So, it was a massive circle of money laundering. And in the very least, they were compelled by their own ethical guidelines published in their own journal to disclose that. They never did. And, you know, it gets worse. It gets much worse. The New England Journal of Medicine article in April 21st, e-publication by Shima Bakuro and colleagues, alleged that it was safe, effective. They alleged a miscarriage rate of 12.6%, which, by the way, was three times greater than it should have been for an established pregnancy in an obstetrician's office. But it wasn't 12.6%. It was 82%. And I've published that. I've proven that by manipulation. And this Shimabakuro study was taken from the V-SAFE data link, which has been now proven to be corrupt and manipulated. The ICANN attorney, Aaron Seary, has published 10 articles in his Substack on the corruption. The ICANN, Informed Consent Action Network, Aaron Seary, look it up, look his up. There's 10 articles showing the horrible perversion and lying and fraudulent manipulation of this V-safe system. So this is, and this is published in my articles. This is all published in reference. You know, nobody can sue me for slander or defamation. As the attorneys tell me there's one solid defense against slander and defamation it's called the truth. No, 100 percent. Can I just, where we're nearly out of time, just wanted to touch one of the articles give people a flavor what they'll get on your Substack and there's a four-part series you've just put out. I think it's a guest author has written it the covid 19 vaccines and beyond what the medical industrial complex is not telling us and the first one looks at looks at flu and Covid and looks at miscarriages and fetal deaths. And I actually felt quite sick just looking at the 10 times the rate if not more on some of those and that little chart that you have on the top of that Substack really drives home the huge impact that we've seen the devastation with those jabs. So I just would encourage, because that four-part series is really important. But the figures you have on that chart at the top of the part one is devastating when you see those. Thank you, Peter. And by the way, we have published a book. That was my first book, COVID-19 and Beyond, and that's available on Amazon. The lead author is Sally Saxon. The second author is Dr. Deborah Viglione. The third author is myself. And volume two, a new book, following that book up is also soon to be published in addition to Sacrifice, how the deadliest vaccine in history targeted the most vulnerable. It's such an honor and a privilege to be on this platform with you, Peter McIlvenna. It's great. Dr. Thorp, thank you for what you do. And as someone who follows Jesus, the most important thing is truth and is speaking truth and doing what you're called to do. So thank you for your example. Thank you for the work you put in, the huge amount of research. And the public can pre-order your book. It'll come out the 10th of December. Great Christmas present, get some people help them wake up. They sacrifice for the deadliest vaccine, in the history, targeted the most vulnerable, make sure and get hold of it and get a copy. Dr. Thorp thank you so much for your time today. Thank you Peter for having me on. I am looking forward to meeting with you again Thanks for reading Hearts of Oak Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it. Share
In Conversation with Tommy Robinson
Oct 25 2024
In Conversation with Tommy Robinson
Join Hearts of Oak for an exclusive interview with Tommy Robinson, where he delves into his ongoing legal battles and the profound impact of his activism. Robinson shares insights into his voluntary return to the UK and his subsequent detention under contentious terrorism legislation, shedding light on what he describes as a concerted effort to stifle journalistic freedom. He discusses the pivotal role of social media in amplifying alternative voices against the backdrop of mainstream media's alleged collusion with state powers. Despite facing vilification, Robinson points to a swelling tide of public support, underscoring a disconnect between the establishment's narrative and the grassroots sentiment. Tune in as he criticizes political figures for their lack of solidarity and calls for a united stand at an upcoming rally, positioning it as a critical juncture in the battle for free speech and the preservation of national identity. Connect with Tommy Robinson: š•:  https://x.com/TRobinsonNewEra Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/TommyRobinson1 Interview recorded 23.10.24 *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                       www.x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            www.heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        www.heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  www.heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                 www.heartsofoak.org/shop/ Transcript: Perfect, Peter. How are you? Good, good. So, on Saturday, there are lots to talk about in a short space of time, but you're back on Saturday. It's going to be a huge day. Let me touch on that. Let's touch on your book and then what's been happening in the UK with Patriots, basically, in jail with Peter Lynch, that. But on Saturday, tell us about Saturday. Why should people be there? First of all, I didn't have to come back. My offence is a civil offence, which means that they couldn't have forced me to come back. There's no way they could have come and got me on an extradition order for a civil offence. So, I didn't have to come back. So, for the record, I've chosen to come back. So, as you follow whatever happens in my upcoming court case, know that I chose that. I chose to play the film. I'm going to tell the judge that. I made the decision, a conscious decision, to play the film. It's my job as a journalist to show the truth. It's been my job to talk about the difficult subjects that others shy away from. I made that decision on the 27th of July to play that film, knowing full well that they would send me to prison. And I've done that because I believe I'll let them hurt me to hurt themselves. Because 54 million views on the documentary so far and the entire globe watching what's happening in London this Saturday and in my upcoming court case, it's going to damage them more than it's going to damage me. I'll go to jail, I'll come back out of jail. I am concerned that they can give me four years, but I'm in that position now. So that's where I'm at. So this Saturday, I still, Peter, just to say, there's a warrant out for my arrest, yeah? Yeah, yeah. They didn't arrest me at the border. Yeah, you came in fine. Okay, so that's not right. That shouldn't have happened. So I believe I'm answering bail on Friday for terrorism offences. Terrorism. I'm about to be charged under terrorism legislation. So, on the 27th of July, when we held our successful rally, the next day I was detained at the border under terrorism legislation. The legislation that's been passed by the Labour government, that's who passed it originally, states there's no right to remain silent. So when you're in an airport or at a border, if you're detained by the counterterrorism unit, you have no right to remain silent. So for six hours, I was grilled, and I had to answer every question. If I didn't answer any question, I'm automatically charged under the Terrorism Act. But the other thing is, you have to give them your passcode to your phone. Now, if you don't, you are in breach of the Terrorism Act. Now, I refused because the reason being I'm a journalist. I'm a journalist, and my sources of information are protected. At least I thought they were. But they then arrested me. So when I said, "No, you'll not have," and I gave my justified reason, your police forces have allowed the addresses of victims of sexual exploitation by grooming gangs to be targeted. You've got rid of evidence. Corrupt police officers have been working with them. Officers have even been raping the girls. And you want me to give you my sources of information so you can put them on some database computer system that any police officer can access, including every Muslim police officer across the country? It's not happening. So I give as a journalist, when people give me information, do you know episode six, Peter? We're on episode six of The Rape of Britain. Lots of things have been thrown in my way. Episode six, we have covert recordings that make serious allegations against a leading Labour politician. They know that because counterterrorism questioned me about it. So that's what they want to get in my phone for. I know why you want to get in there. And they have got in my phone already because I've had emails going back and forth to my solicitor about warrants that have gone to the judge. So I'm answering bail because I didn't let them in my phone. They should have charged me there and then, but they didn't. So my solicitors believe, because I have to go there at three o'clock, two things are going to happen. They're going to charge me under the Terrorism Act. And they then will possibly try and remand me to prison this Friday. Now, they're planning that because of the demonstration on Saturday. And the current outstanding warrant I have, which I haven't executed, I believe they'll do that this Friday. Because then there's no chance for me to get bail because it's Friday. I'll be held for court on Monday. Could you see this attack on journalists? I mean, Martin Sellner was blocked going into, was it, Switzerland, like two weeks ago, and they brought a 14-day restriction because he was going to speak at that weekend. And it seems as though that's in Germany. But this kind of attack on journalists, you'd expect China or Middle East, but it's here in the UK. And I'm about to go to jail for between two and four years on Monday for making a film, for making a film. And there's no argument. There's no argument about the contents of the film. There's no argument that I've made stuff up. It's just that they didn't want you to see the film because they were busy lying to you, deceiving you. And the biggest question for me is when you watch this documentary, which 54 million people have, what else are they lying about? What other stories are we being spoon-fed by the globalist, corporate-controlled bastard of a media and the politicians? All of them work. There's like an unholy alliance. We look at it in the documentary. The media, the politicians, the police, they all work together. And they work together to control a narrative to feed you and spoon-feed you. Bullshit. Just as they've done with COVID, just as they've done with vaccines, lockdowns, Brexit. Whatever subject they choose, they choose what you know and what you hear. Whatever person or character they choose, like me, but not just me, Martin Sellner, any of these characters, they tell you who they are. They don't want you to hear from us. And Elon Musk is really in their way. And now you see their scheme. Okay, so Musk. Yeah, Musk. Okay. You've met a lot of people. You've connected with a lot of people. But it's still Musk, you look at it whenever he retweets and says, what's wrong with the video, you probably thought, holy shit. Well, I looked through every morning during the troubles. Yeah. The riots, and every morning, three, four of our posts were liked by Elon Musk. He was following everything. Now, what Elon Musk allowed was the British public to see what their media didn't want you to see. Now, obviously, with their control element, through censorship and big tech, and before big tech, they controlled you through their mainstream newspapers and the TV. All of a sudden, social media comes. They've lost control. There's a populist revolution across the world, starting in India with Modi. Then we see Brazil. Then we see America. We see all these countries. They lost control for a few years. Boom. Through big tech, delete everyone, censor everyone, change the algorithms, push their voices. They regained control. I was disappeared for five years. In comes a billionaire who's not willing to back down, buys up X for 40, what, 48 billion pounds. Fuck you to the establishment. We're having free speech again. What does free speech mean? It means Tommy Robinson goes like this. And it means 1.7 billion people have interacted with my stuff in the last 12 weeks. It means that you're searching for the truth. The public want the truth. They know they're being lied to. The best thing is at the minute, they know, the public know, they're being deceived at every level. We all know mass immigration is not good for us. We know diversity is not our strength. We know we're being replaced. We know it's all orchestrated. There is no refugee crisis. They're creating it. They're bringing them in. So you're being replaced. You're being enslaved. Your wages are going down. Your cost of living is going up, and that's all planned. Every last bit of it is not, it's manufactured. And anyone who's talking about it, they used to just be able to go, delete him from YouTube. Yeah, we'll delete him from Facebook. We'll ban his name. Not anymore because of X. So Elon Musk is, I keep saying it, he won't be remembered for Tesla. He won't be remembered for sending things up into space. He'll be remembered for saving freedom of speech. And the Department of Government Efficiency, Dodge, when he does that. He can't wait. Two weeks, but in those two weeks, see, I'll be in jail. I'll be in prison too late for me. So what does it mean? Because you talk to people in the UK and they see you through the prism of the media, the legacy media. And I know talking to members of the establishment more and they are, you know, the Daily Mail says this or the Times says this. But that Times piece saying Jordan Peterson has mainstream Tommy, that was intriguing. What has that been like? Because the world sees you one way, but the Brits see you through the prism of the Daily Mail. America doesn't see it that way. They see you through the prism of Jordan Peterson saying, this guy's great. Yeah. Well, I don't think the Brits see me through the Daily Mail either. I just think that their whole monopoly and the power they've had is gone. They just don't realize it. They've tried to make me the most hated man in Britain. And in doing so, they've made me the Robin Hood of Britain. They've made me. The more they attack me, the better my profile goes. And the more they attack me, and there's a reason for that, when they're attacking me, people know it's because they want to attack them. I'm giving people a voice. I'm saying things that people aren't prepared to say because they've got jobs and they'll lose careers. So they're grateful that I say it. So when they see me come under immense attack, they feel aligned and emotionally attached to the story. So lots of people do. So, I get surprised in the street at how people embrace me, not just, "All right, Tommy," but the fact I've had people come up to me crying their eyes out regularly. So, I see the attachment they feel, and I have my finger on the pulse, which is why even with Nigel Farage, I think you haven't got your finger on the pulse. You're making these comments, and you don't get the feeling and mood of this nation currently where we are. I don't think anyone can quite understand how quickly this has changed in 18 months. Katie Hopkins, for example. Katie Hopkins left this country the most hated woman in Britain. She's returned. I've walked down the street with her. I've gone into London with her. I've taken her to the local pub. And she's loved. She's a fucking hero. She's loved by everyone. She's a women's champion. Yeah? So... They're not winning. And they know they're not winning. And even now, so I've been very emotional last week. So every time I've spoken about issues, I end up bawling my eyes out on each one of the things. But every time, it's pretty embarrassing. I'm waiting for all these videos and all these interviews are coming out this week. It's just me crying. I'm like, baby. But that's because I'm thinking of my kids and I'm thinking of the effect. I make decisions. Every decision I make has an effect on my family and they have to deal with it as well. But to the establishment, which is basically what my statement to the court says, "Do your fucking best." Yeah, I'm not here to apologize, at all. In fact, I've done my job, yeah? If my job puts me on the wrong side of your bullshit injunction that prohibits the public seeing the truth, and that means I have to sit in a prison cell, off I go. Yeah, now that's the position I'm in, and I know, and I don't think they get it. Say they go maximum on me and give me four years. They're going to enrage people. My work for 15 years has been to wake people up, to get them to view what's happening and understand what's happening. Understand we have a politicized, weaponized judiciary. We don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. When they, the establishment, one, they put a target on you, they use that legal system as a weapon of the totalitarian state because we don't live in a free state. We don't live in a democracy. All total bullshit. So they don't realize by gunning for me like they're going to and probably hammering me, they're awakening more people than I can ever. It'd take me seven days a week of work for the next 10 years to wake up the amount of people that will be woken up on Monday when they send me to jail. And there's a distinction between the police, the Bobby on the beat, those who work on the streets. They all shake my hand. Yeah, but also the government because it's not necessarily the Bobby on the beat who just joined the police to fight crime; they are being told what to do. And they're simply following, because every police force follows the orders of the government. And we have a far-left government, and they're basically told what to do. This case has not been brought against me by the police. This case is not... So Jamal, the child in this story, has not asked for me to be prosecuted, which is the usual process. His lawyers have not asked for me to be prosecuted. I am being prosecuted by the Attorney General of Keir Starmer's government. That's who's charging. And first it was the Conservatives. It was the Conservatives, yeah. And it just gets passed on. It's a Tommy file. Keep it up. Yeah, keep it up. There's no difference. I hope people realize that. What Labour has done in the last three months, they've just shown themselves. The Conservatives were doing exactly the same. They were building this aspect of a totalitarian, controlled state. They were busy. They've been busy for 13 years abusing your rights and planning it all. Labour has come in and just gone, "Fucking, we don't care what people think." Whack. Let's do it really quick. Let's hammer them. Let's put people in jail, like Peter Lynch, for two years, eight months. For what? Have you seen the videos? So I've seen the videos, but that two-tier system and Elon Musk is, when he was told, shut up, he just doubled down. How well have we seen that two-tier system? But Musk, using a hashtag two-tier kier, was like, this is beautiful, being the opposition to the government. But that, you can have rapists who... You can have rapists who get out after two, three years. You can get those with sex images of children actually walk free, like we've seen if you're part of the establishment. But you say hurdy words to a police officer or you shout something at a dog and you get put two and a half years. I think we are seen through it. Politicians now who were silent, media people who were silent, are now saying, this has gone too far. I mean, hell yes, it's gone too far. Do you know that, for me, Reform had five candidates selected? Yeah. Have you heard any of them talk about Peter Lynch yet? Have you heard any of them talk about the demographic replacement of Great Britain, or us as Britain? No, they're afraid of that. Have you heard any of them talk about any of the fucking subjects that people voted for them for? No. You're meant to be reformed. You were elected to be the opposition voice, to give the people without a voice a voice. And you're doing the same shit. You're meant to be the different... I'll just sit and think, well, I've been waiting for the fireworks. Where's the fireworks? You were elected. Do you know what? If I stand for election and I go into Parliament, you'll see fireworks. Yeah. I'll fucking let the whole fucking place go. And I'll tell them everything that you want to tell them. So I'm reforming, I look and think, well, he's got to be careful, he's an MP now. What do you mean he's got to be careful? He was voted in not to be careful. You were voted in there to give a voice to the voiceless. Well, the voiceless at the minute are being killed in jail. They're being murdered. The voiceless are being taken from their kids and put in prison for hurtful fucking words. And you're sitting there silent. And you've actually promised you'd be a voice for the people's movement. Well, all the people are being trampled on. The people's rights are being taken. What are you doing about it? It just winds me up. I think, no, you said you were different. You said you were going to be different. You've all just sat there doing exactly the same as all the other parties, being careful. No one wants you to be careful. You weren't elected to be careful. But a lot of MPs are elected, as we know, as you know, because they want a position. It's not about doing good. It's about power, influence and a position. They want to be part of the establishment. Whereas we want to tear down that establishment. But they've perceived, they've given the image, which even I was guilty of telling people to vote for Reform, they've told people this is what they want to do. And then they've done nothing. Since they've got in, I'm not being funny, what have they done since they've got in? Absolutely fuck all. They haven't challenged, they won't talk about Islam, so as you become a minority in your town and city, as another 30 mosques are being built today around the nation, they're not going to talk about it. They'll sit there quietly while Islam takes over Great Britain, and then they'll talk about the boats. Oh, the boats. The boats aren't the biggest problem here, yeah? The boats are easy to talk about. You need to talk about difficult issues, like the fact that we, by 2041, as white Brits, Anglo-Saxons, are going to be a minority in our own country. That cannot be allowed. And they won't talk about it. For me, it's cowardice. It's total cowardice. You were elected to give a voice to the voiceless, and the voiceless are still voiceless. What are your thoughts in two weeks? A huge event that will give us the ability to return free speech. And I think why the establishment fear Trump getting back in again, which all mean all the betting sites have him winning. I was watching yesterday, Sky News were having to admit that every betting site has him winning in every swing state and therefore winning. But if he wins, it kicks off, it encourages the populist movement side across Europe and then gives us hope here. Because here it's a few individuals, but not a political movement. What he does is he makes Viktor Orban a somebody again. He makes the new Austrian leader a powerhouse. At the minute, the Western leaders or the communist leaders are in power, whether it be Macron, whether it be Keir Starmer, whether it be the Germans who are trying to ban and outlaw AFD, the Democratic Party. They become nobodies, minus Trump wins. Trump builds his allegiance with the populist leaders. And just to make a point again on the populist leaders, you see all these populist leaders. You see Le Pen, you see Wilders, Swedish Democrats. When I started my activism, Swedish Democrats were on 1.5% of the vote. They're now on 25%. They didn't get there, Nigel Farage, by being fucking cowards. They got there by saying Islam has to stop. It has to go. They didn't get there by mixing the words. And you know the whole time that they were brave and fearless when they were putting their lives on the line, their reputations, all of these populist leaders, Nigel Farage's UKIP refused to align with them. The whole time said they're toxic and they're far right. Like, we're all far right. So, yeah, it winds me up that the people's only choice at the minute is a party that gave away the chairman position to a Muslim who funded the most money. Sold their fucking heart like that. It just winds me up because I think there is... I was hoping to build a cultural movement and hope that, okay, there's Reform. Let them be the political solution. We will electrify the working class. No point in electrifying the working When I've watched you over the years, one phrase that comes out is attitude and how you actually engage and deal with an issue and where the system thought they could actually get rid of you and crush you, that you've got that tenacity that you just keep pushing back. And I think that can be infectious. I think that's why these rallies, the book, we'll touch on that, but why all of that is so important, it's so essential, because you show what it means to go into battle, kind of the same attitude as Bannon has. But I don't want to. I know. So I've been shitting myself. You're not asking for it. No, and I've been shitting myself. And I've been shitting myself. But at the same time, I know that if they were able to silence me and shut me up and break me, then it would send a devastating message to the rest of the people who are looking at me. And as you said, courage is contagious. So people will see and think, well, hold on, if he can stand up. And do you know, on our last event, I look at the people at our last event, I look at the people who are going to come on the 26th, even if they manage to put me in jail. I look and think, each one of them showed immense courage because I know the process you've gone through. I know you've been worried about going. I know you've been scared. I know you've thought about your reputation. I know you've thought about your neighbors. What have my neighbors seen? What if everyone says I'm at a far-right rally? What if the media... And then you've got to the point where you've gone, you know what? Fuck all that, all right? I'm doing the right thing. And courage is still being scared. But still, you're terrified. But you still know what the right thing to do is. And sometimes, unfortunately, in a tyrannical totalitarian state, doing the right thing is sometimes seen by them as doing the wrong thing. There's a time that comes and mass disobedience is needed, and you talk about our latest book, "Manifesto," that went straight to number one. Knocked Boris Johnson off the top spot. And the thing is, I just laugh because that's my fourth Amazon bestseller. Was it The Guardian wrote a piece and they hadn't read it? They wrote a piece about the reviews. Read the book. Your response and the way they acted is exactly what we predict in the book about a controlled state, and they're lying to you about everything, letting you understand how the world actually works. How this country works, how everything's planned and orchestrated, including the immigration crisis, how they don't actually care who they're farming. We're like animals to be farmed, yeah? And they don't care what color or race we are as long as the 1% are just milking the fucking shit out of us, yeah? And they want us to have less freedom and less movement, less everything. And for them to get richer and for us to get poorer, and then all of us to be down here like little ants just being governed by them. That's the plan. They're being very successful, but if enough people wake up to it and plan mass disobedience, like for example, a million people calling in sick one day. Sort of what we need to understand that we have the power, we just need to come together. Sorry, my phone doesn't stop. It's a new phone. I don't know how to put it. That's just my little girl. I don't know how to put it on silent on this new one. It used to be there, didn't it? How do you put the 16 on silent? Tommy's looking for a new tech person to help on. Yeah, I lost my phone. But the police, you know, took my phone on the 27th of July. They gave it back to me, and straight away, as soon as I got it back, it came up with an error saying, "not an original Apple battery, not an original Apple screen." Oh, really? I wonder what you've been up to there, guys. Give me back a phone that you're fucking watching everything on. But they can call anyone a terrorist because obviously, as you pointed out, it gives them the right to then access your information. So it's irrelevant. Whether they think you're going to carry out any activity really in terrorism. It's simply using that as a way of accessing journalists. They actually told me as they detained me, "We believe you may be in preparation of acts of terrorism." And they said, "We know you're not. We know you're not that. We know you're not, Tommy, but this legislation gives us the opportunity to do this." It's like, oh mate, this is insane. The book, Manifesto, because Peter McLaughlin is your co-author and he obviously wrote Easy Meat and he understands the grooming. I mean, he kept records, and he's a perfect person. He's the most intelligent man I've ever come across. The most intelligent man, do you know how he predicted and sat and told me that COVID was coming the year before? So I have all these discussions going back and forth about the money bubble, the printing of money, gold, where we're heading, what's happening. And about a year before COVID, he said they're going to create and manufacture a massive crisis because the money bubble is going to burst. And they've just been printing money, and it doesn't work like that. And when it bursts, everyone's going to look for someone to blame. They need something else. So they're going to create something, probably a pandemic. Probably, and he told me all this, and then COVID comes, and he rang me, I remember him ringing me up and said, "Tommy, I said, I fucking know, you told me so." I know, he goes, "This is it, mate, this is it, this is it, lockdown, printing money, this is it, this is them controlling it, which is what immigration is all part of." So using Peter's knowledge, as well as my life experience, and what we've seen together, we put it into a book called "Manifesto," giving people an opportunity to understand this is how the world works, and it's going to piss them off. You see when the actual one percent read that because they've lied throughout the whole history. They just change history, they change it. They decide what happened and they change and decide what you know about a certain individual. So, for example, if it wasn't for X over the last five years, once I was censored, you go on Google and search my name, none of my videos come up. It's all the propaganda hit pieces against me. They then are in the education system. So throughout the whole national curriculum now, they teach the next generation of kids about me. Well, guess what they're teaching them? They're not teaching them about a nice guy who stood up for my country or my rights or young women who were getting raped. They're teaching them I'm a racist, I'm an extremist. They put up a picture of Adolf Hitler and then they put up a picture of me. So the next generation is being brainwashed; this is what they do. So, the whole generation of people come out who have access only now to the internet because I'm not allowed on any social media, and they just get fed and history, their history that they're teaching will tell the next generation I was the devil. Until someone like Elon Musk comes along and says, "No, you won't." Well, let Tommy have a voice. And then I can just go, bang, yeah, here we are, 54 million views. And we can buy books that they can't get rid of. And then people, and then you can see the appetite for the books is there because each one of them has gone straight to number one. That must infuriate. I remember there's this. It's so badly you sold OUT. That's how badly it did. And do you know what? On pre-orders, the new books come this week. By Monday, we've sold out. We've sold out again, yeah? So it's like, what's the journalist? There's a journalist from Cambridge who always writes shit about me. That doesn't narrow us down, does it? And he's an author. And every time my book goes to number one, because I've gone on Twitter and I message him saying, "Oi, oi, this football hooligan's got his fourth bestselling number one. Your whole life is dedicated to trying to be an author and you can't sell any books, bro." But anyway, the fight is on. I said it's fight or flight. And I could have chosen to stay away from day dot when I started my activism talking about Islam. We've never run away from the issue. Yes, I went away. Yes, I stayed away until this week. Why did I stay away until this week? So that me and my team could put together a documentary to expose Keir Starmer and his regime of tyrants. So the documentary goes live this Saturday. So again, if they detain me on Friday, they're going to blow shit up on the media. It's going to go around the world. Our documentary's going to get more views. The documentary's still going out. I've already made a video to be played on the 26th, yeah? It's still happening. When you send me to prison, I've already made a video about that. So I know through the power of our movement, because we are a movement, you think you can cut the head off. We're a movement. Everyone's part of it. And they're just going to go boom. And the whole entire globe is going to look at the judge who sentenced me to jail. They're going to look at Keir Starmer. And if any of you clowns think they're going to look at me negatively, they're not. They're looking at you negatively. In this battle, I win. I temporarily lose in jail, but eventually, I win. It's not just me that wins, we win. The future belongs to nationalists. The future belongs to patriots. You communist tyrants, Keir Starmer, enjoy your little period. You're going to be remembered as the worst prime minister this country ever had. You'll never last five years. Never, ever last five years. The Bannon phrase, next man up, he was put away in jail, is going to be released in a few days. As a hero? Yeah, as a hero. Oh, Steve. But nothing has stopped. You've got the war and posse stepping to do that. And for you, it's happened whenever you've been locked away, people still stand up. It doesn't stop us. The biggest demonstration will happen once I'm locked away. So we've had three United Kingdoms. I'm going to plan my fourth United Kingdom once I get my release date. You're slowing it down temporarily, but I don't think you will slow it down. What I think my imprisonment will do is galvanize our support base and bring them together more than anything. Now, there'll be a lot of attempts just to warn you. There will be attempts to cause infighting, cause disruption. The government will be everywhere waiting. The minute I get imprisoned, bang. The government infiltrators come out, and so will the far-right racist Nazi scumbags who always have been, but none of them are willing to leave. None of them are willing to put their face up there. So I hope, I'll give a date. I hope to hear as many of you outside the prison as possible in a couple of weeks. And it's built because I remember the Free Tommy demo on Whitehall. I think Raheem and people like that were leading that. That goes by me six, seven years. But the current time we find ourselves in because of the COVID tyranny means that a lot of people have woken up and realised, actually, you cannot trust the media where before maybe they did. You cannot trust the police where before they did. And there's an absolute lack of trust. So the message you're bringing that we can come together and start something is so important. I think so timely. So timely. And do you know how powerful you've been on the events, man? And it's like, look, I've got goosebumps just thinking. I've got goosebumps just thinking. Oh, it's fun. People coming together, it is good fun. It's not just fun, it's camaraderie. It's like we're there together, and it's us versus them. And everyone here in this crowd now realizes that. And if you fuck with one of us, you fuck with all of us. And Keir Starmer decided that, yeah, when he started imprisoning innocent British people, brave people, hardworking people, men. He fought, and his government fought that would make us all terrified. And make us hide and stop commenting. Because the hope is that you self-censor. The hope is you don't talk about these issues. The hope is you don't think you can go out and legally protest. What we're going to show you this Saturday, we're going to show the world, is that you can. Bigger, better, stronger, louder. This Saturday, 26th. When's this going out? It's going out Friday. It's all gone a day before. Come on, get your shit together. Get your train ticket. Get out to London. Scott, don't go to football. No more excuses. If your missus says she can't go, leave her. Right? Leave her. I didn't say that. See you later. Do you know what the difference is? It's the women that are coming. I mean, the men tell you the women they can't go. It's a family thing. Kids coming along. Here is the text with corrected grammar: I am so shocked at the amount of women. And do you know when you win the women? And why the women? Because British women are looking around. They're scared. They've got daughters. They've got families. They've got futures. They're looking and thinking, hold on a minute. I had a woman who stopped me. She lives in beautiful North Wales. And she said, "I never used to like you at all. Yeah. And now they've put all these migrants in my little village, and we're all scared, and they're harassing the women." I said, "And now you see what I've spoken about." She said, "I've looked into everything now." She said, "I'm sorry. For 10 years, I've hated you. I've hated you." She said, "And now I'm looking, and Jesus, he's right about all of it." That's because now it's a sad state of affairs. So many people can see it. But what's Keir Starmer managed to do with the riots? He hasn't discussed anything. He hasn't discussed the rapes, the murders, any of the crimes committed, any of the stabbings, any of the killings, knife crime, terrorism, jihad, Islam. He hasn't had to talk about any of it by branding all of you as far-right. So on the 26th, it's that important that you behave. It's that important that you don't give them any ammunition to attack us. Any of their instigators with face masks. If you wear a face mask, it will be asked to be removed. If you don't remove it, we have 400 security at this event. We will remove it. Okay, you will be escorted away from the demonstration. So please, lads, I understand your anger. I understand everyone's anger. We have a right to be angry. But if we didn't have a platform and people weren't listening, I'd understand the overstepping of the aggression. But the entire globe is
Richard Gamble - Building Faith: The Journey to Constructing the Eternal Wall of Answered Prayer
Oct 24 2024
Richard Gamble - Building Faith: The Journey to Constructing the Eternal Wall of Answered Prayer
šŸŽ™ļø "Welcome, dear listeners, to a special episode of the Hearts of Oak podcast! Today, we dive into a project that's not just building walls, but building faith, hope, and community. Join us as we explore the ambitious vision behind the Eternal Wall of Answered Prayer with its founder, Richard Gamble. Imagine a monument not of stone, but of storiesā€”a towering structure outside Birmingham, set to open its gates in 2027, where each brick whispers a tale of answered prayer. This isn't just any wall; it's a beacon of positivity in a world that often highlights the negative. Richard Gamble, a man of many hatsā€”from IT to church planting, and now, a monumental architect of faithā€”shares his journey, from a divine inspiration on a country walk to rallying a global community to contribute to this living testament of hope. Through his eyes, we'll see how this wall aims to change the narrative, showcasing the dynamic, ongoing conversation between humanity and divinity. It's more than a structure; it's a movement towards recognizing the miracles in our daily lives, a cultural shift towards embracing faith in a society where it's often overlooked. Are you ready to be part of something bigger? To add your story to a wall that will stand as a reminder of God's continuous work in our lives? Stay tuned as we delve into the vision, the challenges, and the ultimate goal of the Eternal Wall. This isn't just an interview; it's an invitation to participate in a legacy of faith and answered prayers. Let's get started!" Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Connect with Richard and the Eternalwall project: Website Eternal Wall: https://eternalwall.org.uk/Home - Eternal Wall Richard Gamble: https://www.richardmgamble.com/Richard M. Gamble Linkedin: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/gamblerichard Interview recorded 22.10.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                         x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Transcript: Share   (Hearts of Oak) And hello hearts of oak thank you so much for joining us once again with a brand new guest discussing a huge venture up in the middle of England on prayer and that is Richard Gamble. Richard thank you so much for your time today yeah Peter thanks for having me on I appreciate it. Great and I've come across the website through different friends. This is the eternal where you can get eternalwall.org.uk. And if you don't go any further in this interview, then check out that. You can see how you can be involved in a huge project, maybe one of the first of its kind, looking at the importance of prayer and looking at answered prayer. And I think often, certainly as Brits, we talk about unanswered prayer. And this is about answered prayer, which is something very different. But this is the eternal wall of answered prayer just outside Birmingham, up in the middle of England. But before we get into all of that, Richard, maybe I can ask you to introduce yourself. You've got a varied background from Bible College, IT, chaplain at Leicester City, and then this huge project that it seems like a NOAA endeavor, being given something which is phenomenal. But maybe take a moment and introduce yourself before we get on to the wall of answered prayer Yeah, I'm 56 years old, three children married became christian when I was 20, I suppose you'd describe me as a bit entrepreneurial, tried loads of things, planting churches and stuff like that was rubbish at it. Bought and sold a software business been involved in consultancy all you know really varied and you touched on being a sort of pastor to footballers in in the in the premier league so wide and varied a little bit crazy nobody knows what to do with me, but in 2004, I was and this sounds a bit strange, but I was I was carrying a cross around my county, because I wanted people to just think about Jesus during Easter rather than Cadbury's cream eggs, though I do love them. And while I was doing that, it got a massive reaction and I sort of prayed and said, God, what do you want me to do next? And he gave me this idea, vision to build a national landmark about Jesus. So, the last 20 years of my life have been largely devoted to that. And this is getting closer. This is opening in 2027, so three years away. It'll be the largest symbol of hope. This is from the website In the world, and we'll host an interactive collection of stories that will be a testament to God's faithfulness. And it'll be constructed with one million bricks, each one linked to answered prayer. Maybe just touch on that how people can go to websites and be on one of those for answered prayer and then we'll take a step back of the process. Yeah, sure I mean the the thing that's unique there are many elements of this project that's unique, but if you look at all the national landmarks across the globe this is one that is crowdfunded, crowdsourced, but also crowd created. So, what we're trying to do is create this giant infinity loop piece of art with stories from all over the world and the idea is that people go online onto eternalwar.org.uk and just share with there's as many stories as they can of times that they've prayed and how God has answered and the concept is that other people then can come to the monument or look online maybe they type in the storm of life that they're currently going through and then they can find stories of people who've been in the same situation of them but have found hope through prayer to Jesus and I suppose part of it is birthed Peter from you know that there's never any good news, you know. There's never any good news I don't really watch the news very much these days because I just find it utterly depressing and we have to find ways to get the message of hope out there there's a lot of good. Stuff happening on this planet God is not dead he's still alive he's still he's still active. But but we are not in the structures of this world free to share those stories anymore so we have to find another way. I'll not bring up the picture of it because I'll let the viewers and listeners go to the website and look it up for yourself. It is a colossal endeavor. I will get into all of that, but maybe take a step back. I mean when did you have this idea which obviously is a god idea because no sane person would come up with this themselves using their logic and reason, but yeah, give me an insight into how you begun to have this idea and then how conversations were. I mean how do you tell your wife you're going to build something? Yeah, I mean that is the thing I came home one day and my wife saw my little twinkle in my eye and she was like, oh what's going on, and I was like I think we're going to build a national landmark babe. And I suppose you know that the thing is well where do you start and bear in mind I'm completely impractical. I'm banned from DiY in the house. I set fire to my own bathroom once and that was the final straw for my wife. So I had no idea where to start with that it was just an idea and a concept so really I spent 10 years talking about it to people and praying you know simple as that and then I carried on with my different businesses and endeavors. And then 10 years ago, just that was the time when in my prayers, I really felt God's only right. It's time to, it's time to get moving on that. So I, The way that we started it really was we ran a global competition with the Royal Institute of British Architects because I thought I've got to have something to get this going. And, you know, the crazy thing was we did a crowd funder where I basically said we're going to build a national landmark about Jesus. It's going to be made of a million bricks. I don't know what it's going to look like. I don't know when it's going to be where I don't know where it's going to be and I don't know when we're going to be able to build it but if you want to back this project that'd be amazing and we had an incredible story where where all the money came in with a day to go on the campaign and that sort of literally kick-started us to get going. And then with the royal institute of British architects we ran this global competition and we got 133 entries from 28 countries, and, you know, just try to get to that point of finding the right design, which is the winning design is like a giant white infinity loop, and it arches sort of 50 metres into the skyline. So to give you an idea, in the UK, for UK listeners, that's about two and a half times the height of the Angel of the North. For those in the States, if you imagine the Statue of Liberty taken off her plinth she'd just fit underneath it so it will be a it will be a colossal structure, and there's been a lot of prayer to get to where we've got and and to get the right people to help us to build this. And when you think of size, the Christ the Redeemer statue, which many people will think of as a symbol of Christianity in Rio de Janeiro, I think that's like 30, 35 meters or something for the size. So this would tower above something like that. Yeah, absolutely. But the interesting thing, Peter, is if you Google Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, you don't find anything about Jesus. And it basically has turned into this sort of supposedly a symbol of Brazil welcoming all people to the country. And you may Google it and find out about a French bloke who built it. But I think it's diverted significantly from its original purpose. We believe that around 30 million people Google that landmark every year. And our our vision if you like is well if we can get 30 million people googling eternal war then they're going to open it up and find this database of a million answered prayers, and what are you going to do you're going to want to search it. You're going to want to find out the things that God has done and we hope that that will inspire people to try praying. I think we find in today's age that a lot of signs that were built to point people towards God have just become tourist attractions. You think of cathedrals all over the world, and people flock to see a cathedral. And somehow many people don't make the connection that this is actually for God and pointing to God. Yeah, I think you're absolutely right I remember in the beginnings of this watching a program about Notre Dame being burned and you know a leading architect started talking about what an incredible piece of architecture this was. And I was like, wait a second, this is built for the glory of God and so we are doing a lot of work to make sure that we put in mechanisms to make sure that this is always unashamedly Christian, And the beauty, of course, is because every brick represents a story of answered prayer, you can never really change its meaning. And we are building something that is going to last for hundreds of years. And who knows what our country and what Western society is going to look like in a hundred years' time. But what I can tell you with supreme confidence is that right in the heart of it, there'll be a massive landmark that will be telling people about Jesus and I think for your listeners that's the exciting thing that if they can take the time to share stories of when they prayed those stories are going to keep being told long after we've all left the planet. It's a proper legacy project in that respect. It's very unusual for the UK, for US listeners for the war and posse, faith and Christianity is very much a public issue where people regularly talk about we've moved far away from that in the UK. I'm sure there must have been people that said, Richard you know, maybe we need something a bit smaller, just just hidden away somewhere. We don't need to be so loud about this. Yeah, you know it's really interesting in the in we have like a public consultation for the for the planning process the zoning process for those in the States and you know somebody came up to me, a Christian, and she said, you know I know god answers prayer, but why do you have to brag about it. And sort of stormed off. And it's very interesting to me that you know that the British culture is one of of reserve not really wanting to brag about it, and yet you know we've had an incredible story about how God gave us the land so that we know this is exactly the right place to build it. And God has decided to do that in a country that is so quiet, but the word of God is pretty clear. You know, there are literally hundreds of scriptures that talk about proclaiming the deeds of the Lord, remembering the things that he's done, meditating on his deeds. There's loads of evidence of people putting stones down to remember what God has done. And so I do think it's going to be a little jolt to the culture in this country when when it finally starts to get built you the. The size of it, you touched on that, having the land. You don't put something like this just in your back garden, so what were the what were those conversations, because you have an idea of concept one you can build it that's one thing. You need to put it somewhere what were those conversations like with me local authorities or local landowners as you sought to find not only a piece of land, but permission to put it there? Well yeah I'll take those two two things because they're two significant stories really. In terms of the land we presented the concept in parliament in 2000. I think it was 2014 and I remember one of the members of parliament asking me well this is a great vision, but how are you going to fund it, and I just quick as a flash said oh I've got a really big backer behind me. Which at the time I was very convinced that that was Jesus that was behind me, because I only had five pounds in the bank. I was very happy that he didn't follow up with the question of who that big backer was, but at that point I was like well I really need to find some land so we were invited to go to a conference, my wife and I, in Reading, California. And we went to that conference and my wife and I were like okay we've got to find land now, and then somebody came up to us and said, hey I've been praying, I don't know who you are, but I feel like I've got a word for from God for you. Which I was like oh right okay, and she just basically said you know God wants you to know he's got some heavenly land for you. Now for me that was pretty amazing early on in the journey to travel halfway across the planet and somebody to tell me something like that. So I just had a had a chat with my team right and I said you know I've got this word that God's got some land and one of my team just said well I'll just ask him where it is. She said that'll save us a lot of time and money and I just sort of laughed, I went yeah okay. And so she basically prayed and you know sent me a google map with this piece of land circled and said either this is the land or the person who owns it is going to be significant for the project. And then but what when she sent it through what she didn't know was two days previous the guy who owned that land had emailed me and asked to meet with me which is mad and so then I meet with him and he basically the end of the meeting God had spoken to me in 2004 to build a landmark. He then told me that God had spoken to him in 2003 to build a landmark. And I'd never told you about... You mean God was ahead of you, surely not. Yeah I know, I know well that has been one of my major lessons on this 20 year journey he has a better plan than me and yeah so incredible so he decided to give me some land I didn't tell him about the land that the woman had circled and basically he gave me a number of bits of land which didn't work and then eventually he paid an architect to look at all the land they owned in the UK and he came back with the piece that the woman had circled which is just outside Birmingham which is 90 miles north of London in between two motorways where you know. I think it's sort of about 800,000 people will see. It'll have that much impact so. That's great but then the massive hurdle on top of that is how do you get how do you get planning and and in context of we're talking about a country where you can lose your job for wearing a cross, you know. we we are now I think, you know, in in recent days somebody has got arrested for praying you know outside silently praying so we're now we now live in a country we're in certain parts of the country it is illegal for a Christian to silently pray. I mean it's an incredible move so for me on that journey peter i'm talking to people about this great vision and everyone's going oh that's really nice rich yeah that's great and inside they're thinking he is never getting the planning permission he is never getting the planning permission but but one of the things that I've discovered I was expecting it to be an immense battle and and it wasn't as as much as I thought there were multi-faith objections, but my argument was hey we do live in a multi-faith society in this country. But I love the fact that we live in a multi-faith society because we have the freedom to express our faith and this is how we as a faith want to express it and actually the planning consultant did a brilliant job of demonstrating that their multi-faith policy is couldn't restrict them from giving us permission, because it wasn't multi-faith. So you know it was a long process, COVID hit in the middle, but we just kept on going and you know through through a lot of prayer we pretty much turned around the council that was 14-0 against to to winning 13-0 with one abstention. And the council are all behind us they're very, very positive. They appreciate the sensitivity in which we're approaching this because in our education center, we will have a piece where we say, well, this is what other faiths believe about prayer. I don't think we need to be shy about that. And I'm very happy for people to come and make their own decisions. But the beauty of the project is you're creating a piece of art that allows people the space and time to consider whether Jesus is alive and whether they should pray and as long as you do that in the appropriate sensitive way I think it's okay. Obviously, for the council it's a massive bonus that we're building a national landmark that I think we did an economic report that said it's going to generate 1.2 billion for the local economy in 10 years. So, you know there were practical economic reasons why they were positive but I didn't get the degree of opposition I was expecting in that respect. As a sidestep I would also love to get to Reading California but never been able to get there I've tried on two occasions and both times God's put a block so I'm hoping for the third time. I can pigeonhole you now immediately, Richard. But it's that opposition, because this is about prayer. It can be general. People can see it as general. You talk to those who are not Christians who say at times of crisis they pray. Say, well, who are you praying to? And that's a confusing topic for them when they don't actually believe in any greater being, in any creator. But what were the conversations? Because, again, we live in a very multicultural society. We live in a society where under 50% say they probably believe in God. Church attendance has fallen. And you're probably doing what, in effect, the church should be doing, but maybe has taken a backseat on this. But tell us about the conversations you have with local authority, with councils as you're putting forward. What was that like? Because you talked about full opposition to full acceptance. Well, I think in some respects, the narrative that we are a secular society is false. I don't believe that is the truth. And so we're spun statistics that just aren't true. We did some research just after COVID and 50% of 25 to 18 year olds said that they prayed at least once a month. Now, when that was presented on the BBC, they spun that. And they spun it to say, well, there's a rise in Islam and a rise in Sikhism. And I was like, that is not what the statistics say. That's not what the research says. Richard Gamble: [22:15] And you can go online and see me getting quite cross on the BBC. But the reality was those statistics were 56% of people said that they were Christian. I think it was seven percent said they were Muslim so the statistics don't bear that out and I think even that the narrative of like oh well the church is in decline. I don't believe that, that is not what i'm seeing and what I'm seeing. I'm in a unique position because I'm traveling around churches all over the country to share about this vision and what i'm seeing is that there are pockets of churches that are seeing explosive growth in this country and that growth is predominantly you know in your sort of 15 to 25 year olds who of of a younger generation coming through who want certainty. You know their identity is is based in the in the certainty of of the word of God and they're attracted to it. So I think when you present that as a with a with more sort of statistics to back it up it shows that this is of interest and you know one of the surprising things for me Peter on the journey is the amount of people who are, I mean the most of the opposition I've had has been church-based opposition and Richard Gamble: [23:49] for people who don't have a faith. They they love it it's it's so encouraging you know we have people we had a guy put up a sign in our office he was like this is amazing and just took loads of brochures from us just went off and told everybody about it. So, I think when this goes up in 2027 it's going to have a major impact not only on the nation but I think it was it'll spread across the nations. I think it's the time in a God that we're building this and I personally believe it like I spoke in the revival that's coming. Yeah, 100 percent with you. Another concept of this is look we have many statues of saints and churches covered with paintings of Jesus but that's focused on the person of God where this focuses on the relationship with God, because you there's no way you can look at prayer, you've an image of God and that's an image, but this is a direct link to Who God is and that's why this is something I think fairly different Yeah, and and I think people when they hear of the title eternal wall of answered prayer often think that we are sort of promoting a what I would call a supermarket God. You present your list and you get all the things well you know that has definitely not been my experience over the last 20 years trying to build this and so you're gonna have a whole range of stories in there and some of them are immediate wows, you know, we had one come in yesterday of a person with a brain aneurysm that got healed and you read it like, wow. This is just amazing, but then other stories are stories of people who've waited 50 years for God to answer their prayer and then other stories are you know this is what I prayed but the answer was no. And this is how God helped me through my through the suffering of that answer. And what people, I think, will be surprised about, and you've absolutely hit the nail on the head, is this is about relationship. It's about having a relationship. And we want to really encourage people to share loads of stories that then paint that picture. And, you know, a million is a huge number. I mean, again, my naivety. I just went, oh, let's just do a million. That sounds good I mean if we put if we put a million Lego bricks on top of each other it would reach into the stratosphere that's how big a million is, so a million stores is a lot, but for people who come whether they visit or whether they visit online if somebody's in Dallas and they go onto the database they may ask the question, well does god answer prayer in Dallas and they'll be able to search through the database and find stories from the place that they live wherever they are in the world. They've only got to find one story that they believe in and it's going to rock their world and that's what we're trying to achieve right that's our way of making hope visible. Think people the term unanswered prayer makes people come up with an idea that God chooses to ignore prayer yet the flip side is which I know I'm sure will come across the educational center is that that unanswered prayer means prayer that God has said wait or has not said yes or no there only is one of two answers this is binary it's yes or no in terms of answer it's never a ignore. Yeah, I think there is yeah. I totally agree, I don't really bide for the the philosophy or theology of unanswered prayer. I think it is a, I think it is a comfort for many people to not press into God and to stop praying. I don't want to be glib about that. I've had many, many times where God has not answered prayer in the way that I would like, and that does cause pain. So I know that a lot of people would swap all those answered prayers that they have had for the one to keep their loved one with them. I get that. but I think God is I think god is less interested in the moment when the prayer is answered or isn't answered and more interested in the relationship and the journey that we that we travel. And that's the message that we've got to get out to the nation, because as you've touched on you know the church is largely on mute in this country. It's been put on mute by by different strategies and we've got to break open to that to say that actually our relationship's available for everybody. I heard somebody saying it was a very interesting comment, they said you know in relation to the guy who was healed at the pool of best said a is that the right way to say it, and they said you know if that happened in the modern day journalists would be all over, interviewing the 1,990 people who didn't get healed and say well how did you feel about that, And that's the trap, I think, on an answer prayer is that instead of people going, wow, that's amazing. God did that. They go, yeah, but why didn't he do this? And why didn't he do that? We're not getting involved in that. We are very simply going, we're just going to tell you loads of stories. I'm going to tell you loads of stories of the amazing things that he's done. And, you know, we're having those stories fly. And I've got two stories about God helping people to move jeeps out of sand dunes. I mean, that's just ridiculous. I never thought we'd get that. But it's incredible to see them come in. And it will be, I think, an absolute treasure trove for people once we're up and running. Well, people will learn that God is creative, if nothing else. But at the top of the website, there's a tagline, making hope visible, which is a really interesting idea, because hope, according to the world's thinking, is kind of that expectation or desire for something to happen. And it's not really rooted in reality as such. We could unpack the whole concept, but what do you mean by making hope visible? Cause hope as maybe a feeling is something that's hidden, but you want to put this on one of the largest monuments in the world. So what do you mean making hope visible? I suppose, I suppose the best way, let me describe it like this, is if I can describe it in a single story, I was diagnosed 30-odd years ago with a disease called Ankylosing Spondylitis, which causes extreme curvature of the back, and met with the doctor, and he basically said, you know, it's going to move up your back, and as it moves up, as it gets to the top, I mean, these are his words, he went, you're screwed. And I just went out of that, out of that surgery going, I was quite angry and I was like I'm not gonna have those words over my life. I know that he's an expert. he's trying to do his best, but i'm not gonna let that overall what the word of God says about me. Now I spent a good 15 to 20 years praying to be healed and I was healed. So, we often live in a culture where fear-mongering despair. You know bad news which we touched on the beginning is is all that's ever broadcast, so I'm imagining somebody who maybe is diagnosed with Ankylosing Spondylitis, and loses hope and they whether they're digitally visiting or physically visiting find my story and then that gives them hope that there is a there is an alternative, that the facts that they've been presented with are not the truth. They're the facts but they're not necessarily the truth, and so it hopefully moves them into a dynamic of like there's an alternative here I can pray. And that way, we are stacking together a million bricks to actually declare to the nations that there's a whole load of hope here. There's a whole load of evidence that can change your mindset and your paradigm that you're currently operating in. Does that make sense? Oh, it does. And I think it's a concept which sometimes, well, many Christians struggle with, but the world 100% struggles. And there's a verse in the New Testament that's well-known, often read at weddings and written by Apostle Paul to the church in Corinth, which is just west of Athens. And it's 1 Corinthians 13, 13. It says, now these three remain, faith, hope, and love, but the grace of these is love. I think people have an understanding. All those three concepts are utterly under attack. And people are questioning what it means. But hope is faith and love, people maybe understand, because there's a worldly understanding of what they are. But it's interesting, this term hope, that it's one of those three, I think, which people maybe struggle to grasp and understand. Because in Christianity, in the Bible, it's rooted on absolute, and that is God. where in the world it's shifting sands and therefore people don't have that foundation or root so they don't have any hope in anything. Yeah, and I, you know, my journey in this impossible journey to build a national landmark and we are hey listen we're starting in march we're going to make a big big announcement next year. I've had to constantly at times on a daily basis recalibrate my mind and my soul and my spirit, because you get a barrage of you can't do it, it ain't going to happen, you're never going to raise the money, you'll never get the stories, you'll never get the planning permission, no architect's ever going to want to design this, and you know the list is massive, but where I get my hope from is I look at the stories where God has done things on the journey that no man could do. And that hope then causes me to pray for the next obstacle to overcome and that hope then over time transforms into faith which is the conviction that it's going to happen. And so we are I think going to be a catalyst for literally millions of people to begin that hope journey which we trust will transform to a faith and a conviction that God can. And this is all another word that comes into mind is thankfulness. And I think we often take things without giving thanks. And the Bible is full of stories. I mean, the lepers, when Jesus healed 10 lepers and one came back and thanked Jesus. I think we are often guilty of a lack of gratitude. And I know that's often not talked about in a worldly context. You can have write down your your thoughts of gratitude each day, your journaling all of that. Well it was written in the bible a long time ago this concept of thankfulness and such a public monument of gratefulness I think it'll be extremely powerful Yeah, and I think it's it's something that doesn't naturally sit in our culture. And if you look at Israel, you know, with their thanksgiving. Their remembrance of the Passover, you know, that thread runs through the Bible and you know I wrote a book simply called Remember which just looks at the way that the importance of that remembrance and thankfulness and appreciation of what God has done and continually revisiting that. And the importance of that and we we are in this sort of like throwaway society which I think has actually influenced Christianity where people are praying God is answering and half the time they don't even notice he's answered and if they do they They just go, well, that's great, and then move on to the next one. So there are many layers, I think, to what we're trying to achieve here. And I just and I hope even even the act, if you like, the the the process of Christians going, oh, I wonder what break I shall have. I mean, I'm hearing of loads of people going, oh, I don't I don't know if I've got to answer my prayer. Then they they spend 20 minutes thinking about it and suddenly they get a great list and they're thankful and it restores their faith they renews them. So, hope some of your listeners will do that for us that'd be amazing. No, definitely go to the website and see have a think of how God has intervened in in your life and whether it's big or small we are called to to give glory to God and respond to that. And the Bible is it's actually for one other term in the Bible is there are a number of cases whenever a prophet or the angel comes says the Lord has answered your prayer and I kind of think we live in a society where we would say which prayer, because we just come with our shopping list and you talked about the concept of pressing in and because we don't focus on one issue or a number of issues we kind of well we pray that I say move on to something else. And there's this idea of actually holding on to something you need or believe in and you don't let go as Jacob you don't let go until you get an answer. Yeah there's a great song out at the moment called don't stop praying by Matthew west and it's great challenge but again that's the short term is, you know, I've you mentioned it's a bit of a Noah project when you look at Noah most of his time was spent waiting. You know he had very little action to be truthful most of the time he's just banging about waiting for god to do the next thing and but again as i said that's the process and the journey of going deeper with god if god just said yes all the time we we'd never learn about him we'd never learn his ways which is more precious than any answer and more precious than than gold and silver I think there's a film with Jim Carrey isn't there when he's got Bruce Almighty that's it and he just says yes all the time it's a disaster and you know i'd probably be easier to get answered prayers but i'm, God loves us so much to hold back those answers at times so that we really get to know him better. And we often draw closer to him in the valleys than we do on the top of the mountain. Yeah. And also the idea of prayer being public and private. We think in the UK it's something, private prayer. You go to other churches and it's very public with everyone praying at once. You've got different concepts or ideas, but I think we often forget that actually in the UK, we did have national days of prayer, certainly during Second World War. I think there were six or seven days called for prayer. One of the first was the evacuation at Dunkirk. And I think something like this, this concept, this wall of answered prayer can point us towards, again, the act of calling the nation to prayer, because we've a lot to pray about in our nation. Yeah, yeah, that's very good. That's a very good point. And encouraging people to pray big prayers. We've just, I don't want to advertise a competing podcast, but I will give it a go. We're in the middle of a podcast called When We Prayed, which is capturing what actually happened on the seven times that the King of England called the nation to pray during the Second World War. And some of the stories are incredible. the Dunkirk story that you point out I think is particularly poignant because the reality was Churchill was told we'd get 30 000 soldiers off the king off the beaches. The king called the nation to pray, there's records of over a million people praying in churches and then we see a number of miracles. Hitler changes his mind makes one of the worst military decisions in history. We see we see bizarre weather patterns that causes planes to not be able to take off and yet you know by the sea that the the sea is described like glass and all of those we have incredible immunity of soldiers where they're shot down, they all lie down in the sand, get up and see their silhouettes in bullets, but they're unharmed. I mean, some incredible things happen. But that story of Dunkirk, two generations on, has been lost. You know, it's the film by Christopher Nolan doesn't even mention prayer. It's all put down to the courage of men on boats, which, again, I believe is part of the answer to prayer, that men were so courageous to do that. And we've put out a video about this. And then you get loads of people going, no, no, no, it wasn't that. Well, God wasn't involved, da, da, da, da, da, da, da. And unless we go well hang on a second if God wasn't involved then why did the whole nation, have a day of thanksgiving to God only a few days afterwards, because they knew it was it was a move of the divine. But two generations later we've forgotten it, and I and and you see that of course in the Bible where they forget the things that God has done you know as they escape from Egypt. So, part of our role at Eternal War is to capture all those stories of answered prayer through history. So we are capturing stories from 500 BC, 500 AD, sorry, not BC, 500 AD, all the way through to the present day. You know we are grabbing stories of people being raised from the dead in the north of Scotland you know some incredible stories. And and we believe that we can
Raheem Kassam - Populism, MAGA, and Trump: Insights from Media and the Campaign trail
Oct 21 2024
Raheem Kassam - Populism, MAGA, and Trump: Insights from Media and the Campaign trail
Populism, MAGA, and Trump: Insights from Media and the Campaign Trail šŸŽ™ļø Welcome to the Spotlight Episode on Populism, MAGA, and TrumpšŸŽ™ļø In this electrifying episode, we dive deep into the heart of American populism, exploring the dynamics of the MAGA movement and the indomitable figure of Donald Trump as seen through the lens of media and the campaign trail.   Join us as we unpack: The Evolution of MAGA: From its inception to its current state, how has the MAGA movement influenced American politics, drawing parallels with historical populist movements like the Tea Party? Trump's Media Strategy: An analysis of how Trump has utilized media, both traditional and social, to shape public opinion and maintain a strong connection with his base, even as critics claim his rhetoric has grown darker and more divisive. The 2024 Campaign Landscape: With recent polls showing a tight race, what strategies are Trump and his camp deploying, and how does this impact the broader political discourse? Populism in the Media: A look at how media outlets, from conservative talk shows to liberal news networks, cover populism, and the role of figures like Steve Bannon in amplifying the MAGA message. Public Sentiment and the X Factor: Insights from real-time reactions on X, reflecting the pulse of the public on these pivotal issues. Connect with Raheem website:       https://raheemkassam.com/ Substack:     https://raheemkassam.substack.com/ Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@Raheem š•:                 https://x.com/RaheemKassam Interview recorded 19.10.24 *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                        x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Transcript: (Hearts of Oak) And hello, Hearts of Oak. Thank you so much for joining us once again. And it is wonderful to have a brand new guest, a name which certainly the War Room Posse will know absolutely very well. And that's Raheem Kassam. Raheem, thanks so much for joining us today. Thank you for having me. I woke up especially early for you as well on a Saturday morning of all things. If anybody knows my Friday nights, it's quite difficult. You don't look too worse for wear. So all good. But if obviously people aren't following you maybe on, might be some of the UK side but Raheem Kassam obviously is on Twitter X he is former editor-in-chief of National Pulse and we'll touch on some of those articles thenationalpulse.com former editor-in-chief of Breitbart News in London, former senior advisor to the one and only Nigel Farage and I think a good friend of his now and And together with Steve Bannon and Jason Miller, they co-hosted War Room back in the day. So lots to talk about. But Raheem, I mean, eight years ago, you were in the race to become UKIP leader. And I remember your campaign launch in the Westminster Arms, that picture of you behind the bar pulling a pint. And maybe just touch on that a little bit. How you kind of got involved with UKIP with Nigel, the political scene there before over stateside. Yeah, do you know what's funny? I find myself telling this story more and more, and I don't know if it's a sign of people having interest or just getting old and repetitive. And I was actually telling it last night. I'll give you the brief version. I mean, I was always fascinated by politics. I remember watching the first Gulf War on television. Obviously, we were all you know, aghast at 9-11. And there were just these sort of major flashpoints in my life that I thought, you know, I kind of feel that I need to do something in that world. And especially. Well, unfortunately, I found myself a little bit of a Blairite in the early Blair years. I was a kid and I fell for the sort of the things can only get better mantra. That was the prime Minister for the American audience from the late 90s, which was very much sort of a Clintonian figure, a third wave figure in British politics. And I did get involved. I got involved straight off to college, off to university, by shadowing my local member of parliament around and just kind of knocking on doors and understanding the issues and finding out at a kind of local level that most of good, worthwhile politics is actually local and not national. And so naturally, I gravitated to the national, just being useless like that. Started to work a little bit with Britain's Conservative Party and very, very quickly realized that it was no such thing as conservative. And when the David Cameron Conservative Party in 2010 got into coalition government with Liberal Democrat Party and handed over so many things to the left, I just sort of threw my hands up and said, you know, I can't do this in good faith. I can't be a part of that. And I did something that they call defecting. And I left. And I say defecting not because I was, you know, an elected member or anything, but I was on the Conservative Party's youth board at the time, Conservative Future. And so it caused a little bit of sort of internal physios. I remember getting prodded in the chest quite angrily at Tory conference and told that, you know, I'd never work in politics again and so forth. Little did they know. Well, I showed them. And then, I mean, I kept bumping into this jovial smoking chap outside lots of Westminster pubs, and we would often talk politics, and we would often talk about women, and we would talk about all sorts of things. And that person turned out to be Nigel Farage. So we made friends. He asked me to come and work for him, and the rest, I suppose, is history. And task is from I mean kind of from Hammersmith to the white house or from using the tube to using Trump force one it's certainly a change in gear. How kind of how and when did you think you wanted to put your energy into the US and not the UK was there a specific moment or was that just a general drift there. There are a lot of moments actually I mean I think 9-11 got me, you know, really, really first trying to understand the US, trying to understand why somebody would do that, trying to understand what the American reaction was. I stayed up, I think, for three days straight, you know, just in my little box room in Uxbridge in West London. And I had a 17-inch CRT Sanyo TV propped up on a coffee table and just stared at it, you know, and couldn't wrap my head around it, really. And so, you know, I did a lot of reading and a lot of learning. And, you know, this is a pre-YouTube world, so I'm going to the library and checking books out and trying to, you know, the old-fashioned way of figuring things out. And my parents were never really particularly political, so it's not like I could sort of turn to them easily and go, 'oh you know this thing happened what what does it mean.' I think a lot of the world felt that way at that point in time I certainly talking to a lot of my friends now in New York where I go you know probably for 10 days every month at the moment they certainly say that they felt like that at the time also just completely lost. You know the the rules-based order right that the Bannon always talks about was just I mean in ash right it was in ash it was falling in ash from the sky with bodies littered around it. And you know not to be to be too graphic about it but that's how it it jarred so much and I was still in school I was still in what they call high school over here at the time in secondary school and and for us, I mean, our teachers had no idea what to tell us or what to say about it. And so that probably was a major flashpoint where I thought, hmm, you know, having knowledge of and being involved in U.S. Politics seems quite important from a global level. I studied it at university, studied U.S. Politics in large part in my course at the University of Westminster. And I never really planned to get involved in US politics or media until one day, I think this was 2013, my phone rings. I'm actually sitting in the house of a friend who went on to be the Conservative Party's operations director. We're sitting in his house. I think it's a Saturday night and we're just having a dinner. And my phone rings, and I don't know the number, and I pick it up: I said: hello. And the voice down the other end of the phone goes hey you don't know who this is but my name is Stephen K. Bannon and I'm the executive chairman of the Breitbart News Network. And I was like okay, I mean at first I thought this might be like a sales call. I was like okay I'm Mr. Bannon how can I help you. He says well we're opening a London bureau for Breitbart do you know it? I was like vaguely I don't, you know, read it all that much, but I know of it. And he said, everybody tells me I should hire you to be my London editor. Up here at the time, I was making about Ā£65,000 a year blogging from my bedroom. So I thought that was a great gig. And I sort of said to him, you know, thanks, but I'm not that interested. He said, look, just meet me next week. We'll chat. We did. He offered me 35 000 a year to which I said: see you mate, I'm not doing that. We spent sort of the next four months negotiating back and forth and I say negotiating back and forth. It was more him going 45 and me going nah 55. Nah. He finally ended up on 65 plus a staff plus an office and I was like right fine, I'm in. and that was the moment. Steve can drive a hard bargain he's a businessman. Yeah, but I think I in fairness to him I don't think he knew the lay of the land in the UK I think he thought he would sort of grab somebody just out of college who wasn't earning anything and whatever and and we had already kind of, you know, I'd already developed several news websites at the time and built a little brand and a little following, so he had to pay for it. And that drew me in right. That drew me into the US world because, of course, every morning then we would have a Breitbart News radio show and... So for 10 a.m. my time, I would be on live with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people across America. And so immediately your cadence changes, the words you use change, you start speaking in their language to try and get them to understand what's going on. And you're trying to explain like concepts like Brexit, which at the time didn't even exist as a word. You know, we didn't even call it Brexit back then. We just called leaving it, leaving the EU or getting Britain out, or independence. Brexit was far later as a common term. And then, of course, you would get invited to all this stuff in the US, and how it is, the scale of it is just all so... It draws you in. It really sucks you in. And I would visit DC, and I would think to myself, oh, I'd love to live there one day. And let me tell you something. I bloody hate it here. I bloody hate it here. But, you know, I was supposed to be here after 2016 because he called me up when he went to, still speaking of Bannon, called me up when he went into the Trump campaign and he said, where are you? I said, I'm in DC. I'm on vacation. I'm hanging out with some of my mates. And he says, good, stay there. I said, what do you mean stay there? I've got to fly back tomorrow. He goes, no, no, no, no, stay there. I need you to do something for me. I said, what is it? He goes I can't tell you but you'll find out tomorrow on the front page of the New York times, so that sounds really really ominous is that, I mean you know what's funny at the time I suppose not that funny but what's what's interesting at the time I thought oh my goodness is he getting arrested or something. Turns out he's going to work for the Trump campaign and he wanted me to take over the radio show. So I took over the Breitbart news radio show, you know, got my visa and everything sorted out. Stayed, I thought I'd stay for about a year and then you know life draws you in. You make friends and girlfriends and you know buy things and you know plant your roots by accident really and now it's been about nine years sitting here in this same room on capitol hill. I mean, you have a unique perspective as a Brit who's there, really understanding the UK scene and the US scene. I mean, obviously, Nigel crosses over, but he doesn't live in the US. I mean, the only person that I kind of think who is such a deep understanding both sides is maybe Seb Gorka. But tell us what that's like, because are you, you're no longer an outsider, are you? You're, yeah how do you kind of fit in and your perspective is something fairly unique in the US media certainly? Look I'm just a loud mouth, I always have been, and so when you ask me how I fit in? Not well really anywhere. I mean you can talk to some of our mutual friends like Jason Miller as an example or even Steve and they'll all tell you, yeah Rahim has a really sharp mind for politics, but he's bloody annoying. And he rubs people up the wrong way. And he doesn't really just, you know, I have no charm when it comes to what I believe in, right? I couldn't run for anything. I learned that a long time ago. You made reference to the aborted UKIP leadership election campaign. I was two weeks into that campaign and I thought to myself, I hate this. I will be terrible at it. And I was like, you know what? I'm out. I don't want to do it you might. You Have lasted less than Diane James, fewer days. I think that you know the right way to do things in life is to not pretend right and I think if a lot of politicians, actually acted on their instincts, on their gut level instincts about what they do, they wouldn't do half the bad shit they do. And so that was my moment where I thought to myself I can continue this on, I could probably win if I really pull the stops out, and I can be miserable for the rest of my life. Or I can pull out, do something I like doing, and be miserable for the rest of my life. So I chose the latter, and I don't regret that at all. But yeah, no, I wouldn't say I fit in very well at all. This doesn't, I hope this doesn't sound sad, but I sort of barely leave the house anymore. You know, if I do leave the house, it's sort of to take a train or a plane somewhere for an event or a meeting or a speech, or if I get really antsy or bored or whatever, I like to take the train up. I only live a few minutes here from, from union station in DC. So, just get the train up to New York and I sit at a nice pub for the weekend or something see some friends very quiet sort of things, but it's not that thing anymore where you know you get all these major conferences and conventions and all of this stuff and a lot of people still find that useful and still find it, you know, helpful to run around and shake hands and exchange business cards. I'm much more reclusive than ever. I sit at home, I read a lot, I like to keep a very close-knit group of friends, because you know the old adage if you want a friend in DC get a dog. It's really not a town where you do want to trust people and make and make you know long-lasting friendships or relationships that, you know, I've got a few luckily thankfully. Steve being one of those Nigel being another it's that's a weird thing, that's a weird thing, when your best friends in the world are people like Steve Bannon and I don't say that as in like they're people I work with on a daily basis they're just my mates like we just call up and shoot the shit every so often. You know I spent last Christmas at Steve's house with him because I couldn't make it back to England in time and I don't think politics came up more than once over like a week-long period. It was football he hates soccer, I love soccer, it was him trying to show me American football. Can't stand it, there was a lot of food, you know, those sorts of things. So, if anything I've sort of become more of a political socialite at this point. But it's weird, yeah, if I ever have to watch another NFL game again, I don't know what I will do. I'd lose the will to live. But apologies to the posse. But when you met Steve and Nigel there, what comes across is they're authentic individuals. They actually care about it. They wear their hearts in the sleeve. And, I mean, both of them, I probably actually know Steve better than I do. I do Nigel. But both of them what you see is what you get and sometimes you see the public persona then you meet them in private they're just very different. Actually there isn't much difference that they are who they are. And that's possibly one of the reasons why they've been so successful and maybe makes them so dangerous and that's why they've both been targeted so much. yeah, I think that's right. I mean there there are little things I think that people don't get to see with both of them. Just sort of almost softer sides, you know, that they would both hate me telling the audience, but genuinely caring sides. You know, you see the look in, I've seen the look in both of their eyes when I've disappointed them, you know, and it's not anger and it's not resentment. It's that sort of fatherly disappointment. Why did you say that? Sometimes live on air, I would say things that Steve would just look at me like, oh dear. But it has gone the other way as well, believe me. Yeah, they are extremely authentic characters. And I think the same about myself sometimes as well. It's like, why am I drawn to those people? Because I do that too, right? I wear my heart and my politics and everything on my sleeve. I say whatever pops into my head and deal with the consequences later. I certainly tweet whatever comes into my head and deal with the consequences later. And I think at the end of the day as well, when you look at their private lives, they are people who have a genuine joie de vivre. They are actually life-loving people. They cling on to every moment, and they want people around them to enjoy those moments too. They're also people who want to impart the wisdom of the hard lessons they've learned. Right when Steve first, when I first met Steve he said to me look you know this pub at four o'clock every afternoon thing is not going to work for you in the long term. He says you need to knuckle down be a monk for three years, bury your head in books. Learn, learn, learn, and then you get to you know express yourself in different ways and live life in different ways, but you know, put together that base of knowledge. I completely ignored all of it of course and proceeded to go to the pub at four o'clock every day and and still do it, but it kind of, I mean, I've got a stack of books now it's so weird actually now I think about it. Behind the camera here I have a stack of books up against the wall and now when I think about it that is exactly how Steve's stack of books used to being his old Bryant park New York apartment. It's just books some books stacked up against the wall no bookshelf just a mess and you know everything sort of half read dog-eared thrown aside, like this, don't like this, and those guys really taught me all of that. Kind of just knuckle down as hard as you can learn as much and you know without them without their influence and things like that I would have never published the first book No Go Zones, which was a bestseller and you know I think really changed a lot of the conversation on migration in the Western world. After that book came out, Angela Merkel started being honest about the concept of a no-go zone, of a no-go area, as she called it. And, of course, now we all accept that these things are relatively commonplace. But at the time, that was no-go zones were no-go zones. I want to touch on that later. And, of course, your other book on Enoch Powell is also The Greatest Prime Minister Britain ever had. Okay, so U.S. election, 18 days out, as we currently record, I think, 16 days by the time this comes out on Monday. And not just the most important day of most people's lifetimes in the US, but actually worldwide, because the impact on freedoms for all of us and where America lead others, others follow. And the last thing we want to be doing, what we have been doing is following a decrepit individual. And now comrade Kamala could be the next option on that, and that should fill anyone with fear. But what is your kind of what's your assessment? Obviously you write about this in the national pulse and your finger is on the pulse In terms of understanding, but what's kind of your assessment generally and it will pick up me in some of them just two and a half weeks out? Yeah, look so just so people understand my method when it comes to this stuff I just call and text everyone I know as much as possible right what's going on what are you hearing where are you going what's the reception what are the internal campaign numbers please. No, you don't want to tell me, I'll go ask someone else. They want to tell me, I'll go and ask someone else. Basically, I'll just bug my way into amassing information. I mean, that is the job of a journalist, really, is just to bother your way into knowledge. The reason that just to draw... I'm doing the weave, by the way, here, like Trump does, the story weave. Just to draw you away from the question for a second, the journalists that people loathe, which is, I understand most of them, the reason they are not good journalists is they don't do their jobs. They make it up. They have an opinion, and then they ascribe current events to fit whatever their opinion is. The job of a good and real journalist, and there are some people like, in fact, I'll say something that might surprise people, but there are some Guardian reporters like Hugo Lowell, who I think are just excellent at their jobs. Now, I'm really good at gatekeeping information that I don't want getting out there. And someone like Hugo is really good at extracting it from people like me. So, I get to really see how I come across to other people, because I'm always doing that and digging for info. And that's how you get to understand a campaign. That's how you get to where I was in May, where I was saying something is going dreadfully wrong with the Trump campaign, there is no ground game. Susie and Chris, who are at the head of the campaign, had sort of checked out for the summer, almost putting their feet up, thinking that they were going to run easy against Biden, win easy against Biden, and then of course made the cataclysmic campaign error of accepting that early debate and getting Biden out of the race. Now, at first, it seemed a lot worse than it was. But the more people have seen Kamala Harris, the less they like her. And the more she gets out there, I think the more votes she loses, frankly. The campaign turned at the end of August, I and others embarked upon a bit of a pressure campaign to bring other people in. So they brought people in from the PAC, the political action committee that sort of runs parallel to the campaign. For those who aren't sort of aware of how that works, it's like an outside group that does a lot of the campaigning. But technically, legally speaking, the campaign of the PACs can't talk directly to each other. So, instead of doing that, they shifted people from the PAC into the campaign, and then brought on, you know, old Margar Stalwarts like Corey Lewandowski. And since then, you've seen a big uptick again, not just in, you know, Trump's polling numbers, but his own, you know, his own, I guess, vivaciousness about the campaign. He's in two or three places every day at the moment. It's got that 2016 energy to it. And I think, you know, to touch wood, I think we are on a winning course right now. I will say Trump will win despite his campaign leadership, not because of his campaign leadership. And it will also win because she has just become, I mean, she's become almost as unpopular as Hillary Clinton. And I say almost because America got to know Hillary Clinton really well for decades and decades. If they got to know Kamala as well as they knew Hillary, she would be half as popular if that than Hillary Clinton. You know, she is just a fundamentally unlikable person. We see that play out this week where, you know, she was the subject of mockery at a large scale New York gala, right? The Al Smith dinner. His great speech by Trump. The whole thing, I mean the host gets up at the beginning and it's like why is Kamala Harris not here? And for for that to happen to her. I mean her team, this is the problem about having a team that is is mostly young and inexperienced. Is that they think everything happens on TikTok. They forget that actually most high propensity voters are getting their news in older fashioned ways. And to age a lot of people here, one of the older fashioned ways now is still like Facebook, right? But it's also broadcast TV and it's also local TV and it's also newspapers. And yes, they are dwindling and falling and whatever, but the older, higher propensity voter still wants that element. They still want the masthead, right? They still want to see the logo of the news organization at the top of the thing they're reading. They don't necessarily want that 15-second clip of some nose-ringed purple hair woman who thinks abortion is an alternative to having a personality. So I think Trump nicks it. If you want to go state by state, we can do that too. I'm not confident about Nevada, and I'm not confident about Wisconsin. The rest, I'm pretty happy about. One, just a sidestep, one of the dangers I've seen of the U.S. Political scene is the industry that kind of feeds on it. I think when I talked to Terry Giles, who was very close to Ben Carson whenever he ran, and chatting about what the campaign was like for his involvement on that, and the amount of money that just disappears on consultants everywhere consulting on something. And it is an industry in the light that Britain have no idea, ours is very different. And is that one of the probably people will say whatever you want them to say there, you're right, there is kind of out of Uni and you go into job you get paid to consult on stuff that you actually have no world life experience and you'll say whatever has to be said and if you're candid losers hey you'll just find another one. That seems to be one of the failures, I think, of the U.S. Political scene as someone from afar watching. Yeah, you're absolutely right. I mean, if I were to be able to give one piece of advice to the American body politic writ large, it is repeal Citizens United. You know, repeal the idea that corporations are people in a political sense and that they can give of limitless amounts of money to politics, to PACs, and so on and so forth. You know, a lot of politicians, and I think Matt Gaetz popularized it, I know a lot of people have said it. Politicians should be made to wear the logos of their sponsors, like a race car, like a race car driver. And you have to have patches that say Pfizer and Exxon and all of this stuff. I actually think that if you're not going to get big money out of politics, then that's what you should do with it. But we're not even at the point of having that conversation over here yet. You're still talking about Nancy Pelosi making massive stock trades on a day-to-day basis, and everyone knows she's doing it. Everybody knows it's insider trading and everybody in this town is just sort of an open joke. You know and the but the part of the joke is not Nancy Pelosi the part of the joke is the American public that that Nancy is fleecing by pretending to be a representative of theirs in any way shape or form, but actually just enriching herself at it. And I think if you get that corporate money out of politics and if you and if you police things like that a lot more you will get a far more representative form of government. The real threat to democracy is not Donald Trump or anything like that it's corporate America and time and time again corporate money has corrupted. It's corrupted movements, it's corrupted the tea party, it's corrupted it corrupted Brexit in a lot of ways and we saw what happened with Brexit after the people voted for a certain thing. Britain's migration is still at record highs. Why, because the corporate lobby continues to lobby for cheap migrant imported labour. And that was the point of Brexit. There's no point in doing Brexit unless you actually control your own borders. You can tell I get very frustrated by this, because I see the sorts of cash that flies around here. And I don't want to get anybody in trouble or make it awkward for you at all. But I get myself in trouble with this a lot because I call out people on our own side too about this stuff. And about a year ago, I ran a story about how Matt Schlapp and the American Conservative Union were taking money from the New Venture Fund. Well, the New Venture Fund is a Soros left-wing Democrat fund that push money around politics to fuel things like criminal justice reform and DEI policies and things like that. Listen, I'm a reporter. I reported the news. And of course, Matt gets angry at me and Steve gets angry at me and that's friendly fire. Why are you doing that? I say, why are they taking the money in the first instance? So somehow I'm to blame for bringing it into light. And I just, I don't have any allegiance to organizations, institutions, and people that I think are purchasable. I find that to be the lowest form. Money is the lowest form of doing politics. No, completely. You mentioned the speech that Trump gave a couple of days ago at that Catholic event, and I saw the emcee pointing out that Kamala wasn't there. And you watched Trump's speech, and I've seen him speak at CPAS, saw him at Pennsylvania rally, saw a North Carolina rally, and there's nothing like it. I mean, if you come from UK politics and you come across this, you're just in awe of, the camera light action type of thing but I what I mean you watch trump speak and his energy his passion you, however many times they're trying to actually try and assassinate him and he's got this boundless energy and he's, they're a joy to watch speaking for an hour and a half. And I mean is it it seems like he just gets better and better and there's no end to it he's never pushed back, never pushed down. Tell me about your thoughts on that and the energy he has on that campaign trail. Well, as George Galloway once said to Saddam Hussein, I salute his indefatigability. And I suppose I'm George and Trump is Saddam in that analogy. He is. I mean, Look, I've travelled with him on his plane. I've interviewed him. I've hung out socially at Mar-a-Lago probably two dozen times. I've seen him at his best, but I've also seen him tired. I think you hang around with him long enough, you see him tired. They're the same tell-tale signs as well as any of us, really, but you see it in Bannon, you see it in Nigel, where a door will close. If a car door, for instance, closes, and you're just sort of sitting next to Nigel and he'll just go, oh, and all the exhaustion you'll see just like wash over him. And they all have the trick in that world. And this is why I would not be good at it. The trick in that world is to hold it all in and just deal with it and just man up and plow through and plow through. And then once you can get to wherever you are, private bedtime, whatever, you just let it all go. I can't do that. I need to work very hard and then rest very hard and then work very hard and then rest very hard. These men, these locomotives of populism, right? They just keep chugging. They just keep going. They just keep going. And what's their fuel, right? Their fuel, especially for Donald Trump. Are the people standing in front of him, right? It gets to the point now at the rallies where he recognizes people in the crowd who he's seen years ago, perhaps, at an event. He goes, oh, I know you. I saw you at this thing. We took a picture together. You know who was also very good at that? Enoch Powell. Enoch Powell, I read several stories about him recognizing people from 18 years prior, and just picking up the conversation where they left off 18 years prior. And it's like that moment in Butler, right, where Trump walks up onto the stage and he goes, as I was saying, and that was an important moment for several reasons because it wasn't just, you know, obviously making comedy out of tragedy there in that moment, very important, very important to bring people's spirits back up and to let them know that you're still there and you're still fighting and you're going to continue regardless. But it was also to personalize that moment right you were all here with me you know four weeks ago whatever five weeks ago when when it happened, we're all here again today. And you see the same thing I got to host the radio show with Steve so much back in the day that was a call-in radio show and the lines would light up, the board would light up, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. Every single morning as soon as they knew Steve was hosting the show, because they all wanted to talk to him. But more importantly, he wanted to talk to all of them. He would make it very clear, I'm going to get to every single one of you callers. Don't hang up. I know you might have to wait a little bit. I want to talk to everyone and give everyone their time, their airtime, and treat them respectfully and listen to them. The same thing as Nigel going out in public. And we've seen the videos of the milkshakes getting thrown on him, and those are unfortunately the hazards of being a populist because you actually do want to go and hang out with ordinary people. You want to go to the pub. You want to stand in the beer garden. You want to have a smoke with them. You want to give them proper time and attention. That, without that, you cannot be a populist. You cannot book read populism. This is a major problem we have on our side at the moment is that much of the MAGA movement, much of the post-Brexit movement are these, are these academic types who have sort of come along and gone, yeah, it's very interesting. And, but you know, you can't, you can't converse with them outside the pub. They're not willing to understand the ordinary person. They're certainly not going and walking the streets of Bradford and watching how demographic shift is occurring and how the mass rape of young white girls occurred in the UK under the police's nose in those communities. They're not interested in doing these things. And I think in as much as the left doesn't understand, the corporate left, the Marxist left in a lot of senses, there is a populist left. But in as much as the establishment doesn't understand populism, we also have to be very watchful that our own side continues to understand populism. We cannot hand it back to the academics who, you know, the Alan Skeds of the world who founded the original UK Independence Party, the academics who founded the Alternative for Deutschland Party. You know, we're very grateful that those things happened and that those guys, you know, had their involvement to get those things off the ground. But these cannot be turned into bookish movements. They are you know for want of a better term they are street movements they are they are movements of ordinary people. Yeah, I like to rant. The academics looking down at those with passion who actually believe and there's a confusion, they think they like that intellectually, but they're not sure where that passion... Passion this is where the party's going wrong, right? The conservative party in Britain wants to do pseudo-populism. It just wants to be able to sort of tweet images, of you know England's green and pleasant land and say we will bring down migration if re-elected in five years time. And you go, well you were in office for the last 15 years and you doubled it and tripled it, and quadrupled it you know last year I think what was it 1.1 million new visas issued for for foreigners going into the united kingdom a population of about 60 odd million right there but but realistically far higher now likely and and these academic types the Tories that you meet at the tory conferences and things like that. If you know with their wet little handshakes will come up to you and go well I certainly think we could we could bring down migration a smidgen um you know we could we could we could certainly shave one percent off the tax rate. It's like, no, you don't understand. You know, we tub thumping populists want to completely change the way the system works. I'm not interested in your little salami slicing incrementalism. We are revolutionaries in a very real sense. I know immigration being a huge issue across Europe and the US and one of the two, immigration and the economy, the two big issues for the U.S. Election. But you mentioned your book, which looked at those no-go areas, how Sharia law is impacting or is coming to a neighbourhood near you. That's something the UK, that's something I know living in London, I'm sure when you look back, does America get that clash? They get the immigration, but one of the big problems of mass immigration is when Islam comes in and then wants to be dominant, wants that superiority, wants to impose itself,
Brandon Straka - Red, White, and Rethinking: New Perspectives and Voices from the WalkAway Movement
Oct 17 2024
Brandon Straka - Red, White, and Rethinking: New Perspectives and Voices from the WalkAway Movement
Welcome to Hearts of Oak. Our guest today is Brandon Straka, once a committed Democrat, now leads a campaign encouraging others to question their political affiliations. Join us as he shares his transformative journey, sparked by the 2016 election, and how it led to the creation of a community for those feeling politically disillusioned. We'll explore the power of personal stories in challenging political narratives and discuss the urgent need for voter engagement in the face of potential authoritarianism. Tune in for a conversation that could challenge your views and inspire a deeper understanding of political change in America.  *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Connect with Brandon: Website | Brandon Straka š• | Brandon Straka #WalkAway (@BrandonStraka) / X The #WalkAway Campaign I Patriots Fighting for America I Home Interview recorded 16.10.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                       x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                 heartsofoak.org/shop/ Transcript (Hearts of Oak) Hello, Hearts of Oak. Thank you so much for joining us once again. And it's great to have Brandon Straka back with us once again. Brandon, thank you so much for your time. Good to be here. Great to be with you and had a great conversation with you just the end of last week on War Room. and obviously heading up the campaign, the WalkAway campaign. People can find you at Brandon Straka on X Twitter, however you want to call it. But it's the walkaway campaign, which is intriguing in this current election climate. I know you've just released a video on that. I don't want to delve into that and the engagement you've had with people on the ground. But maybe you, I mean, you personally, I'm curious to engage with Brandon himself, someone who's walked away and our political allegiance often becomes part of our identity. And whether you're wherever position you are whatever party you're engaging with that often is part of you in terms of what you stand for or in terms of what your family your heritage whatever has brought you there and you were very much in the democrat pigeonhole. I mean tell us about that walking away personally before we get onto the campaign Itself. About my experience as a democrat? Yeah, your experience walking away what impact it had on you personally? Yeah, you know, a lot of people know I was a lifelong Democrat, two-time Obama voter, a Hillary Clinton supporter. And I walked away from the Democratic Party shortly after Donald Trump got elected in 2016. So, I actually voted for Hillary in 2016. And my WalkAway journey really began with the election of Trump and just feeling like something was really wrong with my side of the aisle, you know, it just seemed like there was this mass panic, and terror and fear and, and anxiety. And the media kept, you know, alleging that all of these different things were going to happen that never really came to fruition. And so I started going like, what is going on? And did a deep dive about, you know, the media and their, their analysis and their reporting of Trump and his supporters. And basically what I came to realize was that, you know, I'd been being lied to and deceived by the media that I'd been trusting for so long. And then I started speaking out about that and posting about it and asking questions. And I thought it was a very positive thing because I know how I felt and I knew how a lot of my friends and fellow liberals were feeling. And I sort of thought like, you know, ultimately, even if people are feeling disappointed that Hillary lost, this is still good news because, you know, we're being deceived about why we need to be terrified about Donald Trump. But what I didn't expect was that when I started speaking out about that, that I would be so viciously and savagely attacked and turned on and have people cut me off and unfriend me and, you know, everything that you can imagine. So, it really turned my life upside down throughout the year 2017, I lost about 90% of my friends and the life that I thought that I knew. And, you know, and also in the midst of all of that, I was having my entire belief system turned upside down and inside out. And that in itself is a pretty disruptive and jarring thing for a person to go through. So I think to go through something like that and lose your friends at the same time is it's pretty, you know, it's pretty upending to a person's life. But ultimately, it's what kind of led to me starting walk away, because by the time I lost most of my friends, you know, I just thought to myself, it's really it's a shame that there isn't, you know, some sort of network or a community or, you know, support system for people who who get turned on like this, and abandoned like this, when they decide to leave the Democratic Party. So, we'll get on to WalkAway six years in, and it's been a phenomenal success on those personal stories which have really connected with me personally. And to me, that's politically, it's the individual stories of why you walked away. It's not the machine of the entity itself, but it's the individual and where they have their personal journey. Tell me a bit more about you and what it meant for walking away from that, the criticism you faced, but that kind of internal struggle, maybe, which you felt, and why you call yourself a liberal and what you call yourself now. Well, I called myself a liberal, I guess, because the reason why I became a liberal in the first place or I felt pulled toward liberalism is because my belief was that, you know, liberalism was about wanting more equity, equality, opportunity, that people who are liberals were against racism, sexism, you know, that they were for the betterment of mankind and the planet. And our, the oh my God, why can't I think of the word, the world around us? I can't think of the word right now. Climate change, ecology, I don't know the planet, but, you know, what, what I began to see was that, they actually. Liberalism became kind of everything that it claimed to fight against. So, you know, it's, like they to be a liberal meant that you had to be on board with hating white people or or men or, you know, that everything suddenly was about engaging in exactly the behaviors that, you know, I was I'm against. And so that to me started to feel like something was really wrong. And, you know, I'd say it was around 2015. You know, all these incidents started to happen. Like I remember one of the things that started a couple of the things that started to wake me up were. I think around 2015 or 16, I was living in New York city and I, I was sitting in a park having my lunch one day and this guy approached me and he happened to be Hispanic, but he was probably just sort of a mentally unwell homeless person or something. But basically, he kind of like stuck his hand in my face and said that, you know, give me some money, give me some money. And I was like, no, I don't have any money to give you. And then he said you're a privileged white, you're a privileged white piece of, you know. S.h.i.t and and then he hit m he actually physically struck me and I was really shocked and I kind of you know I just was like what just happened, so I went on social media and I just shared the story of what just happened I was like you know this guy came up to me and he hit me and he was demanding money. And when I didn't give it to him, he brought up my race and said that I was privileged. And then he physically struck me and the post went, you know, kind of semi viral because, you know, I wasn't, I didn't have a big following at the time, but it started getting shared a lot. And what I noticed was all these liberal people were jumping in the comments and saying that they didn't believe me and saying, they were like, well, you must, you must be leaving out part of the story and then a lot of people were saying you must have provoked him somehow and you're leaving that part of the story out and it was one of my first real like experiences seeing how the left refuses to hold anybody accountable. If they're non-Caucasian or you know or if they fit into one of their kind of victim identity boxes and the fact that I'm white means that I'm a liar and that I'm not credible. And that if I'm in any way portraying anybody who's non-Caucasian in a way that's unflattering, it's because I'm lying or because I provoked the situation, but I'm not owning up to that or something. And I was like, this is psychotic. I'm not making a big deal out of it. I didn't go crying on social media, but I did share the story. I mean, for all intents and purposes, I am the victim in the story. I mean, I was physically assaulted by a stranger in New York City, but I'm being made to feel like it was my fault because I'm white. And then I started to see that kind of stuff happening more and more too with the LGBT community because I'm a gay man. But once the Supreme Court decided that marriage equality ā€“. It was the law of the land in the U.S. It was like overnight. Suddenly we started hearing from these new identity groups like gender queer and gender fluid and non-binary people in this sort of like radical trans. You know, transgender sect of the LGBT community. And those people started becoming more loud and more vocal and attacking people within the community, saying that if you're a gay male or a white gay male, it means that you're privileged and you're on the top of the LGBTQ privilege hierarchy and you're oppressing the neo trans. And I'm like, what the hell is going on? And so I started to see these sort of like bizarre rumblings from within the left. And that to me felt nothing like why I became a liberal in the first place. So, I mean, those were some of the kind of the initial things that started to push me away. And today I identify as a conservative today, but I think I identify as a conservative because, you know, I'm so used to existing within the two party system of this country. And a lot of people will say, well, there's a difference between a conservative and a Republican. And I agree with that. I think that's true. But I've seen a lot of things, I guess, in the last two or three years that have, I mean, not just disappointed me, but I think maybe even to some degree devastated me about conservatives. And so in a way, to be honest with you, I'm kind of on the brink of finding myself to be kind of politically homeless, I think, once again. I think after I get through this election, I have to do a deep dive emotionally and kind of figure out where do I really belong? Because I'm finding a lot of problems on both sides. I mean, certainly in the UK, I find that I'll be very socially conservative and it's intriguing. And I've met a number of friends. We would have different outlook or different worldviews or different ways of maybe engaging on varying topics. But it's often that we can agree to disagree. There is no anger or hatred that actually the individual, the human being, is important and has intrinsic value. And therefore, hey, if we see things slightly differently. And to me, that's kind of a norm. And that's how I've always accepted on the conservative side in the UK. And on the other side, on the liberal side, on the left side, it seems to be if you don't align with what I think that I hit you. And I've been perplexed by that anger that maybe individuals face, where I've never seen that on the right. And growing up in London, a very mixed city, and it's fine. You agree to disagree. You kind of embrace someone. And, hey, that's fine. I mean, how do you see it coming from the left and maybe acceptance on the right? Yeah. Oh, well, I think, you know, for the most part, the acceptance, I think, has been great. You know, I would say that when I started WalkAway, which was May of 2018, you know, it's been overwhelmingly conservatives. And I'd say even, you know, MAGA people who have really uplifted WalkAway, supported WalkAway, allowed the organization to thrive, you know, kept us going all of these years and gotten behind me. And I haven't found it to be terribly conditional. I'd say that the vast majority of people who support me and support WalkAway don't care about my sexual orientation. Or I'd say that even some people, I think that they actually find it to be a plus of sorts, because I do a lot of events and a lot of speaking engagements and I always stick around afterwards and take pictures with people and hugs and handshakes and things. And, you know, I have people all the time that approach me and say, you know, I have a gay son or grandson or my daughter or, you know, my neighbor, my coworker. And, you know, I so appreciate what you're doing because a lot of my LGBT friends or family or whatever think that because I support Trump that I don't support the LGBT community. And so a lot of people are very grateful that, you know, I'm out there putting myself out there and I think putting kind of a new face on what it means to be gay and Republican or gay and conservative. And so in that way, you know, I think it almost has been helpful with me with a lot a lot of people as well. Now, there are, you know, a small minority of people who, you know, make the sexual orientation thing an issue and it becomes a negative for them. Yeah. I'd say in a way that's, you know, it seems kind of like from another time. But I think that it's such a minute portion of the base that to me, it's not even really worth focusing on. You know, it's always disappointing. I mean, especially when you've got, you know, sometimes I very occasionally I'll get a message or an email from someone saying, you know, I love the work you do. I love the impact you're having, but I just can't get on board with your lifestyle. So, you know, and I'm just like, well, then just don't think about it. I don't know. I don't know. And by the way, my lifestyle is working 24 seven. That that is what my lifestyle is. I am. All I do is work. All I do is try to grow my movement, my organization, fundraise, keep things going, travel. I go to colleges. I do video like that's my lifestyle. I mean, the truth is not that you care or anyone care, but I'm not even dating anybody. Like I don't even have a love life, so I'm like the fact that I happen to be a gay man I don't even know why you're thinking about that because I have no love life so why don't you just stop thinking about it if it bothers you, because you know there's nothing to think about but I don't know. Get that you take something and you drive it forward and that becomes who you are as an organization or an entity or a movement. But, I mean, so six years in, May 2018, you put that video up. That really went viral and that launched the WalkAway. So six and a half years later, we find ourselves an election, which to me as a Brit, and I find my guest hosting in the war room talking about the US election, but it is so important. It's not just an American election. It is a worldwide election in terms of a huge range of issues that we find ourselves in. But tell us about the WalkAway movement for this election, because it is so essential. It is so important. And I think this election will define not only where America stands, but where we stand worldwide in terms of freedom. Oh, I mean, yeah, it's I'm I'm trying to keep a level head, I guess, as best as possible going into this election, because the truth is, I like I think the vast majority of people, who are paying attention to politics in this country. I'm having pretty massive, you know, election anxiety. And for me personally, you know, I think there's so much at stake for all of us, everybody. But if you're somebody who's been through what I've been through for the last three and a half years, almost four years, being targeted by the Department of Justice, by the FBI, having your life turned upside down, being just brutally stomped by the full might of the federal government. The idea that we could be subscribing to four more years of that or possibly even worse. I mean, it strikes levels of anxiety in me that are like indescribable. I mean, quite frankly. So to me, there's, there's so much at stake that it's like, it's not hyperbolic for me to say that. I, don't know where we go. If Kamala Harris ends up getting elected and becoming our president, I don't know how we overcome that or recover from that. And I don't know what four, four more years of this type of type of extremist Democrat leadership does to our country as a whole. But, I know that it's a possibility and I know that if she does get elected, that, you know, I'm going to keep working. I'm going to keep doing everything I can for as long as I can to try to be out there on the front lines of turning things around and trying to recover from the situation. But you know, for the time being, I just have to hope for the best because nobody really knows. And it really is a nail biter. I mean, I have absolutely no idea what's going to happen on November 5th or the days or, God forbid, the weeks following. I mean, they're already preparing us for saying that we may not know the election results for weeks. So I don't know. And I feel utterly powerless as a Brit watching what's happening across the pond and thinking, this is so important for the world at large, for the right for us to speak freely on a range of issues. And America, you need to get together. You need to get out. You need to get out the vote. You need to be praying for Trump. You need to do absolutely everything. There's nothing else that matters over the next two and a half weeks, but actually getting out the vote and making sure that happens. But, Tammy, you put out a recent video. I think the text was, how did America, once thriving nation, fail in a not so distant dystopian future? Got tyrants, teachers of captured society, how America was destroyed from within. You put that out. I think it'll last maybe there or two. Tell us about tell us about that and what you're putting out and how you are engaging with the WalkAway movement with the voters to show that actually you can leave the democrats. Actually it is important you walk away if you have a belief system if you have a worldview if you have something that you hold dear in terms of what america means you can you can WalkAway tell us about that latest video and how that is coaxing people to leave the democrats. Yeah so we it hasn't even been out for 24 hours yet so yeah we just I just released that within within the last 24 hour period but it's you know before i got involved in the world of politics and before I started theWalkAway campaign. I had a background as,an actor, I would say, actor writer, with kind of, I would say that I kind of gravitated toward the medium of filmmaking and things like that. And so I I'm very much a creative person, at heart, much more than I am a politician or a pundit as far as I'm concerned. And if I, you know, if I could just make my living only doing creative projects, that's pretty much what I would do. But, you know, since I feel like I have this privilege of having the organization in the platform, I like to sort of integrate into what we do kind of art pieces and I think interesting and creative ways to try to make people think or see a situation rather than just doing like a traditional sort of, you know, political video or a political message or just, you know, sitting in my car, yelling all of my opinions into my iPhone or, or whatever. So, in this latest one, we made a, when I say we, I have a very small team, that assists me with, you know, graphic design editing, you know, we all kind of work together, just a couple of us, but we came up with this idea to make this sort of like dystopian future short. It's only five minutes or something, and people really should watch it. I think it's really, really good. But basically, kind of the concept of it is that it takes place sometime in the nondescript, but not too far off future. After America has fallen, the country has gone down. And essentially like a, you know, perhaps like a future civilization has sort of unearthed this film learning how America fell, how did it happen? And so in this video, it's shot in the style of like an old kind of 1950s educational film, which we were able to kind of justify that concept by saying, well, you know, the country fell. And so, you know, we lost our prosperity and our progress and everything. So we're almost kind of like, you know, this future civilization sort of starting from scratch so they don't even have the technology that we have today so that's why it looks kind of like old-timey but anyway through the through this medium of kind of this old-timey looking film there. We're explaining the four steps that tyrants use to destroy free nations and to take over. And so basically, you know, step one is the infiltration of the press and the media, television shows, things like that. And then step two is essentially, you know, infiltrate the education system and turn young people against their parents and against their country. Step three is take over one of America's major political parties. And then step four is to basically eradicate anyone from the government who objects to the regime and install people who are infinitely loyal to the establishment. But we use these really interesting images of people like Mark Zuckerberg or the women from The View or AOC or Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden. We show all these images of basically how they fall into this this plan. And it's very entertaining and I think it's very jarring. I mean, people have watched it and said they think it's very disturbing. One person told me they thought it was one of the most powerful, kind of portrayals of what could happen if we continue down the path that we're on. So I would highly recommend everybody watch it. It's on my, Brandon Strzok and WalkAway campaign X account. It's on my Facebook account. It's on our YouTube channel, but it's being severely, suppressed on you. I mean, I don't even think it's gotten 2000 views on YouTube, which is insane. Because we're at something like 600,000 views on X or something. But if you go to the WalkAway Campaign YouTube channel, it's there and it's called Got Tyrants, How America Fell. Well, people can, it's one of the many intriguing situations we find ourselves in this election that Elon Musk is the free speech champion on Twitter on X. And we find that in the UK as you do stateside. But, I mean, what were the specific, there are a whole range of issues. And the left seems to have moved away from a working class party that supports the underdog and those who are not part of the high echelons of society. The left seems to have moved away towards an ideology, a woke ideology, of pushing an LGBT agenda across the board, irrespective of what happens, especially in the schooling system, pushing open borders, pushing the dismantling of what the American dream is about. I mean, when you look at it personally, how do you see that as the trigger point? We all have a trigger point of what changes us politically. And you've touched on that at the beginning. But the immigration issue, I guess the sexualization of children that we've seen pushed on the schooling system, the free money for everyone, the massive debt that's been ramped up. I mean, for you personally, what kind of those issues fitted in with you saying, this just isn't working? Well, primarily for me, it was the betrayal of the media. I mean, the realization that I had been lied to and deceived by the media that I believed that I could trust. I mean, that to me was first and foremost and primarily the number one thing that shocked me awake. But then I think as it pertains to like cultural issues, certainly matters. Well, so, you know, LGBT stuff is close to my heart because I, for better or for worse, am a part of that community. And so I think that the fear mongering around Trump and his supporters as it pertains to LGBT people, that was a big thing for me. Because I know that so many people who happen to be gay or lesbian or whatever, they, They they don't realize that they're being lied to by the Democrats and by the media. And so they're kind of suspended in a perpetual state of fear and this belief that they have no option to be anything but a Democrat and no option to do anything except for believe the stories they're being told by the Democrats. And it's so manipulative and exploitative. But another thing to our race issues, I have a real issue with that. And I think we saw that in 2020 more than anything when George Floyd and the whole Black Lives Matter debacle, you know, just took siege, I think, on our country and our culture. To me, it was 100 percent the most detrimental thing in terms of racial relations that's happened in my lifetime. And and I think it really fundamentally changed the way that we all feel about each other on no matter what side of the aisle you're on, even if you're on the left. And even if you're buying into the big lie about George Floyd and the big lie about police brutality and things like that, I think that it forever changed the way all of us feel about each other in terms of race relations in a way that is very negative. And and I think it'll take us a very long time to move past that so I mean it completely. I think eroded and destroyed so much decades of progress that we made on the issue of race in this country and you know people don't really talk about it they they just sort of they know better, because we also you know exist in the state of cancel culture that if you tell the truth about how you feel about race relations you know you put yourself in the line of fire to lose everything, but if people were being honest and felt safe to tell the truth about how they were feeling they would tell you that you know they fundamentally don't feel the same anymore about racial progress as they used to and that you know. I think people are now more skeptical more suspicious more mistrusting have negative feelings about each other about race that they didn't have before 2020. So, you know, it's things like that, that to me are just really kind of heartbreaking and devastating about how the left's just completely dishonest and duplicitous and really kind of authoritarian demands that they want to place on all of us about their ideology. It's been completely to the detriment of us unifying with one another or coming together as a country or coming together as a people it's been nothing but destructive. Yeah, because in London, and I found it different living in London compared to living in Ireland, very different culture, concept of blogging. But people just get on and colour or sexuality doesn't really come into it. And you all feel as though you're a Londoner, you live here. And maybe in somewhere like New York, maybe that kind of still happens. That mixing up of ideas and colour and belief systems and everyone just gets on. I find it so strange how the left have taken this divide and rule, I guess, idea and ruled it out worldwide to say, well, this is why we're different, instead of saying, well, what actually unites us, what connects us, What makes us come together and make a nation important? And yet the left are intrinsically, I guess, engaged on coming up with what breaks us apart. And it seems to be such a destructive ideology. Yeah. Well, in addition to that, I would also add that in order to try to make their point or force their point forward, They actually engage in just about every behavior that they're alleging to be fighting against on behalf of these different, you know, so they'll tell you that, you know, well, we're standing up for black people because black people are silenced and their voices are oppressed and, you know, they're not allowed to have the same opportunities as other people. OK, but then to fight for that cause, they're saying that if you're white, you need to shut up. You're not allowed to have an opinion. This is your time to sit down, be quiet and do what you're told. And so, I mean, it's exactly the same oppressive, authoritarian, abusive and kind of subjugating behavior that they're claiming to fight against on behalf of these other people. And what's really interesting to me, and I think probably that thing more than anything, is what really... Created all these negative feelings in me in the post like George Floyd cultural era is I just you know, I've been told so many times in the last four years that, you know, it's time for a reckoning with white people and, you know, that it's time for white people to have tough conversations. They don't say it like that. They just say this is a time for tough conversations. But what's interesting is that it's not a two way street. If you try to have a tough conversation with either a black liberal or a white liberal who's arguing on behalf of the black ideology. And you say well let's have a tough conversation about the reality of police brutality crime statistics and how the things that you're alleging are happening are actually incredibly rare in fact so rare that most of the time you guys have to make up hate crime hoaxes to try to push this narrative forward. I mean, every camera conceivable went running when Jussie Smollett claimed that he was the victim of anti-black MAGA hatred. But the whole thing had to be manufactured and made up because it happens so infrequently that you can't find a real example of it actually taking place. But you don't want to have that tough conversation. You don't want to be on the receiving end of the tough conversation. You just want to be dishing out and doling out the tough conversation, which is most mostly a pile of lies and false assertions and fabrications. And you want me to just sit there and you want to force feed it down my throat because we're now living in this era that, you know, it's allegedly the time for white people to just shut up and take it. And so it's I don't know. It's just it's very interesting to me how on the one hand, they'll claim that, you know, we're trying to better the world by fighting against oppression and silencing people's voices and all this stuff. But those are exactly the tactics that they use to try to force their agenda forward. I think utter BS is the term without that. But tell me about the personal videos, because I've watched a number of them of high profile individuals and just general public people in the public getting sick and tired of actually had enough of voting for the Democrat Party and saying actually enough is nothing. Want to vote differently but tell us about those personal stories because Right, so you know from, the beginning WalkAway has been a testimonial campaign from the moment that I launched it six and a half years ago and so at this point we've acquired tens of thousands of written and video testimonials people sharing their stories about why they're walking away from the democrat party. And it's very unfortunate because we started as a Facebook group and Facebook banned us in January of 2021 with no explanation, no opportunity for recourse, no ability to appeal. And we were truly never given a reason why. And we know for a fact that we did not violate any terms of service with Facebook because the only thing we posted in the WalkAway group was the testimonials and real stories of people and some promotional posts about if we did events or fundraising or selling merch or things like that. So there was no reason to get rid of us. But when they did that, they deleted tens of thousands of WalkAway stories. Now, we still have a lot on our YouTube channel and we've launched a new Facebook group where we're slowly building back And getting more and more stories. But yeah. These stories are all different people Black, brown, white, straight, gay, old, young, fat, thin, everything in between every type of person coming together just speaking up and sharing their stories and it's been incredibly powerful. And I think through the virality of these stories, you know, more and more people learn about the WalkAway movement they learn about the reasons why they should walk away if they're still hanging on to their allegiance to the left and then people feel inspired to join our movement and share their own story. And, you know, the, the stories, each one is different and the reasons for each one is different, but there's a common theme of each one, which is betrayal that at some point or another, someone had an awakening to the realization that they're being lied to and betrayed by the Democrats. And, you know, whatever it is, the catalyst that caused that is different for every person. But, the result is the same that once they see that betrayal, they can't unsee it. And then, you know, ultimately people end up, not being able to go back and not being able to support any longer. I mean, for you, it's a normal thinking through of where you fit politically and whether or not you want to reject where you're being. And no one's done this. I mean, have you sat and thought, why is no one actually done videos of this? This ideology is bankrupt and I need to walk away not necessarily that you embrace trump or you embrace republican ideology but actually where I am in terms of political ideology isn't working and I need to walk away. I find it intriguing that you've come up with this idea of just walking away from your political belief system that no one else has come up with before. Well, yeah. And yes, I agree. I mean, I think the idea was a really good one. And I think it was needed. Again, I would say that I think what I bring to the table in the conservative movement is fresh, creative ideas that tend to resonate with people, I think, in a unique and interesting way. You know I've had a lot of success in the last six and a half years, but I don't think that I've had a lot of success, because I'm you know some brilliant political strategist or you know some like poli-sci prodigy or something like that. It's not like I think the reason why I resonated so much with people is, because I'm a genuine and authentic person who came into the conservative movement with a lot of creativity and ideas that I think are unique. And that I think is what has resonated with people so much about me and what I do. And the idea for testimonials, to me, it just felt like the most logical thing. We're all sort of having this common experience, but nobody's really talking about it. And, and you know what, to be honest with you, you know, in this January, in just a few months, I will be 10 months or excuse me, I will be 10 years sober. And I began my journey of sobriety, you know, in AA. And so I, bet probably subconsciously I was even inspired by AA, you know, just like going to meetings and having people, you know, sit around in a circle, sharing their personal accounts and their feelings and their experiences and kind of supporting each other. And probably subconsciously, I thought to myself, why don't we just have a digital version of that for people leaving the Democratic Party? I don't know if I've ever considered that, but I'm sure that probably was a big part in what inspired me to do that. I will say that what kind of bothers me at the beginning of this conversation, I told you that a lot of things have disappointed me and devastated me about the conservative side of the aisle and kind of led me to this place where part of me feels like I have to kind of have a little bit of self exploration after the election to figure out how I feel about a lot of things. But one thing that bothers me about the conservative side of the aisle is that when somebody comes in and has good ideas and unique ideas, rather than everybody just getting behind that person and supporting them, which a lot of people have gotten behind me and supported me. But a lot of people on the right have actually, rather than getting behind me and supporting me, I'd say tried to kind of co-opt what I was doing and try to kind of take it and make it their own. You know, seeing the success of it and seeing that there's potential there for fundraising or attention or media opportunities or what have you. They said, well, I'm going to make this WalkAway thing about me, you know, and I'm going to. So it started getting kind of broken apart and fragmented. You know, all these different groups started saying, well, we're the we're the black WalkAway and we're the Latino WalkAway and we're the Chinese WalkAway, you know, and and doing their own thing. And then and I'm even seeing in these last months leading up to the election, all of these different organizations and groups saying, oh, we're going to do testimonial videos about people leaving the Democrats and supporting Trump. And I'm like, that's WalkAway. I mean, you're literally we're already doing that, you know, but it's unfortunate that, you know, a lot of people on the right will they'll take a good idea. And rather than just get behind it and say, you know what, you had a great idea. You're doing a great job executing it. Let's just further amplify and lift up what you're doing. They want to reach in and pull it apart. And it's just it's very frustrating. And not only frustrating, but it does a great disservice to all of us because all it does is sort of dilute the success of this thing that was happening. And then ultimately, it may end
Bill Walton - Meritocracy, Media, and American Values: A Critical Discussion
Oct 14 2024
Bill Walton - Meritocracy, Media, and American Values: A Critical Discussion
Welcome to "Hearts of Oak," where we engage with the titans of thought, the mavericks of media, and the architects of America's future. In today's episode, host Peter welcomes a guest whose life story reads like a blueprint for success in multiple arenas: from the stages of New York to the boardrooms of finance, and now to the forefront of media and political discourse.  Our guest transitioned from a budding theater enthusiast to a titan in finance, steering a company from $600 million to a colossal $9 billion in assets. But it's his latest venture into the world of media that has us captivated. With a platform dedicated to fostering in-depth, unfiltered conversations with leading thinkers, he's not just another voice in the crowded media landscape; he's a clarion call for a return to meritocratic values and a deeper dive into the issues that shape our society. In this episode, we'll explore how a background in finance fuels a passion for media, why he believes alternative voices are crucial for democracy, and how he's tackling the elephant in the roomā€”divisiveness in American politics. From the implications of recent books like "The Israel Test" to the very real fears about electoral integrity, this conversation promises to be as enlightening as it is engaging. Join us as we delve into the mind of a man who not only watches the world turn but actively shapes its discourse, aiming to bridge the gap between the political elite and the everyday American. This is not just an interview; it's a window into understanding the complexities of our times through the lens of one who's been there, done that, and is now determined to change the narrative.  Tune in for "The Maverick's Microphone," where every dialogue is a journey towards a clearer, more united future for America. Connect with Bill Walton  The Bill Walton Show | Money Culture Power The Bill Walton Show | Substack The Bill Walton Show Podcast Series ā€“ Apple Podcasts The Bill Walton Show - YouTube Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                         x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/   Transcript (Hearts of Oak) And hello, Hearts of Oak. Thank you so much for joining us with a brand new guest stateside, and that is Bill Walton. Bill, thank you so much for your time today. Great to be here. I've thoroughly enjoyed the Bill Walton Show and everything that you've put out over maybe the last six or so years, and we'll delve into that. But just for a UK audience, I know the war room posse, the US audience will know you well, but delving into your background, you serve as chairman of Allied Capital Corporation, and you built that from 600 million in assets to 9 billion. And by the time you left in 2009, you founded Rush River Entertainment. You've been leader and board member of many organizations, including Heritage Foundation, CPAC, CNP. And you were very involved in the Trump transition team heading up the economic, I think, agenda, the federal economic agencies looking at that. You've got phenomenal and that doesn't do justice. But I see you as a media figure, and I think many of your viewers may also, your extensive background in leadership, executive, investor, entrepreneur, and now media. Maybe I can ask you about that step from your background where I guess the world was your oyster. You could pick anything in those different sectors that you were involved in. But what led you to start the Bill Walton Show? Well, it's a combination of things you know as you mentioned. I've got a background in in in theater the arts and film and I not not me people many people know this, but I was I tried to be an actor in New York when I was 22, 23 years old and after about a year of doing that I'd done well on my on my business my business test. Maybe I guess what they call it, I don't remember what they call it now, but anyway. I decided that maybe after several auditions where I wasn't quite right for the part, maybe I should try something else. I went into finance at about age 24 and then ended up on Wall Street and ended up knowing a lot about investments, finance, and ended up leading Allied Capital Corporation, which was, you mentioned, $9, $10 billion of private equity investments and commercial real estate and small business lending. Along the way, I got to know a lot of people, a lot of smart, interesting people. As you mentioned, I served on many boards. I thought, gee, wouldn't it be great to create a show where I could just talk with these smart people, bring out things in an extended conversation where people could hear things that they may not hear, and certainly on cable. Now, since I started out, there are a lot more podcasts that are going for, you know, longer durations. None of us are quite a Joe Rogan length, but anyway, so anyway, that was the spark, and it's been a boutique effort for a while, and just in this last, I took the summer off, and I'm just back and have hired a PR firm, AJ Rice, who's an amazing young man. I think you You also work with him as well. Now we're beginning to get the word out about the show. This just this past Monday, we put out a show with Jamie Raskin here in Maryland, who's a Democrat congressman. I think he was on the J6 committee who said, look, if Trump wins the election, we're not going to let him take his seat on Inauguration Day. And when you've got sitting Democrat congressmen, presumably responsible statesmen, if I can use that word, saying things like that, you know you've got a big problem. And I think on the other side, most of us have been with Trump for a long time. I worked for him, as you mentioned, in the 2016 transition team. I headed up all the financial related agencies, writing the plans for those agencies when he became president. Just as a sidebar, I'd like to say he used every one of them, but Donald's not really a plan guy, so it didn't exactly happen. But the point is, those of us who've been with Trump are deeply suspicious. That's putting it mildly of what happened in 2020. I mean, what did we have, 15, 20 million more votes that came in? At the time, the whole country was shut down, and 50%, 60% of the ballots were mail-in, and we've discovered massive amounts of issues with those. And put the voting machines aside, and whether they're hooked up to the internet, there are just plenty, and I know plenty of people that have gone into these individual states, Nevada, Georgia, whatever, to take a look at it. And they're all convinced that there were, if not fraud, at least manipulation of the outcome. And so we're looking at that and we're all worried that, gee, even if Donald Trump has 55, 60 percent of American voters, and I think the numbers are that high, we still may not win. And so we're approaching, what are we, 25 days out from the election? And so that's big issue, number one. And, you know, I think the world hinges on the outcome of this election because if Kamala Harris ends up as president, God help what's going on in Israel and the Middle East. You know, the Ukraine thing has got to resolve itself, I think, through some sort of satisfactory negotiation. but there's no indication that Biden-Harris would have any inclination to try to bring this thing to an end. So the election is number one, and people have never felt more hatred towards the other side. And I don't know quite how we get out of this toxic mess, but nevertheless, we have to. I mean, you look at, I've had the privilege of being at three Trump rallies and having a picture with a man himself as well. And my background in politics, I've never seen at a political event like a Trump rally. The enthusiasm, the passion, there is something there. It's great. It is. But then the media are beginning to wake up. They're beginning to recognize that Kamala is not the great leader that they all want. They're mocking her for being a drunk, for her performance in media. I mean, how does that play, how you see the media? Because the media on the left, it is Trump derangement syndrome, but they're realizing we don't want Kamala either. And it's a weird situation they find themselves in. Well, the more Kamala, remember, she was roundly criticized for not getting out and letting herself be interviewed or being seen by the voters. Well, she is now getting out, and the more she shows up on a Howard Stern or, you know, the other talk shows, I think it was Colbert was the other night, the worse she does. Her numbers go down the more people see her, and, you know, people notice that she fails in answer any of the questions substantively. I can't remember, and I try not to watch her too much. It's too painful, but I can't remember a substantive policy answer that she's given Americans about why she would be any different from Joe Biden, and she can't even explain why what Joe Biden did was successful. I mean, the thing we need to keep in mind is that the Democrats never had an economic growth agenda. They started at a day one climate change. They wanted to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, gasoline. They loved high gasoline prices because people would drive less. The regulatory regime has kicked in with all the climate-related regulations. And then they had a government-wide approach towards diversity, equity, and inclusion. And I don't think it would be interesting to do an AI search of Joe Biden's speeches of the last three and a half years to see before the election season how often he mentioned economic growth. I doubt if he did at all. That's just not where they've been. Now they're trying to pivot, show that they've been doing something for the American people, and they can't do it. There's no evidence. Then the other thing is true is that people still are worried to talk to pollsters about saying there are for Donald Trump. And one of the polls I find kind of interesting is, I can't remember who does it. It's probably worth promoting it. I'll try to come up with that. But he asks people not who they're going to vote for, but he says, well, I know you may not want to tell me how you're going to vote, but how's your neighbor going to vote? And when people start talking about how their neighbors are voting, Trump is of the overwhelming favorite when people are talking about the sentiment of people around them. And, you know, I'm in the D.C. area, and you can feel the Democrats getting nervous. And, you know, I have a very interesting insight into this. My dentist, who's on our side, we talk about politics all the time, is dentist to all of the leading Democrat operatives in Northwest Washington. And they're all sitting in the dentist chair, and they're talking about having to leave the country if Trump wins. They're getting very scared, and that's just in the last month or so. So they're worried. Both sides are worried, and I can't remember a political time that it was more fraught. You're very brave talking to your dentist about politics. I wouldn't even dare go there. Well, that's, well, yeah, we. Very dangerous topic for someone with a drill in your mind. And he's a volatile, he's a volatile Italian. And he starts talking to me and making these points. And I say, Vince, Vince, okay. I'm with you. Is it that, I mean you look at what policies and you talk about a dearth of economic policies but kamala basically is putting forward that Trump is really dangerous so vote for her it's not that she's anything it's that she's not the other person, but it's the economy and the the border it's mass immigration that's a mass immigration affected the UK in the last election it affected Europe in the parliamentary elections. European part across Europe and is the number one or number two issue in America for this election and the democrats don't seem to be addressing either of those and to me they can't win if they don't address the two biggest topics that people have. I completely agree and they're not addressing it because the great replacement theory is the great replacement fact and it's very obvious now that this immigration that's been, I won't even call it immigration, the flood of people that have been allowed to come into the United States. And we're also seeing a lot of people coming across the Canadian border. That's up something like 50 times the number that came across just a few years ago. So it's both borders. They're wide open. And we're ending up with towns that have 4,000 people in them pre-invasion. Now they have 2,000 additional Haitians in the mix. And whether they're illegal or they've just been imported, it doesn't really matter. The point is it's a massive cultural change. They're dependent on government services. They come here for government services, and they vote for that. And so it's interesting. They're trying to move a lot of these people into the red states to maybe hope to tip the balance there. And, you know, you can tell you, you see what's happened in Europe. I mean, what's happened with the, with the Islamic immigration and the way Brussels is absolutely turned the other, a blind eye to how much it's changing their culture. You know, forget the economy, but the culture of, of these countries is precious. And, and you degrade your culture at great risk. And I think we're seeing that we've already seen it in Europe and we're seeing it in the United States, same issue. And Brussels, 30% Islamic. Paris, 15%. London, 12%, 13%. So we are seeing massive changes in our major cities. And a part of it is because Europe doesn't know what it stands for. It's lost sense of national identity and chipped away at the nation state. America seems to have a unified understanding of what it means to be American, which is under attack. And you see people when they become an American citizen, there is pride in taking on that new identity, that new role. And that's been a thread throughout the US history. It still seems to be there. Is that a fair assessment? You may not think it's as strong and that's fair enough, but you still do have that understanding of what it means to be an American citizen. I think it's become even stronger among the people that would be voting for Donald Trump and want to preserve American exceptionalism. And remember, the exceptionalism isn't based on military might or the size of the economy. It's based on the fact we're rooted in our constitution and all the rights and protections that it provides. And, you know, the American idea is alive and well, and I think people have become even more aware of how valuable it is and how we need to save it. So in one sense, in terms of making people aware of how special America is, it's more true than ever. We can't take it for granted. And the other thing, I'm vice chairman of CPAC. Matt Schlapps, our chairman. And we had Matt on a couple of weeks ago. Yeah, Matt is ā€“ yeah, I had Matt on my show a couple of weeks ago with Mercedes. And Mercedes and Matt, that's the ā€“ I highly recommend you get them both on together. They're really good. Anyway, we do ā€“ we have our CPAC conferences, not just here in the United States, but we have them in Japan, Brazil, I'm trying to think ā€“ Italy. You know, we're trying to think of the number. We've had Hungary. And what we're seeing is people are saying, they come up to us and say, you know, it's important that America stays America. We're counting on America to preserve all the ideals and, and you know, virtues that make life worth living. And so that you've got, you've got to win in America because we're counting on you. And so that, you know, brings us back to our conversation about this election. It's not important just to the United States. It's important to the free world. And a CPAC exceptional job over in Mexico as well. And we talked earlier on about our mutual friend, Robert Malone, and seems to be traveling all over to different CPAC events. But that's exciting because my fear is that America may withdraw in presenting the freedoms that are the American dream. And in CPAC, I see that still burning brightly and willing to take it to the world. And sometimes my concern is America may be inward focused. But actually, that is an outward evangelism of the truths and dreams and freedoms that America have. And I think that is vital to continue. Well, I don't think we'll become inward focused in all those things that matter in terms of exporting or sharing our values and wanting to make that crystal clear about what we stand for. I do think we'll be more inward focused when it comes to military adventurism. I mean, I can't think of a war America has successfully executed since World War II. And then at World War II, we had an awful lot of help even then to win that one. So we're not very good at this going into countries and trying to bring about regime change. In fact, we've been a catastrophe. And I think we've got a new modesty among a lot of us that say, well, gee, we want to be engaged in the world, but not that way. And I think that would be a very good thing and not have us, you know, the defense contract. The military-industrial complex is real, and it is very much alive and well when you look at the way the Ukraine war has been prosecuted. And, you know, I think we'll probably see that dialed back when Trump becomes president. And you talk the military industrial complex the other two big other players in terms of, I guess, lobbying or big pharma and food and of course with the Maha announcement with Bobby Kennedy which was a genius announcement and I kind of think you want a campaign you want to make the public aware, but you don't want to let the cat out the bag with these lobbying groups because they're going to fear that focusing on what they do. I mean, how do you see that? Because to me, it's phenomenal that Trump is willing to go after those industries that are causing damage to American health and American outlook. But I wonder if he's, for want of a better word, pissed them off too much. That's a very tough one. You know, I think the campaign has been smart to underplay a lot of that there. And in particular with this idea, I mean, most of the Democrats here are terrified that the Republicans are going to do to them what they did to the Republicans with the lawfare. You know, I can think of hundreds, if not a couple thousand people who worked in the Trump administration that have been victims of lawfare. We've got to be careful not to emphasize that. And I, in fact, don't think Trump will pursue that as president. But the food industry has created an obesity epidemic in the United States, which is just shameful. And the pharmaceutical industry, same thing. I mean, the dependence on pharmaceutical drugs is overwhelming, and I think Kennedy coming in, we might have something that focuses on health instead of expensive drug treatments and get back to a food supply that is stable. You know, the food system, I don't know if you've had Brooke Miller on your show, American Cattlemen. Yeah, we've had Brooke, Brooke's great, yes. You know, that's a real phenomena. And there's a cartel of four beef processors in the United States that are controlling this. And that's alarming. That's a problem. And that's something else we need to wear of. But you're right. You can't. I think Trump's already got every single lobbyist in Washington lining up against him because their self-interest depends on him losing. So he's got that to fight. But I still think we're going to push through and win. I believe that there's no alternative but Trump, that patriotism, and wanting the best for Americans, which seems to be a bad issue from the left. But in terms of media, kind of finishing off on this, that we had 2016, which Fox was the driver with the big name behind Trump. And then 2020 that changed you know the rise of alternative media and you obviously were in the mix in that very much part of that and then Newsmax away in on tv and 2024 that's just built where the alternative media is this juggernaut. How do you how do you see that working because for the first time it's not necessarily just cable news it's actually a plethora of many, podcasts and organizations that are putting the information out, which is uncontrollable, I guess, to the left, which scares them so much. But how do you see that the role of media playing in terms of getting the message out to the voters? Well, there's still, I mean, the problem we have is that the alternative media that we're part of and many others, we're doing a fantastic job. And also not just the podcast world, but the print world. Apps like Substack have got very, very interesting writing going on and lots of research and lots of analysis about what is true. The problem is that I think Rasmussen And one of them, I know one of the pollsters I know said that, you know, the problem is that only 8% of Americans talk about politics in any given week. And so for getting the word out to the people like us who are passionately engaged in this, you know, it's a war, I think we're doing a fabulous job. But it's the casual, it's what Rush Limbaugh called the low information voter that we have to, I still think we have to worry about. And the media, the view, people like that still have a real impact on culture. Interestingly, the Taylor Swift endorsement didn't seem to help. The only thing that seemed to hurt was her own sales, which cheered me up a bit. But I think we still got to fight because the casual voter is still getting information from the usual sources. I believe. And I've seen Trump on many small, not smaller podcasts, actually, but podcasts more for the Gen Z, for a different audience. And it's been, he said it was his son that got him onto a number of podcasts. And you kind of see an individual in Trump that's willing to go and change. Did you see him with Patrick Bet David? No, I haven't seen that one. No, no. Oh, it's great. I mean, this is Trump's element. He's on fire. I mean, he does great with these guys. And yeah, I'm really happy he's doing that. And as I said, for those of us that are engaged and maybe even just people casually, he might be getting the word out that way. But I think that was a very smart move. And whoever told him to do it gave him the right advice. I've enjoyed that. Bill, I love having you on. I have huge, respect for the work that you're doing in your name synonymous with, with media now and getting the message out. So, it is a real honor having you on and appreciate you sharing with our audience your thoughts on a range of issues. Well, I'm thrilled To be on your show. I mean, you're doing a very good job getting the truth out. And so I'm happy to do a, maybe we'll do a home and away. And when you, I'd love to get you in studio here sometime when you're next in the States and we can get into the other side, because you asked about my podcast. I've got a lot of curiosity. I want to find out where you think Europe is going to end up, and I think that bears, it's a tremendous problem, and I'm worried about America going the way of Europe. I think with many Americans, I've tried to be a warning to certainly the issue of demographics of mass immigration and abandoning the nation state and abandoning Christianity and what that will mean the transition stuff with ketamine? It goes on and on so, but no, I hope that we can be a warning to the US and change our ways or else we will end up like Europe. But thank you for your time Bill. Okay. Thank you.
The Week According To . . . Laurence Fox
Oct 12 2024
The Week According To . . . Laurence Fox
We are delighted to have on Laurence Fox this week where we discuss critical challenges of our time, from the disconcerting lack of clarity in our political leadership to the encroaching threats on free speech, the evolving cultural fabric of our society, and the controversial aspects of immigration and mental health policies. Expect an unflinching dialogue that seeks not only to address these issues but to galvanize a movement towards preserving our democratic essence and cultural heritage. Laurence Fox is an English actor, musician, broadcaster, and leader of The Reclaim Party. Laurence graduated from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in 2001. He debuted as a screen actor in 2001ā€™s The Hole, directed by Nick Hamm. He is likely best known in the entertainment world for his 10 year stint as James Hathaway in the TV show Lewis. In 2020, Fox criticized both the George Floyd riots, and the COVID vaccine mandates, coming from the Conservative point of view. He then founded the Reclaim Party, from which he unsuccessfully ran for mayor. Since this, he has been ever-present in the media, denouncing political correctness.  Connect with Laurence and Reclaim Party... š•                  x.com/LozzaFox    @LozzaFox                      x.com/TheReclaimParty   @TheReclaimParty                      reclaimparty.co.uk Interview recorded  11.10.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                         x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Links to topics... less coherent Kamala https://x.com/LozzaFox/status/1844643655463624888  it is this simple. https://x.com/LozzaFox/status/1842836756950827228 two tier https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1844416001657668033 uniparty   https://x.com/LozzaFox/status/1844360684966199686 tommy https://x.com/LozzaFox/status/1843689900429746375 climate change  https://x.com/BBCSport/status/1844428462418809209 disgrace https://x.com/AFpost/status/1844431411979354202 meanwhile  https://x.com/KidRock/status/1844508598950559807 civilised societies  https://x.com/LozzaFox/status/1844126566613410288  preacher burning dollars https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/10/sadiq-khan-tfl-advert-tube-islamic-preacher-burning-dollar/ drug dealing quacks  https://x.com/LozzaFox/status/1843636190525972507 treason https://x.com/LozzaFox/status/1843272005308870759
Major (Ret) Russ Cooper - The Patriot Pilot: Charting a Course for Canada's Future through C3RF
Oct 10 2024
Major (Ret) Russ Cooper - The Patriot Pilot: Charting a Course for Canada's Future through C3RF
Welcome to Hearts of Oak, where we explore the stories of individuals who embody the spirit of resilience and advocacy. Today, we're privileged to have on the show Major (Ret.) Russ Cooper, a man whose life has soared through the skies as a fighter pilot and now navigates the contentious terrain of civil liberties in Canada.  From his distinguished service in the Persian Gulf War to his subsequent career at Air Canada, Major Cooper's perspective from the cockpit offered him unique insights into the world. But it was upon retiring that he found himself drawn into a different kind of battleā€”one for the soul and freedom of his country.  Join us as we delve into Major Cooper's journey from the air to activism, sparked by his concerns over Motion M-103 and the perceived threats to Canadian values of unity and free speech. His fight has led him to co-found the Canadian Citizens for Charter Rights and Freedoms, an organization championing individual rights amidst what he sees as a growing tide of restrictive legislation.  Today's episode is not just about one man's fight; it's about understanding the challenges to our freedoms and the call to action for every citizen to stand up for the principles that define us. Stay tuned for an enlightening conversation that touches on the heart of what it means to be Canadian. Interview recorded 9.10.2024 Connect with Russ and C3RF... Major (Ret.) Russ Cooper: https://www.canadiancitizens.org/ Canadian Citizens For Charter Rights And Freedoms (C3RF) is a group of Canadians whose mission is to educate Canadians about threats to their Charter Rights, advocate to protect Charter Rights and Freedoms, and propose countering legislation and regulatory frameworks especially focused on freedom of expression. Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                         x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Transcript (Hearts of Oak) And hello, Hearts of Oak. Thank you so much for joining us once again with a brand new guest over in Canada, and that is Major Retired Russ Cooper. Russ, thank you so much for giving us your time today. Oh, thank you, Peter. It's a real honour to join you, today. Great to have you on, and thanks to the one and only Valerie Price for connecting us, as she does with many, many people. And it's always good to have someone like that working in the background, isn't it? Well, I tell you, it's amazing what she does. She gets a lot of people started in the area of civil liberties, and she's responsible for my start. I started, I guess, popping off writing this and writing that, and it was her and her website that gave me a public profile and got me going way back in, what was it, 2016. And that probably story could be retold by many, many people that we have all bumped into worldwide. But before we get in, CanadianCitizens.org is the website, and that is the organization you founded and are present of, Canadian Citizens for Charter Rights and Freedoms, or C3RF. All the links will be in the description. And we want to talk about the work that really came together, I think, on the Islamophobia bill back in 2017. So, we'll get into all of that. But your background is fascinating to me as a private pilot, as someone I look at your career with a little bit of envy. Your background, fighter pilot in the Canadian Air Force, retired commercial pilot. Maybe tell us a little bit about that background, which I could do a whole podcast on, but we won't. Tell me a little bit about that background before we get on to how you got involved in activism. Well the civil aviation background was it flowed out of my military background flying. My last fighter tour was on cf-18s. Oh f-18s Yes, modern era fighter and I had the opportunity, the honor really to fight for Canada in combat during the first Persian gulf war. I was there with our 439 tiger squadron a squadron of cf-18s that participated in that that particular conflict and out of that I came back home from Germany, went into a ground job and then in 1997 retired from the military after about 29 years of service and then began looking for a job. I was still fairly young at the time, I was 45, and wound up in civil aviation initially flying training business jet pilots and and flying business jets from Bombardier Aerospace. From there, I spent a couple of years there, three, four years, and then applied to Air Canada and got picked up by Air Canada at the salty age of 48. I remember going into my first meeting with my class, and everybody was coming up to me asking if I was the instructor. So, I was kind of a late start, a late bloomer when it came to Air Canada. I proceeded to fly for Air Canada and started out with DC-9s, the old DC-9. Loved that airplane. Then Airbus A320s and then wound up on the 777, which was just a magnificent aircraft that we took all over the world. Take a trip, Toronto to Beijing, Toronto, Hong Kong. Toronto, San Diego, our Asian destinations would go over the polar, over the north pole on the other side down through Siberia and Mongolia and to into china. It was just an amazing amazing job very glad I had the opportunity to do it, but things being as they were we had 2002, 2003, the company went bankrupt on me and I had to drop out of Air Canada. I took a leave of absence for about five years. And then as I was on leave of absence, I picked up an engineering billet for an avionics firm in Montreal. And basically from there, with my flying background, I got into a position as an engineering flight test pilot. And so that's where I wound up my flying career, my aviation. I spent about 40 years, 40 years plus in aviation. I always think there must be no greater office than a flight deck at 40,000 feet. How beautiful. The view is, yeah, the view is wonderful up there, yeah. Yeah, I've seen a lot of interesting sites up in the concrete, particularly at 777. Wow. Well, I would love to delve deeper into that. But I want to get on to the current fight that we have across the Western world for the right to criticize, the right to offend, the right to disagree, which seems to be fast disappearing. So you're in aviation 40 years. Then, Probably politics wasn't really something you're engaged in. How did you end up starting an organization that would pull people together to fight the government on Islamophobia legislation, in effect? Well, it was kind of a sidestep. But when I look back on it, not really. It was kind of a natural progression there. I was, when I was a fighter pilot, an officer in the Air Force, I guess there's no other way to describe me, but as a true patriot, I love my country. And when I went into a combat tour, I did so gladly. I stepped up because I really felt that Canada was a country worth fighting for. It had values that were not only worth protecting, but projecting. And in that particular case, we're involved with kicking a tyrant out of a country that didn't want him. And I thought, yeah, this is a good place for me to be. So I'm a bit of a bit of a patriot that way. And then there's another tyrant in Trudeau. Well, I tell you, we can talk about that for for the whole show, too. I mean, getting back to my sojourn into civil liberties, it wasn't that much of a step, as I say, because when I ā€“ back in 2016, 2017, I was fully retired. I was going to kick back and enjoy the grandkids. You know, it was time for me to enjoy my golden years. But all of a sudden, we had these funny narratives coming out of Ottawa. And all of a sudden, 2016, 2017, they came up with a motion, M103. And the motion, its underlying premise was the fact that Canadians are systemically racist. The Canadians are religious discriminators, especially when it comes to Islam and Muslims. The narrative was, I found extremely insulting, and it is not, they were describing a Canada that I knew did not exist, because over the course of my 40 years, I've been across the country. I've been around the world, I've seen Canadians of all sorts and stripes work together to do great things. This is a great country, and we've got great people, and I took offense to, you know, our own leaders telling us that there was, we were debased. We were, and then that narrative just kept going. And we were, we were a post-national state. We had no core values. Then we were genocidal, you know, with the way that we treated our indigenous populations. It just went on and on and on. And I, just could not, as a patriot, I just could not sit back and tolerate that. I felt compelled. I was compelled. I had to sit down and start writing. What I did was I started writing letters to all the MPs, the members of parliament in Canada, telling them that this is my take. This is my evidence. You know, this M103 is wrong. All it's going to do is show favor to one religion over others. others, it's going to shield that religion from criticism and fair debate and comment. I said, this is not fair at all. I mean, if you want to have put something in place that says you can't discriminate against Muslims, fine, I'm all for that. We shouldn't discriminate against anybody. But when you start homing in on one religion and creating favor to that religion, all it's going to do is divide. And that's exactly what it's done. So that's where it started. I started writing a few. When we talk about Valerie, Valerie Price, I don't know how she got a hold of me, but she got a hold of me, and I needed someplace to publish the stuff that I was writing, because I was just writing nonstop, and she gave me her website, and I started posting on her website, and that attracted a couple of folks. We had less than a dozen got together, and we formed C3RF, Canadian Citizens for Charter Rights and Freedoms, And I think it's a pretty good name because we represent Canadian citizens. We're not politicians. We're not lawyers. We're not this race or that religion or anything. We are Canadian citizens. And I think that that's the secret of Canada is that everyone unites under the banner of civic nationalism. We don't unite under a banner of this tribe or that clan. No, we all believe we have a common belief. Not like Trudeau said, we have no core values. We have no beliefs. We do have common beliefs, and they include things like respect for individual rights and freedoms and basically what the Canadian citizen sees in the Charter. And I say that specifically because Canadian citizens see a certain intent in that Charter. They see fundamental rights and freedoms that are supposed to be protected by Canadians, by their representatives, and it's that intent that somehow over the years since the Charter was formed in 1982 has evaporated. Our politicians, our judges, our legal class, they all seem to forget about the intent. If anything, they take that intent and ignore it, that intent that there are certain fundamental freedoms, that's Section 2 of the Charter, free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to assemble and associate. There are fundamental freedoms that are called fundamental for a reason because the intent was to protect and preserve them. And that intent has been ignored. And I think that's a travesty. So us Canadian citizens, I think we have to do something about that. Do you think those freedoms are being taken for granted? Do the people think that, well, previous generations have had certain freedoms therefore it's automatically assumed they will continue. Do you think that's part of the reason why not just Canada but many nations in the west have got ourselves into the predicament, because we've just sat back and assumed it will continue? Well, yes I think that's a very valid point. I think you know you go back in time a little bit I grew up in the 50s and 60s as a kid and I remember back then how things were and you know things changed a lot starting in the 60s when we started having the sexual revolution we had the whole the whole thing the whole kind of culture that underpinned, you know, our our western liberal democracies kind of faded away. People let it go and um and and I think as as a result, we left ourselves open to be taken advantage of by other narratives, other ideologies that we are told are equivalent. Now we're told that there's no one culture that's better than another. There's equivalency across the board. And there is no real truth, this whole thing about objective reality being an imaginary thing. And everything under the sun is just as good as everything else under the sun. So we lost that, I guess, that Judeo-Christian ethic, I guess you could call it. We let that slip away. And as that slipped away, the vacuum was filled by other ideologies, other ideas that basically took us away from the strength that we did have and the belief we had in a strong and free Canada, in my case. And we let that slide. So I think that's a valid point. There's another side to this, and the other side is that actually certain people, certain individuals who have these other ideas or have stepped into the vacuum and purposely and deliberately confused and confounded Canadians and Canadian society with a lot of ideas that don't really belong in a Western liberal democracy. And we see those ideas thriving now, and they're crazy. Some of them are just so off the wall that I go, we go back to motion M103 where this Islamophobia came up and the damage that caused in dividing the nation. But we also have other things that came across the board. In about the same timeframe, in 2016, we had Bill C-16 in Canada, which was the gender identity and expression bill all of a sudden our our legislators actually told us that if we didn't identify people the way they wanted to be identified as instead of a male or a female they had to be identified as I don't know a puppy dog or a kitten or something like that. We you know then we could be taken to task we could be taken to a human rights tribunal. We could be put under the under the the microscope we could be examined we could be punished if we didn't allow our speech to be compelled. Certainly this was totally, totally against, you know, our right to free speech as per Section 2 of the Charter. When you're telling people they have to speak a certain way and think a certain way, you are out of bounds. And we still have that bill, and it's still thriving. It's now impacted our school system where our children are being taught thought that, you know, they weren't born a boy or a girl. God may have made a mistake, and you're not really a boy. You're not really a girl. How confusing is that for a little kid? And that drives me around a bit because I got six grandkids, five girls. And I look at that kind of influence on their upbringing, and, you know, that's not going to smirk. And I think the majority of Canadians feel like I do. And I think a lot are just a little bit scared to pop their head above the parapet and say, this is wrong. No, this is not going to stand. It's wrong. Well, that compelled speech, I guess that was where Jordan Peterson came to fame over his pushback. And we're now seeing compelled speech everywhere, having teacher in Ireland recently and on and on. And he's been one of the biggest figures highlighting this. But I want to talk to you about kind of the political engagement and also the engagement of the public. But the issue on the Islamophobia, it's a toxic, dangerous term, as dangerous as the term racism is. Whenever you use Islamophobic or racist, then immediately it shuts down debate. And the argument is one because no one wants to think of themselves as someone who hates someone else. Immediately you pull back, but it's also a huge topic to wade into the issue of engaging on Islam and Islam's position and the freedoms we have to critique any ideology or religion. So tell me about that because I think maybe when you look back you might think could have picked an easier one, a less inflammatory one, but this is a big issue. But tell me how that came together, how people came together, how you engaged with the political process in trying to stop that. Well, it was kind of amazing because it came from nowhere. And I started writing my letters, my website postings, and I started, we started a petition and that kind of cranked along slowly. And then all of a sudden, things just changed gear. I mean, it was like shifting gears in a car. It was just all of a sudden we were in high speed mode, because people started to pick up on the conversation that was coming out of the press as they covered the Conservative Party who came forward and said, no, we don't think this is a good idea. We'd like to change the motion to read instead of concentrating on Islamophobia. They wanted to concentrate on discrimination against Muslims, Jews, Christians, basically everybody, all the religions. They wanted to make it across the board an equal thing. That caught the attention of the public, and from that point on, we saw our petition numbers just crank over, you know, just accelerated. And there were other petitions on board. In total, I think there were over 200,000 signatures on two or three petitions, ours included, that they just couldn't ignore. But they went for it anyway. This was a slam dunk. You know, the Liberals, they came out with this. It was a slam dunk deal for them, and they were going to put this through come hell or high water. And they did, but there was a lot, a lot of people caught, or it caught the attention of a lot of people. So, much so that one member of Parliament, Trost was his name. He was a conservative. He reported on his Facebook page that in the few days prior to the actual vote in 2017, he reported that the parliamentary offices had received over 800,000 emails, most of which were against the motion. They had never seen anything like that. Over almost 900,000 emails, people saying, no, this is nuts. Don't do it. And they did it anyway. But because there was always, I think, the plan to introduce this motion and open up this Islamophobia gateway. That eventually there were various funds that were put in place behind it. They said it was a non-binding motion. It wouldn't make any differences, but it opened up the doors for a lot of millions and millions of dollars of funding for things like fighting Islamophobia, racism, and everything else. It became an industry. It did, and that, what you described, reflects where a lot of us are in or the public servants are no longer servants they have become masters and they simply take in public consultation to tick a box. It used to be there would be dialogue now it seems to be politicians always know better and we must submit or comply. Is that how you've kind of seen us in Canada on this issue and the wider issue of free speech? Well, yes. And I think the proof is in the pudding. And we saw that, I think, in spades with the advent of the COVID pandemic. Because here you saw, there were a lot of questions. People were wondering just what the heck is going on here? You know, we've got to stay six feet apart. We've got to, you know, some poor soul would pop their head above the parapet and say, why six feet? And then they would immediately get slammed back down into their pod where they belonged. And you couldn't even ask questions about, you know, like this is an experimental vaccine. Are there any long-term studies? Well, you can't ask that question. I mean, who are you and how do you deserve the right to ask such a question? So, yes, there was a, I call it an untethering. Our public service, our politicians, our judiciary, Sherry, they became untethered. Or maybe the better way to explain it is they had become untethered quite a while ago, but this whole COVID pandemic made everything so crystal clear that they had no intention, no intention of doing what was best for the population. As a matter of fact, they purposely and deliberately told us we had a safe and effective vaccine when they knew when they were told by their contracts with organizations like Pfizer that it's not, we don't know if it's safe and effective. We've got no long-term studies. It's right in the contract. So we can't guarantee anything down the road that there won't be adverse events that, you know, that might come aboard. They knew it wasn't safe and effective, and they lied to us, and they were totally untethered with their responsibility to serve the public that they were sworn to serve. Yeah. And then, again, I guess the other proof in the pudding there is we talk about Canadian citizens taking notice and finally having enough. We had Freedom Convoy 2022. That was a seminal Canadian event that no one wants to admit it in the political class, but that protest was a one-off in Canadian history. And it went on to spark similar protests around the world, New Zealand, Australia. Basically, all the Western world picked up on it. They're still driving tractors down highways in Holland and Ireland. And again, people, I guess we should thank our politicians and our judiciary for doing such a poor job and representing us because it's so poor that we can see it. And it's crystal clear that we've got a problem. And one other thing we talk about, you know, this worldwide event, you know, people standing up across the world, right? They are standing up, I think, against ā€“ when we look at the restrictions that are being placed upon people in Canada, we're seeing the same thing happen in Ireland, in Britain, and across the West, in the United States. It's as though our Western leadership is in lockstep. I'll give you an example. In the UK in 2021, your government came up with something called the Countering Disinformation Act, or the Countering Disinformation Unit. Unit, I think. Countering Disinformation Unit or something, yes. It was the Disinformation Unit. When they did that, they coordinated those activities with Canada, Australia, United States, and 20 other. They had bi-laterals with 20 other nations to do the same thing. And basically what this disinformation unit was all about was taking a look at any information that they could determine, misinformation, disinformation, and quash it, find it, get it off the Internet. And you had your legislation come forward as a result. So we are dealing with legislation that comes out of that initiative in 2024 now called the Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act. Basically it's all the same. So across the board we're seeing all these nations. I think it started with Germany in 2016, 2017 with their internet bill in Germany. And now you see all the Western nations basically replicating that legislation. People may be standing up in unison against this oppression that we're facing when it comes to our speech, but I think they're doing so because they are going up against a unified oppressor in the form of our Western liberal, so-called liberal governments. Oh, yeah. And we'll get on this now, the online harms bill, because we have the online safety bill in the UK. Europe has the DSA, Digital Services Act. I think Switzerland have similar legislation. I think the US have COSA, Kids Online Safety, which I think that will be used in this way. But we see it and you realize how clever the other side is. They talk about protecting children. They talk about safety, stopping harm. These are terms that keep coming up and no one can argue against that and that's the difficulty. What has been the pushback like in Canada because in the UK parliament collapsed completely in adoration of this bill. There were maybe might have been a dozen politicians who were against it, but everyone got sucked into this mantra that we must protect children online and this is the way to do it. What political pushback has there been on this legislation in Canada? Initially, none. And it was very much the same case as your experience in Europe. But what happened was this whole bit about, you know, protecting children online, non-consensual postings online, that was the Trojan horse that was rolled out and presented to the public. And, you know, this is how they presented it back in February when when our Justice Minister Virani presented it to the Canadian public, this is going to address these very evil things that were happening on the internet. And no one can argue with that. But the fact is, is that these are issues that are either already out of bounds in our criminal code or can be addressed through current laws, criminal codes, with modifications here and there. So, having an online harms act to deal with these things is not really even the best way to go. Because what they've done is they've included all these other add-ons to the bill. For example, they've constructed a whole new bureaucracy in the form of a digital safety commission. And this commission has powers that are unbelievable. They can actually, they're not constrained by rules of evidence. They're not constrained by rules of reasonable search and seizure. They can walk into an organization, into a company, into a social media place and start collecting files and data without due process. They can take an anonymous complaint against an individual and with that anonymous anonymous complaint. They can they can investigate the the the evil wrongdoer the other the person who who said something hurtful or get this might say something hurtful in the future. This is this is really a pre-crime bill it's It's Orwellian. It's 1984. It's even worse than 1984. George Orwell couldn't have envisaged such an oppressive bill. It's incredible. And it just goes on and on. I mean, they just take the charter and they shred it. They shred Section 1 Limitations Clause to show evidence, to have proof of the need to relieve someone of the rights. They do away totally with a section two freedom of speech. It's gone you can't even think about anything that might be hurtful. Gone is section seven and uh section eight search and seizure due process. I mean the whole chart all the fundamental freedoms are stripped and this is a good thing. So, I think you talk about you know what's the reaction initially we had a couple of folks, Michael Geist, is is one we have some communications experts that commented on it a few articles here and there with the national post a favorite of ours is is Barbara K. She stood up and she said this to quote her she said this bill must be stopped. It's in no uncertain terms she's a iconic Canadian author and a very famous national post columnist she She came forward and said that. So there has been some pushback. I think we're starting to get to recognition across the board. I saw this thing happening with Motion M-103. We've kicked off our own petition in this, but this time we're doing a House of Commons petition. You have the same thing in the UK where your parliamentary house, a member of it can sponsor a petition. And if it gets over a certain number of signatures, they have to deal with it. That's what we've done. And we've had the good fortune of having the member of parliament, Cathay Wagantall, from the Conservative Party, sponsor our petition. It's out there now as petition 5160. If you want to take a look at it, just Google petition 5160. And you'll see a pop-up as the number one choice and go ahead and sign it. And so we are very fortunate to have a miss Wagantall sponsor our petition has just kicked off a few days ago and I got a feeling that this is going to be another another motion demo or three thing where people once they once they start catching on to just what this bill entails and how many any rights they lose, they're going to be furious, absolutely furious. The politic, because you look at Trudeau when he had a very bad, not disastrous enough general election, and he was weakened, and yet this seems to be continually pushed through. You've got the Conservatives seemingly with a Conservative leader now in Pierre Paul, I can't pronounce his surname. Paul-Yves. Paul-Yves. Forgive my French. in Pierre. So that seems to be, and Maxime Bernier has been pushing many issues extremely well, but hasn't had that political traction electorally. So there are things happening, and I've certainly seen a number of Pierre's speeches doing very well. How does that all fit together with a weakened Trudeau and possibly an actual conservative Conservative Party? Well, I think we're seeing it now. I think we're seeing the Liberal Party is really on the ropes, not only with this particular issue and the stripping of our Canadian Charter of Freedoms and Rights. He's in the locking stock. He's for scandal. I mentioned earlier in this discussion how the Liberal Party; they put these funds together to fight Islamophobia, fight racism, but they put other funds together that basically are in the budget, but they don't have any particular thing assigned to them to be spent on. They're just for Islamophobia. They're for racism. They have big ones for capital infrastructure, $35 billion fund for capital infrastructure. It could be anything, LRTs or whatever, you know, just whatever you want to go in there and request. They also have huge funds for greening, the greening of the new green deal type thing. And the latest, I guess, scandal is the fact that 330 million of these green fund dollars have gone have slipped off the have slipped into the ethosphere and and wound up in in companies that are headed by by liberals or friends of liberals and so it's kind of embarrassing. And so we see a weakened liberal party a weakened Trudeau and uh at the same time I don't think coincidentally you're seeing a rising Pierre polio he is becoming now. He's becoming more forceful as he garners more public opinion on his side. As his polling numbers go up, he is becoming more and more brave in asserting conservative values that have been kind of, you know, kept under the covers for many, many years now. So he is being emboldened. And that is a very good thing to see. Up until now, I think the only politician who's really been pushing these issues, these attacks on our freedoms and our rights, is, as you say, Maxime Bernier. But he's a voice in the wind. He's got a lot of good ideas, but he does not get a lot of press play. He is not popular with the press. If anything, they denigrate him. They insult him. They say he's far right, he's extreme, he's a white nationalist, Christian nationalist. You know, anybody that's kind of just to the right of ā€“ you know, Marx in Canada, it's a tell of a hundred these days, you know, like there is no, there is no right left. It's just, you got your right thinkers, and you got your wrong thinkers in Canada. And if you're a conservative who believes in conservative values, family values, well, you're, you're, you're on the wrong end of the narrative there, but it is starting to change. I love having Maxime on a great interview with him and love following him from afar, complete common sense, able to put forward a position and doesn't give up and engaging. But I mean, you look at the political landscape, you think of Canada as more to the left. You kind of, it seems to be it's kind of 60-40 or two-thirds, one-third. So it does seem as though any conservative leader has an uphill battle. I don't know whether that kind of mix is in the population or whether it's more media pushed or whether it's kind of just traditionally being politically the stronger party has been the left. I don't know kind of where all that fits together because it does seem worldwide on the left there is a lack of patriotism a self-loathing of the nation state of history and that's why we've got to the position we are in. I think you hit the nail on the head there. It is true that Canada is very much a left-leaning nation. We've kind of lost that whole concentration on that Judaeo-Christian ethic is evaporated and the vacuum has been filled by people I wouldn't say you know people are necessarily of left persuasion. I think a lot of people get uh they just fall into line i mean Canada is a country that Has that kind of tendency to lean to the left. I mean, it's kind of baked into our history. It's the old Garrison mentality, you know, like Canada is the great white north. You know, we're always cold here. It's freezing. It's like the Arctic. You know, you've got to band together, help each other out, you know, to get to the winter side thing. And that, you know, you end up with this Garrison mentality that can really take hold of the national fabric. There's another aspect to this, though, and that, you know, along with having that Garrison mentality, you know, that we also have this pioneering spirit. You know, we have the Voyageur that, you know, launched off from Upper and Lower Canada into the hinterland and canoes to trap and trade with the indigenous population, to build up the nation on the basis of going out and exploring, then we have that. Actually, you see that very much so in the West. And the West is kind of that, was built on that, with that pioneering spirit in mind. And you can see that divide in Canada. You know, you've got your Laurentian folk who basically, Central Canada, who basically have the power, have the political power, run the country, The Western folk, the more pioneering type, I guess, who provide all the resources, work, and money for Central Canada to use as they see fit. It's an arrangement that is wearing thin. And this recent last nine years under the Liberal government with all the division that has been brought on board, I'd say Canada's in for a rough time when it comes to keeping itself together and keeping itself unified. And we're seeing, especially when you have this east-west divide, you're looking at the central Canadians wanting to quash fossil fuels, and you look at the west who need fossil fuels. It's the basis of their prosperity. It's in everything that they do and they build. Fossil fuels are a big part of that. So you're creating a divide here that is ultimately capable of splitting the nation. We used to say French-English, but I think the East-West, that divide is much more pronounced. So it's an interesting time. No, it is. And I know that the diversity, inclusion, the multiculturalism, that is a battle we're all facing. But it seems like Canada is, and there is a fight for identity and what it means for the nation state. And Canada seems to be maybe even a little bit more than the UK. I could be wrong, but seems to be in a state of confusion of what it means to be itself. Mass immigration changed Canada a lot. Toronto is a complete melting pot. Well, as is London. So this is not on Canada, not on the UK. We're in the same boat. But is that a fair assessment that there is a struggle at the moment for Canada as a nation to understand what it means to be Canadian? Because that seemed to be chipped away. And there's a struggle to understand what those values mean. Yes, that's very true. And what we're seeing now is we're importing, we're bringing people in at record rates. It's our population kind of jumped 2 million in a couple of years there, just over the past couple of years, it's incredible. It's to the point where we can't handle the infrastructure, can't handle this, the newcomers that are coming at us. So we're having housing crises, we're having inflation, we're having all these problems as a result of basically it's self-inflicted immigration policies that are really killing us that we could change tomorrow, we could change overnight. But our betters, our political betters don't seem to want to do that. They have another agenda in mind and it is wreaking havoc on our unity as well because the problem on the unity side is the fact that we're bringing these people in and we're encouraging them to maintain their old cultures. We're bending over backwards to let them do things the way they want to do them. And as a result, we're basically importing a whole bunch of tribes with no unifying message to unite them that underpins their presence in Canada. The only thing that can unify people like this of diverse backgrounds is to have a common understanding that everybody signs up to. And up until now, that common understanding in a Western liberal democracy has always been individual rights and freedoms. You know, if you concentrate on giving on servicing individual rights and freedoms, well, then all of a sudden all the tribes go away. Because okay you can have your tribe you can you can worship the way you want to worship but Underlying all that is an understanding and a respect for individual rights and freedoms so that you respect what the other person wants to worship or do with his life. And this whole aspect of allowing people to, as much as possible, live their own lives the way they want and realize their own life dreams. In the States, I think they do that when they say in their constitution that they talk about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In Canada, we have life, liberty, and the security of the person. I think that's a mistake on our part, because I think the pursuit of happiness really homes in on that whole idea of people being unencumbered to live their lives without being bothered by governments and being told what to do, which is the
Chris Farrell - Challenging the System: Judicial Watch's Role in Combatting Corruption Across Administrations
Oct 7 2024
Chris Farrell - Challenging the System: Judicial Watch's Role in Combatting Corruption Across Administrations
Show Notes and Transcript Welcome to Hearts of Oak, where today we're diving into the intricate world of government oversight with none other than Chris Farrell, the head of investigations at Judicial Watch. Join us as we explore Chris's remarkable 25-year journey at the helm of this influential watchdog organization, and his relentless pursuit of transparency and accountability. Chris Farrell isn't just a name; he's a force in the quest to keep government operations open and honest. With a background in military intelligence, his transition to Judicial Watch marked the beginning of an era where the Freedom of Information Act became a sword against corruption.  In this episode, Chris will unpack how Judicial Watch has evolved, facing both the consistencies and the ever-changing landscape of political oversight. We'll touch on the legal battles fought, the costs associated with seeking truth, and the organization's unwavering commitment to debunking misleading narratives. From election integrity to the media's portrayal of Judicial Watch's efforts, Chris will shed light on how these battles are fought on multiple fronts. We'll also delve into his view on the ideological divide concerning election accountability and why issues like economic stability and immigration are at the forefront of the upcoming election.  Judicial Watch is a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavours, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nationā€™s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfils its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach Connect with Judicial Watch... WEBSITE            judicialwatch.org š•                        x.com/JudicialWatch @JudicialWatch Interview recorded 03.10.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                         x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com and follow him on š• x.com/TheBoschFawstin Transcript (Hearts of Oak) Hearts of Oak, thank you so much for joining us once again. I'm delighted to have Chris Farrell, who I think I met maybe two years ago when I was stateside and I had the privilege of being on his show, on Watch. Obviously, Chris has been with Judicial Watch as their head of investigations for 99. So it's your 25th anniversary, Chris. Thank you so much for joining us today. (Chris Farrell) That's right. 25 years. And thank you for having me on. I appreciate it. Folks at No Judicial Watch, we're a government watchdog group. We try to uncover the operations of government and then inform and educate the public about what their government is or is not doing to them or for them. We try to uncover corruption and we try to hold public officials accountable. That's our mission. And so I've been here for 25 years. Before that, in my misspent youth, I was an army intelligence officer focusing mostly on counter espionage investigations, some double agent operations, and also commanding the Army's surveillance team, which we used to do physical, technical, and aerial surveillance for counter-espionage investigations and also for human intelligence collection work. And so we won the Cold War. This is all many, many moons ago. And I decided to leave the intelligence world. I was a contractor for a while to defense and intelligence agencies, but then in 99 I came to judicial watch and as the saying goes the rest is history. Well, I guess and people obviously if they're not following half our audiences UK if you're not watching judicial watch you need to watch them. The freedom of information or foyer as you call them. We we know them in both countries well, that seek to hold government to account and seek to get answers to those questions they do not want to answer. But people can obviously get on judicialwatch.org and at Judicial Watch on Twitter and X. I mean, what led you to Judicial Watch? Because I guess someone in the military background, it is staying in the private sector, contracting, maybe being in pundit work, so on the media. What led you to actually become part of Judicial Watch? Back in 98, 99, I was watching the work they were doing. So, I was just an ordinary private citizen looking at what was going on. This was sort of the crest of the Clinton scandals. And then the Clintons had made an art of monetizing their government service. So, there was a lot of corruption going on. I looked at the organization, thought they were doing great work, and I used my intelligence skills, my background as a case officer, to identify and approach and pitch the leadership and say, hey, you need me. And it worked. And here I am. Were you politically attuned back then? I was. I was really a committed conservative, not so much partisan in the sense of being rabidly a party operative or faithful. I really, in general, frankly, I kind of loathe political parties. I find them to be probably half of whatever problem we have is the party structure and the party activities and the party egos. So, I was more philosophically conservative and small C conservative and decided that, you know, there had to be some kind of reform. We could not continue doing what was going on in our government. And I was going to try to fight for some accountability and some transparency. And as my colleague, Paul Orfanides, who's our director of litigation here, likes to say, you know, let's sue the bastards. And so that appealed to me, and it made sense. No, I've kind of followed Paul's work, and we've had Tom Fitton on before, and giving the overview of what Judicial Watch do. Now, I get the work that Judicial Watch do, it doesn't come for free. I mean, when you get in the legal sphere, in the UK it's expensive, in America it's horrendously expensive and ruinously expensive. I mean, tell us about that and actually using the system, the legal system, against the system, the government or politics. Right. Well, we're very fortunate that our Freedom of Information Act law allows anyone, and I mean that literally anyone, to file a request with any of the executive, agencies of the government and ask questions about public policy matters, decisions. The commitment of funds. And so we've really refined that to a science. We have it down in a way that allows us to make very aggressive use of those laws to get records and documents. Because as you well know, particularly when it comes to politicians. People lie and records don't. So we can get records and documents and create a record, get the history of what has occurred. And then we can have an argument about policy and you can have your opinion and I can have mine. But in the end, if I pull out the records and documents and show them to you and say, well, here's where the money went or here's where the approval to do something or to decide something. Here's the documentation of it. it kind of deflates a lot of the hyperbolic rhetoric and the hysterical claims, because you have the record, you have the document. And so we do that a lot. And we sue the government a lot to compel them to answer our requests. We also file constitutional claims where there's been some grievous wrong or where some government official has been just out of control with their behavior and actions. They've abused their office. And then we'll sue those officials as well. There's a crazy example. Just the other day, we had an argument in the Supreme Court of the state of Minnesota, where all of the teachers, the teachers union and the state had entered into a contract. And for whatever crazy reason, they had agreed to make the contract racist. I mean that literally. So under their definition, if you were a person of color and you were a teacher, you couldn't be fired. If there were layoffs, you could not be laid off. If you were, I guess, a person not of color, whatever that means, according to their lexicon, well, then you were the first to be fired or the first to be laid off. And this to me is just blatant racism. You're making hiring and firing decisions based on skin pigmentation. It's insanity. We fought a civil war over this. Anyway, so that's an example of lunacy that we feel compelled to challenge and we have in Minnesota. Again, just an argument in the Supreme Court of Minnesota just this past Tuesday. Wow. I want to get on to the current political climate in the US. But I mean, how have you seen your work change over 25 years with all different administrations, all different government officials, some better than others? How have you seen your work? Is it you're focused on actually highlighting injustice and exposing corruption and showing wrongdoing? Or does it change with different administrations? Well, there's sort of a core set of things that we always look at. So, we're always looking for reckless expenditures of money and abuse of power or authority or position. Those things sort of never change. It doesn't matter whether you're a Republican or Democrat. You sometimes compare it to, you know, a couple of eight-year-olds fighting over the controls of the Xbox. You know, they each want to play the game and who's ever in charge. So there's a certain level of bad behavior, regardless of what your party affiliation is. But there are some things that are really just crazed, right? Just really abuses. I think the big lesson, though, over time is that the government has become more and more ingenious on how to obfuscate, hide, lie, mislead the public. And then on the other side of that same coin, we now see really radical moves to censor people. And I know that you have your own very sad experiences in the UK with respect to thought control and psychological conditioning of people and what you can or cannot say, which you, in fact, I know I've seen video where a person standing quietly on a street has been arrested because they were silently praying, which I thought was insane. Orwell's warning in 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual. And that's what we see, obviously, here in the United States, also you in the UK. But the government going around dictating what can and cannot be said or posted or put on social media. There's a guy who put up a funny meme, a joke about Hillary Clinton and the election in In 2016, he's sitting in prison. Wow. Well, it's crazy. And we have our online safety bill. Europe have the same legislation and it will come to the US because this seems to be a worldwide desire to control any speech that doesn't fit into whatever current government of the day. So, and I know on with you, Chris, discussing that in the UK and yeah, it's the free speech restrictions are not just a UK issue. And I mean, because when you look at your first and second amendments, when you look at the protection that gives you the right to defend yourself, I guess those only work if you have the political will, but even more the judicial will. Actually, if the courts actually back you up, because if the courts don't back you up, then you're left holding a bit of paper, which is the Constitution, which gives you the right, but if it's not backed up. And America's walking a very fine line on this issue. Indeed, yeah. Yeah, the presumption was that the persons in authority or in power would act and behave honestly, and that judges would uphold the rule of law, even if they didn't like it, even if their personal opinion was one way or the other. They would look at what the law said, or they would look at what the founders intended in the Constitution. And we could have a discussion about how that isn't what they really meant, or, you know, when it comes to the Second Amendment, they were talking about muskets. They weren't talking about AR-15s or I've heard all the arguments, right? But there is a remedy, a lawful remedy to that, which is rather than running to the courts and having a government attorney in a black robe issue an edict, the real solution is go into the legislature and craft a law, get it passed from a bill into a law, and then have the executive sign off on it and exercise the legislative process in order to create a law and not just get frustrated, because you don't like it and then dream up some lawsuit and drop it in front of a friendly judge and get them to sign off on it and issue an edict that affects the entire country. Well, more and more and more, or we've seen that sort of judicial activism in the United States where, again, lawyers in black robes, government attorneys in black robes, they all draw their paycheck from the U.S. Treasury. They're not some, you know, they're not up on Mount Olympus, up on high, you know, making decisions. They're right in the middle of the game. And three quarters of them are government bureaucrats who come out of one government agency or another. So they're all sort of political operatives. And this practice is really corrosive. It is undermining the public's faith in government. And it's had a very negative net effect, particularly over the last, I'd say, decade. 12 to 16 years it's it's really been it was bad but now it's crazy. See that from far away from across the pond. What is it like, I mean your high profile figure judicial watch is a very well-known organization. I can imagine government officials getting information from judicial watch and thinking, oh no they're just a pain in the ass. And that doggedness that I think judicial watch have shown in not walking away from a fight, but always up for it. That I mean that puts you in the crosshairs of a whole range media, judicial, political, I guess you have had to face attacks from all different angles. Absolutely. Yeah. So what's interesting is that, you know, I proudly say that we're equal opportunity offenders. We have upset everyone, left, right, and center, because we're going to be intellectually honest. If we're going to ask for travel records about what a president is spending flying around the country or around the world, we're going to ask it of Republicans and Democrats alike. Not everybody likes that. Well, tough, right? We have to be even-handed. We have to be faithful and truthful to what our mission is. I once was giving a talk to a group of Francophone African delegates who would come here to the United States. It's all the former French colonies, obviously. I was explaining what we did. One gentleman burst out in laughter. And he said, I apologize. I'm not laughing at you. I'm just laughing Because if I tried this in my home country, they would throw me in jail And they probably would. So, yeah, there are challenges. There are people who don't want to hear what we have to say. We have social media, like, you know, TikTok, I think, banned us. Because we say things, here's the irony. This isn't just our opinion. We've sued. We've used the federal court process to get government records and documents. These aren't our records. This is what the United States government or some state government has said. This is their material. And they try to run away from it and pretend it isn't their work. Or they're stenographers in the press. They're not even reporters. They're just taking dictation. You know, they say, well, you know, that just simply can't be true. I mean, we found 113 illegal aliens that voted in the District of Columbia, here in the nation's capital, voted in the last election. And we have the registrar of the elections telling us this. So we promote it. And we have an entire army of fact checkers running around saying, oh, it isn't true. It's not our work. The election people told us that the 113 illegals voted. So, I mean, this is just a small example. I could go on for literally hours. I love it the way you use government information against them. That's what's so beautiful about the work the Judicial Watch do. Right, right. This is all their own stuff, you know. It's so good. Can I, so we are a month out from the election. We've just had the VP debate with Jerry Vance and Tim Waltz on, was it CNN it was on, I think? I mean, looking at that and then the wider election, what are your thoughts on this? And we'll pick up on a couple of the separate issues, I think. But yeah, what are your general thoughts just days after that debate? Well, of course, CBS humiliated themselves yet again. They promised not to fact check. And right out of the box, what did they do? Oh, no, Mr. Vance, what you said isn't true. So, I mean, it shows them for what they are, right? It's a very unpleasant, but I think revelatory example of them exposing their inner bias. They can't help themselves. They're so far off the charts in their manic hatred of Trump and all things on the conservative side of the spectrum that they just, they go on and on. So that just reveals itself. What I'm most interested in, of course, is the conduct of the election. Our Constitution says we have an election day, period, not an election week or an election season or an election month. And we, the country, the United States, when they go to bed on Tuesday night, the 5th of November, or perhaps into the wee hours, maybe by 2 a.m. On Wednesday, the American public needs to know who the president is. Period. This routine where we all are going to count votes for the next week because they may have been postmarked and then somebody else, they didn't sign the mail-in ballot and all this double talk and rigmarole. Nobody doesn't know when the election is. Nobody doesn't know what they're supposed to do if they're interested in casting their vote. To play this ridiculous game where there's this never-ending opportunity, I want to be very careful. So the F word, fraud, has a very specific legal meaning. It's not just that word. It's also more euphemistically irregularities, right? Where all the normal procedures and processes are not followed. And so you have judges in Pennsylvania saying, well, if the ballot is mailed in and it's not dated and they didn't sign it, well, we can still count it even though it's a week late. That's craziness. So we need to have an answer on election night or the wee hours of the next morning. Judicial Watch has been successful at removing 4 million false and inaccurate registrations from the voting rolls in several different states. In Los Angeles County, county alone, there were 1.5 million false, inaccurate registrations on the voting rolls. When you have that level of voting rolls being essentially dirty, It's an invitation for mischief. It's an invitation for manipulation and gamesmanship. We can't have it. And so we've been very successful at forcing people to do their jobs and make sure that the voting rolls are true, accurate, and correct. And if you've died, if you've moved away, if you're a felon, those are reasons not to be on the voting roll. And the registrars have an obligation to make sure that that is correct. Yeah, in the UK we don't usually let dead people vote, but I know in the U.S it is... We have a special voodoo you know kind of undead voting patterns which is very, very troubling. I've seen that. Well I'm praying looking forward to Trump winning his third term so that in that phrase you get where I sit on on this issue, but we I mean you look at it. I've been involved in all different elections in the UK, European, parliamentary, local, and it's a rush to get the votes in. There are what we call paper. I could hold up a bit of paper for the US viewers. You put an X with a pen, with a black pen. But it's, I mean, at what point has it been a long slide in the U.S. In terms of actually this integrity of elections slipping, slipping, because it just didn't start in 2020. It's been happening before then. Yeah. So way back in 2000, I'd been at Judicial Watch for about a year, there was a 2000 election that was hotly contested between Al Gore, you'll remember, and Bush the Younger. Was that the Florida votes they were counting or something? Right. And you know the people that caused all that castronation in Florida? Listen, watch. We're the ones who did it. We knew that it was hotly debated. Yeah. My colleague, Paul Orfanides, and I, we filed 67 Florida Sunshine Act requests. So Florida has a state-level open records law that they call the Sunshine Act. And Paul Orfanides did some research and realized that a ballot in the state of Florida is counted as a public record. And so we, there's 67 counties in Florida. So we filed 67 requests since really counties administer the election. And we asked for access to all the ballots. And you may remember people were looking at hanging chads and dimpled ballots. There was much controversy over the actual ballots themselves and whether they were accurate and truthful or whether it was a shenanigans. So we hired an auditing firm, accountants, and we audited the entire election. We did sample auditing and we got access to all those ballots. Now, when all the big news media companies saw what we were doing, I think they were a little jealous. They jumped in behind us. And so when the New York Times and ABC and CBS and CNN all show up and suddenly say, me too, we want to see the ballots, we kind of got pushed out of the way just by the weight of the media interests. But that entire thing was actually created by Judicial Watch because we wanted to know what was going on with those ballots and were they being accurately counted and what is a hanging chad and what is a dimpled ballot and how could that happen? And so our audit said that Bush won by about 800 popular votes. And sure enough, when everything was said and done, the official government tally Confirmed what we had concluded that bush had won by a very very narrow margin maybe eight or nine hundred votes that's it. I mean and it is the issues that are important but the issues mean nothing if you're doing the election integrity to back that up. Right Look at it and in the UK as in the vast majority of European countries and I know you've done a lot of work in in Hungary so you'll have a an idea of some of the election issues and political issues across Europe, but it is a single country decides and you will have some variations but by and large single country in America it's not just at the federal level. It's not just the state level, it's the county level, and it means there's so many moving parts to it. Yeah. Which actually is a beautiful thing. It makes stealing an election more difficult, unless you have activist judges and crazed governors like Gavin Newsom, who mailed out ballots to every street address in California. Talk about asking for irregularities and manipulations of the voting process. But if people are honest and they stick by the written law and they don't do weird things like like in Wisconsin, where the people administering the election had a meeting. They're all wearing their little COVID masks sitting there. And they say, we know that we're violating the law, but this is an emergency. We have to do it anyway. They flaunted it. They bragged how they were, they knew that everything that they were doing was not within the scope of the law, and they just didn't give a damn. They're going to do it anyway. And was any of that overturned or reject it? No. It was accepted as, oh, well, you know, it's COVID. So, you know, we don't have to pay attention to the laws and the constitution anymore. We have to have an exception to everything and we're going to keep counting ballots until we get a number that beats Trump. I mean, that's really the unspoken part of the irregularities that were going on. I mean, is it Trump Contrangement syndrome that's just turbocharged this left lunacy, really. Yeah, just yesterday, the prosecutor, and he's a disgraced prosecutor, I want to be clear. Jack Smith is a clown. He went after the governor of Virginia. A few years back, maybe it's 10 or 12 years ago, he went after the governor of Virginia on sort of his own political jihad and ended up removing the sitting governor of Virginia. And then when the case was appealed, Jack Smith was reversed nine to nothing. A unanimous Supreme Court said that his entire case was a fraud. It was a lie. And he had already removed the Governor of Virginia. Where does he go to get his reputation back? Where does he go to get his life back? But Jack Smith, I mean, you would think that an attorney who had a nine to nothing Supreme Court reject everything he was doing, you would think he'd go move on to do something else in life. But he's a hatchet man. He's a political operative who's called in to do this kind of dirty work. And now he's doing it against Trump. So 30 days before an election, what does he do? He releases another set of pleadings with all kinds of wild, reckless claims. And of course, look, just because he puts it in a pleading doesn't mean it's true. This is not evidence, right? It's just a claim before a court with with no foundation, with no proof. It's simply, we did interviews and we think this is true. And he dumps this into the public record a month before the election. If that's that election interference, if that isn't the Department of Justice putting its thumb on the scale and trying to unduly, unlawfully influence an election, I don't know what is. I mean, how did this become a left-right issue? Because you would think that you sit and talk to a citizen whatever political persuasion they are and they want to know their vote counts and yet we have this crazy situation in the States where election integrity is called into question. And it's the left that seem to want to have as many dead people or immigrants vote where it's those in the. Right that seem to want a fair election. So only those who are able to vote can vote. How has this become a left-right issue? So the left, the people on the left, they are, this is my view, sort of a political philosophy here, but they are, the left are creatures of the state. They love big government, big programs, big tax dollar, you know, supplements, entitlement payments. They never saw a program or a project or a government initiative or a government agency that they didn't love. That's their ecosystem. They swim around in this environment where they love to use and manipulate the levers of state. Right. All the organs of the state, a good Soviet term, they love utilizing that to maximum effect. That's where they're coming from. On the right, you find a lot of people who are small government people. They're strict constitutionalists. They don't believe in never-ending government programs and subsidies and all those sorts of things. A lot of people on the right will show up to do their government service, whether they're members of Congress or they serve on some county commission, and they do their bit, and then they go home. They go back to running their business or being part of their community in some way. They don't stay in the statist ecosystem. And so they're just not oriented. They don't think and believe and act in the way that folks on the left do. So of course, The left knows how to use all the different levers of the state, all the agencies, all the tactics and techniques of big government to achieve their ends. And folks on the right, they're not thinking about it that way. I've gone out and talked to people who are interested in voting. And I've said, look, I've got about 24 years of voting, you know, verification and certification experience. You guys, speaking to people on the right, you guys are great at having your rally a day or two after the election's been lost and protesting. Right. All your equal opposite numbers on the left, they've gone and studied all the rules and regulations, all the laws. They know every single official in the voting chain. They've met with them. They've lobbied them. If there's something that goes wrong with the election, they know exactly what paragraph to cite to file their claim, to challenge a vote. That's their ecosystem. That's where they live. And the folks on the right just kind of show up to complain. It's a very different mentality, and it needs to be addressed directly. I mean, is it naivety? Because I guess if you go back a generation, you had a strong church that was vocal, that actually believed what the Bible taught, which is very different today. You had a legal system that did understand right and wrong. You had individuals engaged maybe at the at the local level, at the community level. You had an education system that that worked a heck of a lot better than it does the moment, so maybe conservatives just sat back and it's that false sense of security on the left have been realizing they need to burn this down or maybe conservatives have thought actually it's fairly good, and I think it will just continue. I mean, is that just naivety that's meant conservatives have been asleep on watch? They have. And the other thing that's very disturbing is that there's been various polling done that shows the number of committed Christians, self-identifying believers, who do not vote. They just don't show up. It's something like 40%. So if 40% of the committed Christians in the country bothered to show up and just vote, what a difference that would make. There's also, this is unpleasant to say, but it's truthful, so you kind of have to, you got to admit it, is that there's a lot of cowardly pastors as well. They're afraid, oh, I'm going to lose my nonprofit status as a church if I express a political opinion. That's a lot of garbage. That isn't true. You can comment on things that objectively, that morally are objectively right or wrong and let people draw their own conclusion. Killing children is bad. It is wrong, objectively, period. Now, you have a candidate that supports killing children, and then you have one that doesn't. Pick. This is not tough stuff, right? It really isn't. But there's some pastors who are kind of afraid of their own shadow or they don't want to get out of their comfort zone. And that's an enormous disservice, really. And I don't mean that just politically. I mean that spiritually. It's a horrible disservice. They have an obligation to shepherd their flock and to educate and inform and enlighten. And if they're not doing that, something's very, very wrong. We see exactly the same in the UK. I've had numerous conversations with pastors who will agree with you behind closed doors, but publicly it's a fear of man more than the fear of God. And that puts the church in a dangerous situation. What has it been like with Judicial Watch? Camping on these issues and you personally heading up those investigations and campaigns, how does that fit in with the church? Because in a way, you're highlighting injustices that the church should really be doing. It should be their job. And yet you're having to do it as a private organization as opposed to the body of Christ doing it. Yeah, I mean, so we have a role, and it is a decidedly nonpartisan, nonsectarian, you know, the organization Judicial Watch politically is nonpartisan. We're philosophically conservative and unapologetic about that. And likewise, you know, persons of faith or persons who decide no, that they're not, we don't even go there, right? But we do talk about things that are objectively disordered and things that you can prove to be morally true or false. And I've done this innumerable times with people. I don't care what they believe or don't believe, but you can't materially cooperate with evil. And you can get there in a secular way or you can get there through faith. Personally, for me, it's through faith. But I'm willing to engage with anyone and discuss the morals of this. Years ago, I taught a journalism law class at a university here. And there's a lot of moral relativism and a lot of, well, you know, that's just how they feel or what they think. So the way I would try to break through and explain that there is objectively right or wrong is, and a couple of students in particular would be very vociferous in their objection to me talking about right and wrong and good and evil. And I'd say, well, okay, tell me how rape is good. Go ahead. You have the floor. It shuts down. No one in their right mind is going to defend that or explain that somehow it is good. And so there are ways to demonstrate to people that we really do have to make a choice and we have to stand on what we believe. And if you're a person of faith, frankly, it should be very easy. We have a wonderful instruction book. It's called the Bible. I recommend it to people. But let's say you reject that and you say, no, no, no. I don't believe all that. That's just mythology, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. Well, there's still ways to prove things. The example I gave you about asking a question on rape or the people that are wrapped up in this crazed, radical gender ideology, you know, they can say whatever they want to say. And if they say that they believe in science, okay, well, there's chromosomes, right? It's either XX or XY. That's it. You can talk about it endlessly. You can discuss your dysphoria or whatever other psychological condition you may or may not have. But the science says the chromosomes show up as XX or XY. And that is it. So we are able to give examples. We are able to prove things. We are able to, and I don't mean that in a demeaning way. What I'm trying to do is give people encouragement, right? I want your viewers and listeners to say, wait a minute, maybe there is something I can do. Maybe I can share my faith or my beliefs with people. Maybe I can engage with my neighbor, or I can do something with a family member. I don't know. Each of us has a way to go forward positively. What I'm saying and what we've been talking about, my goal and objective is to provide, encouragement and courage to people to go make a difference you don't have to go off and lead you know some big movement you can do it in your very own community. Everyone can play their part and it's interesting what some of the issues the pro-life issue you can say we're all made in the image of God therefore every life has value or you can look at some of the the scientific background ground of the repercussions of abortion or what actually is life. And so there are all different ways of tackling this issue. But Chris, I 100% agree that if you look at the Gospels, you see how Jesus lived. You pick up the Bible, look at the Psalms or Proverbs, and you can see guidelines live. And the Bible is packed full of that from Genesis to Revelation. You can't get a better manual in the current chaos than picking up a Bible. Can I just finish with the issues in this election? It seems that, well, it's the economy, stupid, but that's always been a bread and butter, what people are feeling in their pocket with the paycheck, with the cost. And And that's had a dramatic change in terms of inflation and chipping away. And the other side is an open border. I mean, a government's one of their primary duties has to be to protect the citizens. And you can't protect if you don't control who comes in. Are those issues still immigration and the economy? Are those still the two main issues that you think will decide this election? Absolutely. Undoubtedly. They are dominant above all else, I think. There's also, I think, a third issue that people are sensitive to. They may not be sort of dissecting it down to specific policies, but there's, generally speaking, there is great unease with wars around the world. And so obviously Israel is under attack. Israel is under attack from every angle and is in a precarious position. They're fighting back, and I applaud them for fighting back. They should. I have no criticism whatsoever of how Israel has defended itself since October 7th. I know there's all sorts of people lined up ready to call them names. You know, don't start wars you can't win, right? You're going to start a war, you're going to get a reaction from it. And so just because you're losing doesn't mean you can now, you know, scream, oh, you're being mean to me. Well, you know, they didn't need to come across that fence on October 7th. So, now Now they're going to get the reaction from that and all that comes from that. And the other thing is Ukraine. So we have a wide open southern border with, who knows, 16, 18, 20 million people come in in the last three and a half, almost four years. So, we're going to spend $180 billion to support Ukraine's border, and we're not going to do a damn thing about our own southern border? People have a hard time trying to balance that
The Week According To . . . Jennifer Arcuri
Oct 5 2024
The Week According To . . . Jennifer Arcuri
Welcome back as we dive into another episode filled with riveting discussion and critical analysis. Today, we're thrilled to have Jennifer Arcuri return once again, bringing her sharp insights into the myriad of challenges facing the US and UK. From the aftermath of devastating hurricanes in the States to the contentious political manoeuvres across the pond, Jennifer will shed light on how these events reflect deeper issues of governance, accountability, and the tug-of-war between citizen rights and government overreach. Stay tuned as we unpack these urgent topics, challenge the mainstream narratives, and explore what it all means for the sovereignty and spirit of the people. California based, American tech entrepreneur Jennifer Arcuri is the founder of the Innotech Network, Hacker House, Pinksheet Database, and Proxsey London. She founded the Infotech Summit to encourage entrepreneurs, policymakers and investors to discuss and shape tech policy. A former film student who started in digital distribution and film production, In 2008, Jennifer produced the short film, "La Valise", which was part of the Short Film Showcase at the Cannes Film Festival. She started her career at the Walt Disney Company as Radio Disney DJ Razzle Dazz, operating under the ABC Company and ESPN Broadcasting, and she has also worked as assistant PA under Bravo's "Inside the Actors Studio" with James Lipton. Jennifer has previously run a video streaming platform and is a cyber security expert, tech geek, producer, adventure seeker, is hot on video content, data visualization and is always looking for game changing technology to rock the world with. She loves to laugh and enjoys anyone with a good story to show and tell. Connect with Jennifer... š•                         x.com/Jennifer_Arcuri  @Jennifer_Arcuri TELEGRAM        t.me/RealJenniferArcuri PODCAST          jenniferarcurichannel.podbean.com Interview recorded  4.10.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                         x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
Dr Brian of London - Israel's Fight for Survival or the Beginning of WWIII?
Oct 3 2024
Dr Brian of London - Israel's Fight for Survival or the Beginning of WWIII?
Join us as we dive back into the heart of the Middle East with Brian of London, who brings us up to speed on the year that has passed since the pivotal events of October 7th. In this gripping episode, we explore the intricate dynamics between Israel, Hamas, and the formidable Hezbollah. Brian sheds light on the strategic warfare, the psychological toll on Israeli society, and the pervasive influence of Iran in this enduring conflict. Listen to first-hand accounts of military innovation, the erosion of trust, and the relentless spirit of a nation under siege. Don't miss this compelling conversation that goes beyond headlines to deliver a nuanced understanding of a region in turmoil. Dr Brian of London is an Indigenous Jewish Rights Activist & re-settler living in Tel Aviv. He completed a PhD in Computational Fluid Dynamics just as the Web was emerging. But then he left academia to do management consulting and eventually moved to Israel to do business. Brian's working on the cutting edge of the new Podcasting 2.0 to make sure this relic of the early web, stays free from capture by the centralising forces of Web 2.0 and their dangerous desire to turn us all into dairy cows. Brian was also the admin on Tommy Robinson's Facebook account that had over a million followers before it was nuked! Interview recorded 3.10.24 Connect with Brian... š•                        x.com/brianoflondon  @brianoflondon Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                         x.com/HeartsofOakUK @HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com and follow him on š• x.com/TheBoschFawstin
Jeff Younger - A Father's Fight: Navigating the Transgender Debate in Custody Battles
Sep 30 2024
Jeff Younger - A Father's Fight: Navigating the Transgender Debate in Custody Battles
Shownotes and Transcript Join us for an emotionally charged and revealing episode on Hearts of Oak, where we delve into the life of Jeff Younger, a man whose personal battle has become a public spectacle at the heart of the transgender debate. From his roots in Silicon Valley to a contentious family court saga in Texas, Younger shares his journey through advocacy, legal battles, and his unwavering fight for his child's future. This episode not only explores his fight against child gender transition but also touches on the systemic issues within family law, the political divide within America, and how his faith has guided him through chaos. Tune in for an episode that promises to challenge your views on family, identity, and the essence of parental rights. Jeff Younger, a Texan, has been embroiled in a high-profile legal fight to prevent his son, James, from undergoing transgender medical treatments advocated by his ex-wife, Anne Georgulas. After a move to California, known for its transgender sanctuary laws, Younger faced new challenges when the case was sealed from the public by Judge Michelle Kazadi, sparking outrage over transparency and rights. Despite losing a political bid in Texas, Younger's case continues to draw national attention, highlighting the clash over transgender issues, parental rights, and medical ethics in the U.S. Connect with Jeff... š•                        x.com/JeffYoungerShow  @JeffYoungerShow SUBSTACK        jeffyounger.substack.com Interview recorded  27.9.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                         x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com and follow him on š• x.com/TheBoschFawstin Transcript (Hearts of Oak) Thank you so much for joining us once again with a brand new guest, and that is Jeff Younger from across the pond. Jeff, thank you so much for joining us today. Pleasure to be here, Peter. Great to have you. And any recommendation from Sam Sorbo is always worth having. She's the best. Call out to Sam Sorbo and thank you for making the connection. I wasn't aware of the work you've done, Jeff, and delving into the fantastic work you've done in campaigning against the trans push, especially, and we'll get on to that. But people can follow you at Jeff Younger Show on Twitter or X and, of course, jeffyounger.substack.com. Make sure and check that out. And if you like Jeff by the edge, you may even want to become a paid subscriber. So, I will leave that to you to make that judgment. Now, maybe your background, Jeff, before we get on to the topic. You're there over in Texas. What's your background? Well, I have what I would call a typical Silicon Valley sort of career trajectory. You know, it's funny when you ask an American, tell me your background, we always start with our work. It's one of the big differences between us and Europeans. But I think my friends in the UK do the same thing. It must be an Anglo thing. I went into the Marine Corps when I was a young man. When I came out of the Marine Corps, I knew how to program because I had done programming in the Marine Corps. And I began to work with mathematicians in the oil industry doing optimization systems for oil refineries. And pipeline networks and things like that. And I got highly involved in operations research, and that led me into applied mathematics, which I did for years until I was 35. I was living in Hong Kong when I was 35. My father had two heart attacks, and I had to return to the United States. And I came to Dallas, Texas to take care of him to the end of his life. I got a letter from the Marine Corps when I was in Dallas saying that I was going to lose all my educational benefits because they expire. So, I went to school at the University of Dallas where I began studying linguistics and philosophy. Linguistics took me into the study of mathematical logic and back into mathematics. And from there, I had a kind of spiritual journey. I went from being an atheist to being an Orthodox Christian. And that was an important part of a shift in my worldview. And I married in 2010 and had two children about a little bit before my son was two years old. My then wife began to try to transition one of my twin boys to a girl. And that set up a huge controversy in the state of Texas. Eventually I was able to, it took me six years and hundreds of thousands of my own dollars of my own money. I was finally able to get a law passed in Texas banning these barbaric procedures on children. But my ex-wife has the courts backing her and the big donor class in America backing her. She was able to move my child to California. And I'm now in a court in California where I will go to trial on the 28th. If I lose that trial, my son will be castrated in November. Wow. It's a huge issue and one that no parent expects. And we've had a number of people on talking about the trans agenda. And, of course, we have had the Tavistock Clinic and the UK and the Netherlands have been the world leaders in some crazy way of pushing this. But tell me, this happens and then you go public. What were the first steps? Obviously, you try and reason with someone. You try and reason with your wife and try and work this out. And then there became a point, I guess, where you realized, actually reason wasn't getting you anywhere. Well, what I discovered was massive institutional corruption in the court systems and in the legislature of Texas and all the way up to the governor of Texas. What I fundamentally find, let me just describe it simply. It took me almost a decade to figure this out. So the Republican Party, which is largely thought of as the conservative party in America, has a kind of civil war that's going on inside of it. The Republican Party donor class are Northeastern liberals. They're New York, you know, in Texas, we would call them Yankees. And we would say it exactly in that tone. So, they're Northeastern Yankees who fund the entire Republican Party. And they're far left liberals. They're liberals and they're far left. They're woke. And then you have the voting base of the Republican Party, which is, well, in the UK would be probably considered far right. I mean, you know, center right, you know, center right in the United States is basically a Democrat here. So, you have a far right elector, you know, a voting base and a far left donor class. And so there's a war that goes on between them. And what happened is the case of my son in Texas family courts, kind of like in a rugby match. You have the offsides rules in rugby, unlike American football, so that all the action funnels towards the guy with the ball because of the offsides rule. Since I was one of the first cases in America, the donor class zeroed in on my case to make legal precedent, and the conservative electorate zeroed in on my case as one that had to be won. And in the case of my son, the liberal donor class clearly has won. So when, what date was this and was, why was your case high profile? Was this something fairly new? I mean, what kind of dates were these? So it's 2010. You know, in 2012, when my son was two, she began to transition him to a girl. My ex-wife is a pediatrician, a physician, and she used her connections with, you know, psychologists and to push me out of my own home. I lived a mile from my children. And the difference between me and some of these other cases is really just simply this. In family court, and I think it's true in the UK as well, parents are put under gag orders, so they can't speak about their case. Well, I live in the state of Texas, and the state of Texas has better protections for free speech than even America's First Amendment. So, I was put under an incredibly unconstitutional gag order, which actually makes this very podcast illegal in the state of Texas. It bans me from speaking on political topics for life. So, I'm not allowed to speak about transgenderism, cisgender, gender dysphoria, any of this stuff. And I'm banned permanently from all social media. I'm not allowed to write newspaper articles. I'm not allowed to do interviews. It's completely unconstitutional. So I'm just the kind of guy that I decided in my life as a young man that I'm never going to follow illegal mandates from the government. So, I was willing to speak out where I think other parents were not willing to do so. Also, uh, I had connections with the Texas government and was able to lobby for laws, which a lot of people don't have the time or the money to do. I've talked to, I mean, there are a whole load of areas I want to unpack here and understand. I think your story is a warning to many individuals and many parents. But the family court system, certainly in the UK, you're right, it is a closed box. There's very little access to what happens. And I've talked to many who have custody issues and they go through the family courts. And it is the most horrendous experience that I've ever heard of. Is it the same in the States where it's a closed system and there's very little understanding of what happens behind those closed doors? Yes, and it's amazing that the electorate doesn't know more about family court. It is the it is really the nexus for the reason that we don't have family formation anymore. It's family courts and the laws that that they interpret and govern marriage under. So yeah, they're closed in my case they've taken the unprecedented step of actually sealing my case which there is no constitutional precedent for. But they they are terrified of the facts. If the general public knew what happened in family courts in the UK and the United States, there really would be since, because it is a system predicated on the abuse of children. It is the institutional abuse of children. It is also, in many ways, the enslavement of fathers. For example, one of the issues in my case is I'm required to pay medical child support. So if my child has a medical procedure, I have to pay for half of it. Well, I'm an Orthodox Christian. I can't pay for any amount of money towards the castration of my son. I can't do that. So, my future lies in a Texas prison. I will be going to prison eventually for non-payment of child support. Okay, I want to pick up on on the spiritual side on you as a Christian, but first of all the political side, again this is an issue in the UK that the conservatives are so afraid of and they don't want to get engaged. And of course you've got a massive trans lobby and full-on LGBT lobby and so which is well funded and forces the agenda and the media you slot into assisting that side. But what is the situation then politically? Whenever you begun to engage with lawmakers, what was the response that you had? So, the first legislative session that I attended, they threw me out of the legislature. They were scared of the issue and literally had me thrown out of the legislature, which is illegal in Texas. The second session, I went armed. So in Texas, you can carry guns in the Texas legislature. They were not able to throw me out. They weren't able to risk it. So, one of the advantages of having a Second Amendment is that the government fears you as much as you fear the government. So the second session, a huge full court press from the Texas House especially came into play and they tanked the bill. They didn't consider it in committee. It didn't make it out. And a tremendous amount of money was spent on that. At that time, a big demonization campaign began against me in the media. The third session, we made it through committee. And the reason we made it through committee. I'm just going to tell you is I gave donations to key people. I mean, that's how the world works. And we got it through committee. The other thing I did is I went public and embarrassed a number of public officials. And I name names. I don't have a problem naming people's names. We don't have the libel laws that you have there. Truth is an absolute defense against libel in America. And I name names if it's true. And I have a legislative record. I will name names and I'll take it everywhere. I also created a huge movement in the rural parts of Texas. The basic idea was. If I can get, these are small counties where if I can just move 300 votes, I can switch a, you know, a House seat in the Texas legislature. And I organized those people. They actually had to put in a new phone trunk into the Texas Capitol because they kept shutting down their phones. At one point, the Speaker of the House was recording over 300 lobbyists a day on my bill. But that's what it took to finally get it passed in the fourth session. So it took me that long to get this done. And what is the origin of this resistance? You would think, my goodness, these are conservative Christian Republicans in the House. What's going on? And what it amounts to is the liberal donor class in the Northeast, these New York liberals, particularly Paul Singer, just doesn't want these transgender bills passed. People don't realize the transgender movement in the United States was started and founded by Republicans, not by Democrats. It was founded by the Republican donor class. The human rights campaign, you know, the yellow equal sign, it's the most powerful LGBT lobby group in the world. That guy is the largest donor to the Republican Party. And he controls much of the media. He has what I would call an actual propaganda network in the media, in America at least. And so that's what I was actually fighting. And eventually I realized once I got to California, there was an email in my, I have a federal case as well as a state case. There was an email that was sent to me where they, they accidentally put some of the lawyers names in the CC field instead of the BCC field. And it was links to lawyers in a number of Paul Singer funded foundations. So, what I've actually been fighting is a a coalition of well-funded foundations that have been run by large republican donors and that's why republicans are loath to pass these bills and it's why conservatives in the UK are loath to pass these bills their donors are fundamentally left-wing. I mean, people would think Texas, red state, all good. And I know it's very different when you break it down to the local level, and I get that. But that's the prevailing understanding. But what you're saying is, initially, you could not find Republican legislatures who were ideologically aligned to the issue that you raised. Impossible. Even today, I can't. So, for example, the bill that I authored and I was pushing actually classified these procedures on children as felony child sexual abuse, which in the state of Texas could get you, would get you life in prison and under laws that are being proposed now would get you the death penalty. So, that would completely prevent parents from taking their children outside of the state to get these procedures done. Because, you know, you can't take your child to Thailand and abuse them and then come back to Texas. If you do that, Texas is going to put you in jail for the rest of your life. It's just that simple. But they, the Republicans pulled those three sentences that classified it as felony child sexual abuse out of the bill specifically to introduce a loophole. And so this is basically how it works in the Republican party. And I'm pretty sure this is how it works in the UK. You have a liberal donor class. You have a fairly right-wing electorate. How does an electorate official split this difference? What they do is they pass bills that seem conservative. In Texas, they seem conservative. They pass the transgender bill, but they put loopholes in it. In this case, you can take your kid to Colorado and castrate your kid and bring him back to Texas. So, then they can go to the electorate and say, you see how conservative I am? I've passed this conservative bill. Vote for me again. And they can go to their donors and say, do you see those awesome loopholes I left? You can give me millions of dollars. That's how the game is played by so-called conservatives in our so-called democratic systems. Explain to me the federal state response to this. Because obviously we've seen Roe versus Wade being put back to the state level by the Supreme Court. Yes. Because there's nothing in the Constitution that gives you the right to take the life of a child. So, what about the trans issue that's been rolled out? Whose responsibility, is there a clash between the federal level and the state level? There actually isn't. So, I finally got one of our members of our legislature to request a formal legal opinion from the Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton. Ken Paxton is the most successful attorney general in United States history. He's won more lawsuits against the federal government and has restricted the federal government's encroachment on state rights more than anybody else in American history. He's an amazing person. And he's an incredibly humble person when you meet him. You understand exactly why he's so successful. This opinion, it took him six months to write it. It's the longest opinion that's ever been issued from the Texas attorney general. And what it shows is that in both federal law and Texas state law, it has always been illegal to do this to children. And the reason is under the United States Constitution, there is a fundamental liberty interest. That means there's a that is the highest level of protection of rights in our law. There is a fundamental liberty interest in procreation. You cannot take a child's ability to procreate any more than you can take a child's ability to speak. To see, to hear, or to eat. So it is a fundamental right of children to procreate. If they become adults, they can make decisions. It could be construed as legal, but it is never legal to sterilize children in the United States or in Texas. They went so far as to even go back. We trace our history in Texas through Spain rather than through England. We fought three wars of independence here. So, they went back through Spanish juridical law. I mean I don't it doesn't matter which side you go to you know Anglo common law or you go through Spanish juridical law. All the way back to the earliest days it's always been illegal to sterilize children. So the fact that it's being done is a massive human rights scam. That I can't believe that Americans at Stokemore. Is one of the issues that no one's ever thought that actually this would become an issue? Because I can't imagine 50 years ago, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, people sitting, we must pass legislation to protect children from this evil. It wasn't on anyone's radar. Is that part of the problem? Yeah, I mean, who could have contemplated that it would have become, that we would have so-called medical experts saying that we can remove the testicles, healthy testicles from young children. I mean, this is just crazy stuff, right? This is the stuff that, you know, you read of in the most gruesome, like child murder type stuff. There was no social consensus for this. So, that's one of the things that I really learned in this, well, if you call it a journey. It's, you know, it's been more like a war, is that our opponents, on the left, the secular left. And they're not necessarily far left. This is a secular left thing. They have mastered the art of entryism. Your audience can Google that. They can subvert any democratically run social process. And one of the things that they've perfected is how to manufacture scientific facts. The transgender issue is one of the best illustrations of that. It started with open source journals where like-minded people got together and they began to look around for marginalized groups. They chose cross-dressers, probably the smallest and most insignificant marginalized group you can imagine. They picked cross-dressers. And then what they do is they began to develop fake scholarship in their open source journal. And what they do is they construct new meta theories in their own discipline. In this case psychology and they they develop a fairly sizable little open source journal then they eventually convert it to a normal journal in el sevier one of the big publishers, and then all of a sudden they can claim that they have tons of peer-reviewed research to back up their points of view. Then they go into courts as expert witnesses and they make law in courts. Because as you know, under the English common law system that we both inhabit, judges make law through precedent. Through the interpretation of law, it becomes binding on other courts. And they know this. So, they go into the family courts, and they use this fake expertise from these fake journals, and they create law from that. So, they've really perfected. It's a little bit more complicated than that, but it's a six-step process. and they've perfected the manufacturing of scientific facts. It makes perfect sense. If you think about it, science is a social process, and the left has perfected hacking social processes. Now, you talk about your wife moving to California. There may be some of the audience who aren't aware why and the reasons why that would be. Do you want to just open that up and explain a little bit which shows the huge disparity and clash between different states? Yeah. What you're seeing here is part of American federalism, where we actually have states, we don't have provinces. This was understood in the original design of our government to be a bulwark of liberty, because the idea was that you would have people with such different geographical interests that none of them could come together to create a faction to take over the government. That was the idea. We're going to see just how wrong that design has turned out to be here. So California passed a bill. I call it the transgender kidnapping bill. They call it the transgender rights bill, child transgender rights bill. What it amounts to is any child that enters the borders of California; if they are from a state that has outlawed transgender procedures, California will never return that child to that other state. So, that is the basis on which I went up to the Texas Supreme Court. To prevent my ex-wife from moving my children to California and my argument was very simple. It's illegal in Texas. It's a felony in Texas to perform these procedures, in California it's a right to perform this procedure. Children can actually consent to these procedures at 12 years old in California. Okay, without their parents consent. So I argued at the Texas Supreme Court that That this would essentially remove the protections of Texas law for my child and put him into a state that will never return him to the jurisdiction of Texas should the court orders be violated. The Supreme Court of Texas, under the influence of the big donor class, absurdly claimed that my son was under no more danger in California, where this is an affirmative right of being chemically castrated, than he would be in Texas, where it's totally illegal. It's a completely ridiculous ruling. The justice's name that authored the ruling is Justice Blacklock, and the co-author was Justice Young. And these are the leftist morons that we're basically ruled by. So, we have a clash in America of values. Now, what's different between California and Texas is this. California is perfectly willing to pass a transgender sanctuary law for kids, right? Texas is completely unwilling to become a sanctuary for children fleeing states where they castrate children. I have tried to push for a law here in Texas to become a sanctuary state for any parent that can bring their that brings their child within the borders of Texas. We will never repatriate that child to a state that castrates kids. Texas will not pass that law because of the liberal donor class in the Republican Party. So, if a law was passed like that, you would go from the United States to states at war, because if the Texas passed that, then really they would have a duty to go and rescue a child who was going to experience that. This would turn the whole concept of the United States on its head, wouldn't it? Well, you know, I'm a Texan, so my concept of what american governance is is very different than the mainstream concept in America. Let me describe the mainstream concept and then I'll describe what I think is the correct way which is of course always the lone star state way. In the mainstream american way of thinking the federal government has supremacy over the states, and federal law is always supreme over the states. So, what would happen is the case would go into a federal court. Under the full faith and credit doctrine, they would order Texas to return the child, because you have to follow the court order. You have to honor the court orders of other states, right? However, under the Texas point of view, there can be no lawful order from the federal government to violate the human rights of any citizen of the United States, in fact, of any person in the United States. So in Texas, we believe in something called nullification. The federal government can tell us what to do all they want, but we don't have to do it. And our question to the federal government is very simple. How many divisions do you have? And you don't have enough divisions to make us do it. And the federal government knows this. So because of that, the federal government has put probably the largest deep state presence in Texas. The largest fusion center in the world is in San Antonio, Texas. It's the largest intelligence fusion center. They control, the federal deep state controls elections all the way down to the county level here. They put money into them and make sure that they don't get people elected that want to nullify these federal laws. But there's a huge movement to nullify federal laws in Texas again and to revive the spirit of that. Polls show that over 80% of Texans would support seceding from, from the United States. And that's no joke. The federal government takes that very seriously because Texas is completely independent. You may not know this, but Texas is on its own power grid. We are not on the American national power grid. We have our own power grid. We have our, we have our own army. We have the Texas has its own air force, its own army. It even has its own coast guard. So we actually could go independent, and they well know that. So, yeah, there is ultimately going to be a reckoning in the United States. You know, Europe has typically solved problems like this through expulsion, if you look at its history. You look at the warring periods, you know, in the 17th century. America has typically solved its problems by partition. And that's one of the reasons we have states, not provinces. So, I think ultimately the peaceful way forward for America on these social issues is going to be something like this. We're going to have to return to radical federalism. Where in Texas, we're just going to have to accept that they're going to castrate children in California. And California is going to have to accept that if you do that in Texas, we're going to give you a lethal injection and execute you. With the, well after the Roe versus Wade, and then with this extreme, crazy individual called Gavin Newsom in California. I wonder where it goes because if we get President Trump back in the White House and I've been to three different Trump rallies and and always one of the largest cheers has been for the simple phrase that we will not let men into women's bathrooms and that's a big cheer, but that's simply that issue is such a tiny, tiny part. That's maybe easier to discuss because what you're discussing is so much deeper and darker. It's darker. It's difficult to go at. But where kind of is it moving? Because I've seen a lot of campaigners being much, much more vocal. And I've got to know Billboard Chris, and he was in London recently, children cannot consent to puberty blockers. And that phrase is regarded as extremist. But where do you kind of see this going with more and more campaigners individuals, maybe you've been one of the first or beginning to highlight this. The message really does have to get through and this has to be an election issue. Yeah, it definitely is it at the state level. The reason the bathroom issue resonates, it's not that it's not just the bathroom issue. It's an emblem of a larger problem in which our elites, our leftist elites, that inhabit the agencies of the united states federal government, similar to to your tab of stock have intentionally undermined traditional social norms and have altered the relationship of parents to their children. I mean think about that. You, you know, you sire children and nothing is more important to you than your posterity. And the federal government is using the school system and psychologists and all these things to modify your relationship with your children. So it's really emblematic of that thing. And what I, what I think is really happening with Trump. Look, America has been controlled by financial oligarchs for a long time. I mean, you can go back into the early part of the 20th century. I would argue back to the Gilded Age in the late 1800s. America is completely controlled by plutocrats. So that's not unsurprising. I think everybody would probably see a way to find something to agree with there. What I think has happened is on the west coast of the United States, surprisingly in California, in Silicon Valley, a new plutocratic class has arisen. And this class doesn't have left-wing ambitions. It's much more what in America we'd call libertarian ambitions. And it foresees an economy that isn't run by a federal reserve, but by peer-to-peer blockchains, and where there's private banking and things like this. So these new elites are, have realized that they can't achieve any of their commercial vision under the social systems that the left has created for them. And so you see guys like Mark Andreessen, who's a lifelong Democrat is now supporting Trump. Peter Thiel is supporting Trump. Elon Musk is supporting Trump. And so I think one way to interpret what's happening in America is you have a new class of oligarchs who are rising up to take their place and argue for their interests against the existing oligarchy class. So, if I had to sum it up simply, it would be Silicon Valley oligarchs versus Wall Street oligarchs. The Wall Street oligarchs have typically been aligned with America's deep state. And we know that election intelligence services in both of our countries interfere in domestic elections all the time. Well, the problem is the West Coast elites in Silicon Valley have quite wisely embedded themselves into the deep state. So Peter Thiel, for example, runs Palantir. And the deep state needs that software for their terrorist and human targeting systems. And I think this was done intentionally by the West Coast elites in order to make themselves indispensable to the state, so they can't be brushed aside. And now that they've gained that power, they're going to begin to exercise it. And I think that's why you saw Trump make a big move to Bitcoin. He used to talk, talk it down all the time. And now he doesn't because he's siding with those West Coast oligarchs. What's happening in America, I think, is essentially you have a war between two social and economic visions among the plutocratic elite. Can I ask you about, you've obviously, through no choice of your own, been thrown into this dark world of the transgender industry and lobbyists. Where have you seen the catalyst for this? Because there are only a few that will be absolutely ideologically aligned to think actually this is normal to do to children. The vast majority won't. But sadly, just as during COVID, many people do follow blindly to orders and nudging. But is this also an industry that's beginning to build up, that there is money in this? Where kind of have you seen the main catalyst for something which is really madness? Well, one of the ways you can see that this was planned, that the open source journals I talked about earlier were created around 2008. You see the Obama administration long before anybody even knew what this stuff was. And even before gender it used to be called gender identity disorder and they reclassified it in the dsm-5 which is our diagnostic manual for psychology as gender dysphoria. A dysphoria is when you have a perfectly natural human variation but because of your culture you it causes you psychological difficulty, so it's not a disorder. The Obama administration, before that even happened, forced insurance companies in America to fund transgender surgery, even before it was classified as gender dysphoria. And this created the opportunity for the financial elites in New York, the Wall Street elites that run these insurance companies, to basically financialize this medical procedure. In America, all medicine is financialized and securitized even. In America, if you refuse to take a drug that a doctor prescribes, the doctor will very often fire you as a patient. They will not treat you, because the insurance companies set specific statistical requirements for how many people have to take this drug given this condition. And the reason is it's securitized. The insurance company is making financial bets with the drug company. So, everything here is a security, a financial security. So, whenever a child walks into a gender clinic in the United States, they become about a four and a half million lifetime income stream to that gender clinic. Because once they go on cross-sex hormones, they can't get off of it. Lupron, the drug that is mainly used to castrate these children, is the most expensive drug sold in the United States. And the reason is very simple. The demand for it has skyrocketed. It's only made in one place in the world. So, they're making enormous profits. So, what they've done is essentially, and this won't be surprised to my friends in the UK who have been even remotely politically aware for the last 20 years, they have essentially commoditized human misery. And then they, once it's made a commodity, they securitize it and they make millions of dollars off it. Which I've seen even in diabetes drugs, looking at Ozempic, I think the diabetes industry, health industry is worth over 300 billion. And I only read that this morning, it blew my mind. But can I ask you, we've seen, I think, six European countries begin to push back on the puberty blockers. And the issue is zero long-term studies. And of course, these clinics have been operating on zero data. There doesn't seem to be the pushback in the States despite there being no data and then how is any medical procedure carried out if there is no data to back it up. Is that still the case in the US that this has been pushed forward and the wakening up in terms of puberty blockers with no data that hasn't happened yet in the US? It hasn't happened, it's not going to happen. There there's a couple of reasons for it, first of all these uses of for example the drug Lupron for puberty blocking these uses are considered experimental uses. You're not, no physician in America is allowed to prescribe an experimental use of a drug to a child, because experimental uses require informed consent. That's the first thing. The FDA issued a letter giving special privileges for the use of these puberty blocking drugs for kids, so that they can use experimental uses on children. My representatives at the federal level sent a letter to the FDA asking them why they changed their own ethical guidelines for this one use of a drug. And the FDA wrote a letter back saying that they were going to refuse to respond. So, one of the problems we have in the United States, and I think it's because, honestly, because we copied the UK in the early part of the 20th century, Wilson and FDR wanted an English-style civil service. And we have agencies that run the government. And what I've discovered the hard way with my son, fighting for my son, is that elected officials are not in control of the government. The government is completely run by unelected bureaucrats who are largely captured by the industries that they regulate. So in other words, the government is essentially controlled by the Wall Street plutocrats. And so what you have here is a situation where a big propaganda campaign was initiated by the Paul Singer wing of the plutocracy to make transgender children a kind of liberal shibboleth. A proposition that defines you as a liberal. And liberals are uniquely vulnerable in America to this kind of propaganda. Leftists, the characteristic of the leftist is basically this. They take their opinions not based on facts or
The Week According To . . . Leilani Dowding
Sep 28 2024
The Week According To . . . Leilani Dowding
Dive into this week's episode of our weekly news review where we're joined by the audacious Leilani Dowding, whose X account has become a beacon for candid commentary on today's hottest issues. Today, we're peeling back the layers on some of the most contentious topics straight from Leilani's recent posts. From the spiralling costs of asylum seeker accommodations in the UK to the controversial use of Ozempic for weight loss, Leilani doesn't shy away from the tough questions. We'll also find out if Alex Jones was right, as we venture into the eerie world of genetic engineering with "spider goats" and tackle the shifting sands of UK politics under Two Tier Keir's Labour. Don't miss out on Leilani's sharp insights and our deep dive into the stories that are setting X abuzz. Join us for a session that promises to enlighten, provoke, and challenge your views on the news that shapes our world. Half-Filipina, half-English, Leilani Dowding is a former Page Three Girl and was crowned Miss Great Britain in 1998, going on to represent her country in the Miss Universe pageant. Leilani had a starring role in The Real Housewives of Cheshire and has appeared on The Big Breakfast, This Morning, Celebrity Wrestling and in numerous national newspapers. She is a proud 'Freedom Fighting Refusnik' and an unmissable commentator on world affairs, with her stance against tyranny and wokeness, Leilani has found a whole new army of fans. Follow Leilani on š•   x.com/LeilaniDowding @LeilaniDowding Interview recorded  27.9.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... š•                         x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Links to topics... Cost of housing asylum seekers in Britain https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1839421052470083809 Iā€™m a Celeb get me Ozempic in here  https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1839417103197352284 Ozempic  https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2024/09/24/novo-nordisk-ceo-defends-ozempic-price-in-senate-testimony/ Baroness Warsi  https://metro.co.uk/2024/09/26/baroness-warsi-quits-tories-claiming-party-too-far-right-21681202/ Alex Jones Spider Goats  https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1839115242237771872  VIDEO  https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1839195561427096043 Phillip Scholfield   https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1838960561389801842 Migrant hiding in van  https://web.archive.org/web/20240927131613/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/25/bbc-antiques-bidding-room-migrant-fined-border-force/#Echobox=1727273247-1  The state will take back control  https://web.archive.org/web/20240924201332/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/24/state-will-take-back-control-of-peoples-lives-says-starmer/  Alexis (Lexi) Lorenze https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1838648944462827955 The old days when Labour https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1839359182317003039 https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1838908706999636387 Return of the sausages  https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1838597112595972241