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 . . . Richard Vobes
Today
The Week According To . . . Richard Vobes
This week we have Richard Vobes, The Bald Explorer to help us make some sense of the past seven days from the news, headlines and across the web and social media. Lot's to chat about including... - Humza Useless: Can Humza Yousaf survive as Scotland’s first minister? - Hate Speech Law: Police Scotland have clearly watered down their draconian NCHI guidance, and we think we know why. - Channel Migrants: Five including child die trying to cross to Britain. - Six men are charged with drug and modern slavery offences in connection with Rochdale child exploitation probe. - "I'm so gorgeous because..." Parents' fury after trans supply teacher explained their gender identity to seven-year-old pupils. - Poorer exam results and prolonged damage to pupils is the ‘worst legacy’ of the pandemic. - Life and Death Race: A brutal elimination round is reshaping the world’s biggest market for electric cars. Richard Vobes, also known as The Bald Explorer is a film maker and amateur historian with a very popular YouTube channel. He has noticed that the world is an odd place at the moment and everything you thought you knew is clearly not right. Richard uses his channel to express concerns over the way things are in the world. Particularly that which affects us here in England. He ponders the mysteries, questions the narrative and tries to get to the truth, hoping to uncover some of the secrets. Richard proclaims he is not an expert, but just uses a little critical thinking, some common sense added with a touch of the whimsical. Connect with Richard... YOUTUBE        youtube.com/@RichardVobes WEBSITE          richardvobes.com Recorded  26.4.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... 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 https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on X https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20  Links to topics... Humza Yousaf https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-68901981 Police Scotland https://x.com/SpeechUnion/status/1783395518816674138 Rwandahttps://x.com/HeartsofOakUK/status/1783502832991170818 Channel Migrantshttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68872723 Modern day slavery https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13348957/Six-men-charged-drug-modern-slavery-offences-connection-Rochdale-child-exploitation-probe.html Trans supply teacher https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13344277/Parents-complain-trans-teacher-gender-identity-pupils-English.html Pupils ‘worst legacy’ https://web.archive.org/web/20240425194024/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/24/children-who-started-school-during-covid-to-suffer-most/ Electric carshttps://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/24/business/china-ev-industry-competition-analysis-intl-hnk/index.html Bobs Cartoonshttps://x.com/bobscartoons/status/1782734081970651163
Anni Cyrus - Unpacking the Political, Historical and Religious Background of the Iran Israel Clash
2d ago
Anni Cyrus - Unpacking the Political, Historical and Religious Background of the Iran Israel Clash
Show Notes and Transcript A warm welcome for the return of Anni Cyrus, host of "Live Up to Freedom" to provide a detailed analysis of Iran's history and its impact on the Middle East.  She traces Iran's journey from Zoroastrianism to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, highlighting the societal changes and challenges faced under the Islamic regime.  Anni explores Iran's relationships with neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, shedding light on power struggles and religious divisions in the region.  She also discusses Iran's media censorship, political landscape, and foreign policy towards Israel, emphasizing the use of proxies for influence.  We end with reflections on the possibilities for change in Iran and its implications for regional stability. Aynaz “Anni” Cyrus is the founder of ‘Live Up To Freedom’, she was born in 1983 into an Islamic family in Iran, after the Islamic Revolution removed the Shah and turned the “mini-America” of the Middle East into an Islamic tyranny. Given no choice, Aynaz was labeled as a Muslim by birth. Under Sharia (Islamic Law) she grew up under total Islamic dominance by her father, a Sheikh, and her mother, a Quran teacher. At age nine, Aynaz rejected Islam completely in her heart and mind. It happened on her 9th birthday when the Islamic state, in a public ceremony, declared the absurdity that she would be, from that day forward by law, an adult woman. Over the next six years, Aynaz suffered terrible, but legal by Islamic Law, abuses and punishments at the hands of many Islamic males of Iran. After being forcibly sold by her own father into an extremely violent marriage, Aynaz desperately sought escape from her hell as a child bride. Even after being visibly battered one last time, the Islamic courts denied her a divorce from the man who was clearly bound to beat her to death. So at age 15, facing death by one way or the other, Aynaz got herself smuggled out of Iran, to save her own life. Knowing nothing of the life of freedom for women and girls outside of Iran or Islam, she ran into what she calls “The Unknown.” But her running was a crime, for which, to this day, she stands condemned to death by stoning under Sharia. Aynaz then gained asylum in Turkey through the United Nations. But, as an unaccompanied minor, she was obligated to wait three more years. Finally, at age 18 her petition to become an American citizen was approved. After a further delay following 9/11, Anyaz was allowed entry into the United States on August 8, 2002. She became a naturalized and proud American citizen in 2010. Since 2011, Aynaz has produced the popular Internet video series, “The Glazov Gang”, hosted by renowned author in the counter-jihad movement, Dr. Jamie Glazov. Aynaz also appears in many of the show’s hundreds of segments. Years of her media appearances are found in public speaking venues, interviews, videos, and articles, published in affiliation with The David Horowitz Freedom Center, Jihad Watch, Breitbart, American Thinker, Worldview Weekend, and American Truth Project, to mention a few. Connect with Anni….. WEBSITE            liveuptofreedom.com GETTR:               gettr.com/user/AnniCyrus X                          x.com/LiveUpToFreedom INSTAGRAM       instagram.com/aynazcyrus TELEGRAM         t.me/Liveuptofreedom Interview recorded 19.4.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... 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 X twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin Transcript  (Hearts of Oak) And I'm delighted to have Anni Cyrus back with us again. Anni, thank you so much for your time today. (Anni Cyrus) Absolutely. My pleasure. It's been a while. It has. That's exactly what I was thinking. It has been a while. And current events bring us together with the madness and chaos over in the Middle East. And who better, I thought, than asking on is Anni Cyrus. But first, people can find you @LiveUpToFreedom. Tell us about your show. Just give people, give the viewers, if they don't follow you, give them a taster of what they can find and what you put out. Absolutely. So Live Up to Freedom, which is also the name of my show, we produce two shows a week at the moment, hoping to somehow get to five days a week. But the majority of information that is produced on Live Up to Freedom is related to Middle East, Islamization, Sharia, and the dangers of red-green axis. 90% of the time, this is the type of educational programming. I mean, I don't force my opinion, but I will give you evidence from the Quran, from the Sira, from the Sura, every single one evidence coming from their own word, proving the fact that the possibility of us coexisting, not really possible. I'm with you 100%. And I do want your opinion, full force. So, yeah, I'm looking forward to getting your thoughts. But maybe I can ask you, we have watched what has happened with Israel, obviously, and then watched what has happened with Iran responding. Most of the viewers, whether they're US-based or UK-based, have zero concept of how Iran fits in the Middle East. They may have an understanding of, if they know history, of the Persian Empire. So it is a history that stretches back thousands of years. But today, few people in the West have an idea, I guess, of how Iran fits in. But obviously, you're Iranian-born. You live in the States at the moment. Maybe just touch on that about Iran and how it fits in with that, I guess, illustrious history over the thousands of years? How does Iran kind of fit in to the Middle East jigsaw? Sure. So let me start from here. Since you brought up the Persian Empire, let me just set the record straight about Persians versus Persian Empire. There's this thing going on lately that Persians don't exist because Persia doesn't exist. I want to make it very clear. Iran, as you know it today, is what was of Persia. So by nationality, we are Iranians. By race, we are Persians. Why is this important? Because there's a difference between nationality and race. And that's where actually we get all confused between racism, if you're criticized Islam, because a lot of nations now carry Islam. If you say something against Islam, they're racism Islam. Their race could be Persian, could be Indian, could be Arab. Now, Arab race has a breakdown. Again, Syrian Arabs have their own DNA. Saudi Arabian Arabs have their own DNA. However, there's one group of Arabs that don't have DNA, Peter, and that is Palestinians. The reason it's important to say we're Persians, nationality Iranian, is because we can make the point of there is no such a race as Palestinians. If you would do a DNA test on anyone in Palestine claiming to be Palestinian, you would find the DNAs of Syrian Arabs. You would find Iraqi Arabs. You would find even Egyptian blood. But you wouldn't find a Palestinian race blood because it doesn't exist. Now, I'm going to pull a leftist here and say, if you're willing to call them Palestinian by race, well, I identify as a Persian, so you're going to call me a Persian. That being said, Persian Empire down to a smaller size, down to a smaller size to today, which is a tiny bit of Islamic Republic of Iran, has always been the heart of Middle East. Literally the heart. Depending on how Iran beats, Middle East operates. That's why it's the heart. You go back, we're not going to even go 2,700 years ago. Let's not do that. We could. Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, freed the Jews in Babylon, told them you're free, and there you go. Temple Mount is there. That's how much Persia or Iran has been the heart. But recent, 45 years ago, 47, 50 years ago, when Iran was under the kingdom of Shah Pahlavi, you look at Middle East, there was peace. Prosperity, lots and lots of import and export financially, economy of Middle East was in good shape. Every neighbour country was also in good shape as far as culture, freedom, education goes. Islamic regime took over in a matter of 45 years. Not only Iran itself with all the resources Iran has, and I'm just going to name a few. Iran is number one land of making saffron. We have the second top quality pistachio. I'm not going to even go into the oil industry because everybody's aware of that. And then considering between Afghanistan and Iran, you have the two only countries producing opium. Well, I know some people misuse it, but it still is important material we need. So with all the resources, Iranian people, more than 82% are living life under the line of poverty by international standards. Same thing with the neighbours. You got the Turkey, you got Pakistan, you got Afghanistan, Azerbaijan. That is how much Iran's operation has affected not only Middle East, but over here with Western countries. I hope that answered the question. Oh, it does. I want to go back because we look at Islamic connection with Iran. But if you go, I mean, long time prior to the Islamic revolution in, it was 79, you've got from different breakups of the kingdom. And before that, you had from, I think, from the 20s, the Iranian state. So Islam was not in it. Tell us kind of how Iran kind of fits into that, where it's now known as the Islamic Republic of Iran. But before that, Islam wasn't in the name. Does that mean Islam was not part of the culture? Sure. Yes. So if we go back way back, way back, about 2,700 years ago, all the way to about 1,800 years ago, that period of time, majority of Iranians were known as Zoroastrians. There were some other atheists, there were Jews, there were Christians, all that. But then the Battle of Mohammed started 1,400 years ago. Now, what was the Battle of Muhammad? Muhammad started from Mecca, then went to Medina, then conquered Saudi Arabia. Now, who was the competition? Who was the biggest challenge? Persian Empire. Persia was standing up. They even sent messengers to the king of that time saying, have your people convert to Islam and we'll leave you alone. The king was like, no, we're good. We're not going to force anybody. So the very first time, the very first attack of Islamic attack, which in history books, you read them as Arab attacks. Yes, there were Saudi Arabians, but the attack wasn't about race. It had nothing to do with land versus land or people versus people. It was Mohammed continuing to conquer of Islamization to basically, you know, the global caliphate, which then global was just that area. The first attack happened. They couldn't conquer. The second one couldn't conquer on and on and on and on for a long time. In meantime, some of the Iranians or Persians decided to convert by choice, by choice, until one of the Iranians who by choice converted decided to become a traitor and basically start cooperating with the Arabs. That was the first time I want to say about probably 800, 700 years ago is when the first time of conquering people of Persia happened. A lot of Zoroastrians escaped. They went to India. That's why you see somewhat the biggest population of Zoroastrians are found in India. They took refuge in India. Some converted, some were killed, some became dhimmis and gradually either converted or died and fast forward all the way to almost, I want to say, 90, 92 years ago, when one of the kingdoms of Iran on the Qajar, or you guys pronounce it Qajar dynasty, they actually ruled under Islam. The king in the kingdom decided we will rule under, the full hijab came to the country. The full mosque building started. And then Pahlavi dynasty returned that. They didn't get rid of Islam, but they did return the country into America, freedom of religion. If you want to be a Muslim, be a Muslim. If you want to be Christian, be a Christian, anything. Until the first king, Pahlavi, decided to actually ban Sharia in Iran. Nobody was allowed to wear hijab, mosques were shut down. And surprise, surprise, England and France got involved and told him that you're going to lose power if you don't give them their freedom back. So the decision was the father will step down, the son will take over. And they will allow Sharia to continue. On top of that, they will allow one representative of Islam or Muslim community of Iran to step into Congress. The rest is history. Literally 20 years later, Islamic revolution happened and it has never gone back. But it's not just Iran, I guess, has a history. Think Egypt having a long history. Lebanon, I know, reading the Bible and you hear about the cedars of Lebanon. And then you think of Saudi Arabia and you think of the House of Saud. But a long time before that, there were different emirates in that area. And some of those countries have been artificially created, maybe like Jordan. But other countries actually have got a history of thousands of years. How does that work? Because as a Brit, I think of Europe and the struggle with the nations in Europe for dominance with France, Spain, with the UK. What is that kind of struggle like in the Middle East with those countries that have a long history? Well, another country we can name is Afghanistan. If you look, Afghanistan is a pretty recent conqueror of Islamization. Right around 1979 when Iran was conquered, very shortly before that, Afghanistan was conquered. Afghanistan has a long history of battling back and forth and by the way I sometimes feel like people of Afghanistan are not getting the credit they deserve they have such a long and pure history, cultural music involved in art involved they have some of the most unique musical instrument you find out there that is now westernized and used but nobody knows because everybody thinks Afghanistan was, you know, Islamic country from day one, and Afghans were all Muslim. That is not what it is. Now, that battle, with Saudi Arabia, you need to realize when Mohammed, you know, came up and said, I am the prophet, the majority of people in Saudi Arabia were. I can't pronounce the English, when you believe in more than one god, polygamous? Is that the word? Polytheism? There you go, polytheism. So with Saudi Arabia, there is a much deeper root of Islam. It was literally the first introduced religion that unified the country. It did, or nation. But the rest of Middle Eastern countries those who are not as you said artificial those that existed they were none of them has any roots, none of them, that's the thing sometimes we have this saying in Middle East is like, oh you're just a Muslim born, meaning you're not really Muslim and I'm like, that doesn't exist, it doesn't because nobody the root, except of Saudi Arabia, there is no other race or nation that was the start. So that the struggle for every single Middle Eastern country back and forth between this. Now, again, I even during the Pahlavi kingdom, Peter, nobody minded Muslims. Nobody did because it wasn't the constitution. You wanted to be a Muslim, be a Muslim. But then on the other end of the city, you would find, you know, restaurants and bars and concerts. And women with short skirts. The struggle in Middle East even as recent as two years ago in Afghanistan. It's the matter of literally forcing this Islam into the country rather than allowing it, which is one of my main arguments. if this religion is such a religion of peace, why is it that wherever it goes it's forced, feared, blood involved. If it's so peaceful why can't they get people to convert on their own, but rather have to force them to do it. So that has been the struggle of last literally 1400 years. Today, you find people from Saudi Arabia who reject Sharia. They don't want their constitution to be Sharia anymore. Now, do we have Sharia-based constitution in Western countries? No. But are many of them already living life under Sharia? I would say, for example, London is a great city to name. I have not been to London because they won't let me come to England. But the last time I left London was January of 2011. And sometimes when I look at some of the videos or live feeds coming from London, like that's not where I was. That's not what I remember of London. So not to make it even longer than I did, if Western countries don't realize that there needs to be an absolute cap and limitation, the struggle of Middle East will start coming here, where you constantly have the battle of Islamization, de-Islamization, Islamization, de-Islamization, and gradually the culture will disappear. I hate to say it, when I look at my fellow Iranians today, there isn't much of Persian culture left anymore. it's something of a confused Arab versus Persian, versus Sharia, versus Western. It's a very mixed up where, sadly, you can't really pinpoint anything left of that land or country or culture and behaviour of the people. Half of the Farsi they speak, I don't even understand. I'm like, what is that? Any of the leaders, they started talking. I'm like, okay, you're not a speaking Farsi. It's full on Arabic at this point. Tell me, when I talk, and I want to get up to the current day where we are, but I'm curious because I talk to a lot of my African friends, especially in church, and you realize that African nations are tribal-based and there is more allegiance to the tribe than there is to the nation. We look at Nigeria and it's completely separated on tribal lines. What is it like for a country like Iran? Iran is a large country, nearly 90 million, so it has influence in that regard. How does it work when people call themselves Iranian or me? How has it worked prior to the Islamic Revolution in 1979? Where is that kind of identity and connection for Iranians who lived there prior to the revolution? That's actually an interesting question. One of the top things I did a few years ago, one of the things I mentioned about Iran that many people are not aware of is the majority of Iranians are actually bilingual by about age 9 or 10. Because Iran, as of today still, it has, if you look at the map, the south versus northeast versus west. They are tribes, not the African style of tribe, but they do have their own tribes where you have the Kurds who are still within their own culture. Their customs are still the old school, traditional Kurdish. They speak the Kurdish language at home and then they speak the Farsi language, which is the country's language. And then you have the Turks in Tabriz and some of those areas. Again, the food and the music and the language is the Turkish. And again, this is because you shrunk this huge empire down into the small size of the country. A lot of tribes are still in there. You have the Fars, literally, who are the pure Persians, the only non-bilingual people of Iran who only speak Farsi, have the traditional customs of Persia, the way they do their Norse versus the rest of the provinces. Says it's different however somehow for some reason it has always been united regardless of who's from which side or which background, doesn't matter if you're the Arab of the south or if you're the Kurd or you're the Turk or you're the Fars it has always been united until the Islamic revolution, where the country became divided based on Muslims versus non-Muslims. And when I say non-Muslim, Peter, I don't mean Christian or Jew. No, I mean non-Muslims in eyes of the government. Those like Mahsa Amini, who don't wear the proper hijab. Those who don't do the prayer the right way. Those who wear the makeup. Those who have boyfriend or girlfriends, which is against Sharia. Those are the secondary group of people. Tell me about when you think 45 years ago, the revolution, what does that mean for freedom within the country? I know it's claimed to be 99% Muslim, but not just religious, but general freedom within the country. What is it like to live in the current, I guess regime or government in Iran? I'm so glad you asked that I was having a discussion with a friend of mine literally yesterday about this, that it has come to a point where the the lack of freedom isn't, isn't just about your, what you say or what you wear or what you eat anymore. The lack of freedom has gotten to a point where a majority of Iranians, especially the younger generation have lost absolute motivation, that the answer always is, well, so what? Like, why don't you go get a job? It's like, then what? Why don't you go to school? Do what with it? You literally have Uber drivers it's not Uber, it's called a snap I think in Iran, when they pick you up snap, you sit in the car and by the way for those of you, yes I have not been back to Iran but I do have people who are in Iran or just came back from Iran so the information comes from there, now I'm not smuggling myself back. You start talking to the driver and he will tell you that he holds a darn PhD, Peter, but there's no job for him, either because he doesn't belong to IRGC or SEPA or this group of Islam or that group of Islam, or it's the fact that somewhere somehow when he was younger, got arrested and has some sort of morality police stamp on his resume. So he won't be hired or it's the matter of, he is not a Muslim. He's a Baha'i. He can't admit he's a Baha'i. They're going to kill him, so he'd rather drive his own taxi than go get killed. It's just literally there is zero motivation to do anything with your life because one way or another, you'll be blocked by this regime. Genuinely, they wake up in the morning, change their mind about the latest law, and there's nothing to stop them. There is nothing that could stop them from changing the laws every hour. Every house supreme leader can literally wake up this morning and say colour red is forbidden for women, I dare you wear red, They will arrest you. They will probably put you in detention centre. They will drag you to Sharia court and then probably, I don't know, lash you a couple of lashes and you home. Make an example out of you. Nobody else can avoid a wreck. Now, I'm making this up as an example, but to that, the small detail of life is being controlled. Tell us how, within the country, what does it mean for the media? What does it mean for, I mean, some countries like Dubai want to be outward. Focused but still want to be Islamic where other countries like Saudi it's maybe less, so it's wanting to have that pure Islam and there is a less focus on being outward looking, when you think of Iran you think of something which is a closed box because of the devotion to Islam and that cuts off the West so what does that mean within, for education, for media? Okay, so we need to explain something before we even answer that question. By we, I mean me. I identify as... Media in Iran. There is no... private or alternative media. There's just one type of media, which is owned by government, ran by government, approved by government, everything government. There are, I believe six channels of cable, only six. One is dedicated to news. One is dedicated to sports. And the other three, one is dedicated to religion actually. Most of the time, it's like some Mullah sitting there dissecting and fat buzz and Corona and stuff. And then there are two, that is a combination movies, TV series, commercial news, a little bit, things like that. Now, why am I breaking it down is because it is so extremely controlled that it's only six, Only six. For example, the sport channel, you'll never find any kind of female competition inside or outside of Iran out there. You just don't. They cover all of the European leagues, right? The soccer leagues. And you literally see that if they pass by a female audience in a stadium who is wearing makeup or open hair, you literally see them blurred out and then you come back to zoom back in. To that extent what is being aired inside the country's control You can make a movie in Iran, but before you make a movie you got to take your script and your crew names to this department that's going to read the script, either approve it or tweak it then approve it or reject it, if you get approved on your script then you go make the movie, but before you air the movie Peter they will watch how you make this script. If they find one scene, just one scene that they don't like, they'll have you go either redo it, edit it, come back again. A movie can take seven years to be released or two minutes to be rejected. Doesn't matter how much you spend on your movie. It's done. Won't never come out. So that's the internal. Now, they have one, Tenseem is the name of it. I actually report from it a lot. They have one, let's say, kind of like an article or text formatting website that is tied to the regime. And then they have their own Islamic Republic of Iran's broadcasting website. Those are the ones that are being fed propaganda and lies to be published because we outside have access to that. We read that where it makes it look like the country is flawless and people are super happy and the elections are going fantastic, that is the one for external use that is mainly filled with propaganda And how does politics work? How does, are there elections, were there elections before, how does that work in the country? Yes there are, there are selections. There are selection election however it's in your best interest to show up for this election, because one they can create a lot of propaganda video and put it out, number two, now in Iran when you vote they actually stamp like you use your index on a stamp and they you put it on your birth certificate which Iranian birth certificates are like a lot of booklets, now if you have that a printer means you voted. And for example, at the end of the year, when they're giving away coupon for chicken or egg or oil or whatever it is, if you have that fingerprint, you get your coupon. If you don't, well, good luck, go buy it out of your own pocket. So it's a selection coordinated to look like an election. And if you don't show up, well, there are consequences. [Hmm tell me how it, is the focus with Iran with the leadership, is it for dominance within the region and then you're clashing with the other Islamic nations or is it with the destruction of Israel because Iran and Israel don't border, think isn't Iraq between them if I my middle eastern geography is bad so feel free to correct me, but how does it fit in, what is the goal? Is it regional stability and power within the region, or is it focused on hatred towards Israel? Can I go with all of the above? Is that an option? Internally, the regime or the mullahs, internally, main focus is to re-establish a stability. Because literally from 2009 and the Green Movement, on and on and on, they have lost that stability. Every time there's an uprising, it's becoming a stronger, longer, stronger, more planned. So they're trying to gain that stability they had for the first, I don't know, 27 years of their power. That's number one internally. Now, how do they gain that is by creating some sort of dilemma or war for the people of Iran to stand down because they're, at the end of the day, if you look at the history of Iran-Iraq war for eight years, eight years, people of Iran fought. And I can tell you, I have heard directly from the soldiers or from children of those soldiers that they have always said, we didn't fight for the mullahs. We fought for our country. Okay. So with that, if there is a war going on, even if it's a small, even if it's not a major, it doesn't have to be an eight years war, but the regime can reestablish that stability inside. They do have hatred for Israel. I repeat, when Khomeini arrived in Tehran in 1979, he was driven from the plane airport to the biggest and most, I don't know why it's famous, but famous cemetery in Tehran. They put a chair, he sat on it, and he started talking. The very first thing that came out of his mouth was, let the plan begin. We're going to take down the great Satan and wipe Israel off the map. Now, 47 years ago, they already said what they're planning to do. So that's that. They want to wipe Israel off the map. Is it mainly religious beliefs? Yes. But also, it's the fact that they know that as long as Israel exists, Iran will not be able, in any shape or form, or the government of Iran, rest easy knowing they have the land forever. But you've got a, I mean, you could have countries coming together with a focus on a common enemy, which is Israel for everyone. But then you've got, you've got obviously Lebanon and Syria basically failed states, but then you've got Turkey and Saudi and Egypt and the Emirate, Dubai wanting to assert themselves. So is there no coming together against a common enemy? Because Iran seems to be very much still out in the cold in regards to relations with other nations around it. That's a good question. I highly doubt that Iran and Saudi Arabia would ever come together. Again, going back to 1400 years ago, this battle didn't start yesterday and it's not going to end tomorrow. That Saudi Arabia versus Iran, or better yet, Arabs versus Persians war, a battle has been going on for a long time. And is Saudi Arabia targeting Israel enough to put themselves in this scenario? I doubt it. As far as Turkey is concerned, right now, Erdogan is doing a lot of talking. But remember, Erdogan needs to be very careful because they don't want to be kicked out of EU. This much of the country is in Europe. The rest is in Middle East. They worked so hard to squeeze themselves into EU. He's going to have to be very careful because he won't have the allies he has today. If he's kicked back into full on Middle East, that's when Iran is going to come after him. Iran and Turkey on paper, it might seem all good, but Iran and Turkey don't get along either. All the way from the Caliph of Sunnis until today, the Sunni versus Shia scenario has been going on between Turkey and Iran. So I know Erdogan does a lot of talking. I don't believe unless Russia gets involved, Turkey won't get involved. That's the only time Turkey will get involved because now Turkey has the approval of Russia to get involved and back Iran. So let me jump up to the present day. And if my research serves me correct, I don't think Iran has actually struck at Israel since the revolution. And this seems to be from what I've understood knowing little about Iranian politics but it seems to be the the first attack on Israel. Is that correct and how does what Iran have done, the attack on Israel, how does that change things in the region? You are correct. Yes since 79 until today there has never been a direct, a strike or attack from Iran toward Israel. But I go back to the fact that we need to acknowledge they are playing it this way, but we need to remember this attack directly was by IRGC. IRGC is Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is not Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Were they put together by Khomeini? Absolutely. Do they belong to the government of Iran? No, there are their own entity freely guarding all Islamic nations. That's why you have their children such as Hezbollah and Houthis and Hamas out there. That being said, I don't, this is not going to be pleasant to a lot of your audience, but I'll say it. Iran's strike or IRGC's strike or Israel's airstrike. Neither one of them were strikes. This just doesn't look like anybody's planning to do anything major. Both Iran and Israel have the military needs, means, sorry, wrong word. To do real damage if they wanted to, This whole, in Farsi, we laugh and say, you know, they knock at each other's door and run and hide. Seems like that's what they're doing. They send a couple of missiles, yeah, 300, lots of missiles and drones, but then they call and say, heads up, in about an hour, hour and a half, fix up your iron dome so we're about to arrive. When was the last time Hamas gave a heads up? Right? October 7th happened, catching everybody off guard. And they left a mark. You know what I mean? This Iran Saturday strike and this Israel striking back, which by the way, Iran is absolutely denying the existence of this attack back. And that's what you need to look at. Iran goes saying, okay, we attack, this is it. If you attack back, we're going to be in a split second, we're going to destroy Israel. Israel attack back and Iran denies it. It ignores it, never happened. Does that look like something is about to change in the Middle East? No. This is all tied back to Western countries. In America, we're in election year. We're in election year. Whatever happens over there can definitely help Biden over here. Europe is in pretty much a lot of chaos. The tests run up. Are they going to sit back and let us do whatever we want to do? Or are they going to dare try to rescue and get attacked in their own countries with our sleeper cells? That's all there is to this I'm not downplaying anything but I know both countries, I've heard and I've seen the capability of both ends, this doesn't look like something that's going to turn into world war three, that's not going to happen No you're right when I read the reports a day before, 100 rockets are going to be fired over and talking to people and they said seriously who gives their enemy that much notice and then the next day 100 came over to the number. So you've got that a show of strength and I get that as a show of strength, especially drones taking three to four hours and it shows you what you can do, but with Iran having so many proxies, I mean Hezbollah are a serious threat to the region and seemingly much more dangerous than Hamas are and they're embedded in Lebanon and Syria. How does that play and does Iran not just use a proxy like Hezbollah to attack Israel instead of firing over what, drones that take four hours? That's not a serious attack, but Hezbollah do seem to be serious. Yes, exactly. And that's where I put my thought process. I'm like, OK, you have Hezbollah and you have Hamas. And again, I go back to October 7. It shocked all of us. Not because we weren't expecting Hamas to be so barbaric. No, it was the fact that nobody called anybody to say, okay, so tomorrow at your music festival, we're coming. That's how you do serious damage. You have Hezbollah, you have Hamas. And I'll go back to what I've said many times, and I've been accused of many things. Israel is not going to take on Iran. You know why? Israel has what it takes to take on Hamas, and they never did. They haven't. I was looking on my Facebook page, and last year, this week, is exactly when this Hamas-Israeli situation was going on, and Biden was on the phone asking for a ceasefire, which Israel ended up doing the ceasefire. Every year. It's a pattern. It just happens. But for anybody to either get excited or get nervous that something's going to come out of this, no. Hezbollah is regrouping, yes. Israel is talking about possibly going into Lebanon, yes. Is any of this going to put an end to this back and forth? I highly doubt it. I do. In no shape or form is it in benefit of anyone involved with globalist groups or elite or deep state. None of whom have any interest in ending this conflict in Middle East. So it's not going to end one way or another, and it's not going to even start. Again, it's that time of the year where everybody needs to get a little dusty in Middle East, and then everybody's going to go home and next year we'll repeat. That's just the way things go. Unfortunately, as much as I wish somebody would finally put their foot down and say enough is enough, nobody's going to do that. They are just giving a break to Hamas for now. While Hezbollah is regrouping IRGC is doing a lot of manoeuvring, And that's it. Now, why is Israel not standing up? Well, that one is a question for Netanyahu. It's interesting watching because, obviously, Israel didn't deal with Hamas before. It's now been forced to deal with Hamas. And Israel are going to do what it takes. That's how it seems. And whatever force is needed for them to secure their security, they will go for. But I guess the Islamic nations have been happy for Hamas to be a thorn in the side and for the Palestinians to be a thorn in the side of Israel because that keeps Israel's defence spending high, it keeps their a threat level high, it keeps that fear, it's perfect to kind of keep Israel nervous and not let them kind of relax a constant state of war I guess. What does it mean if Hamas are removed to a degree? Does it then, do those nations around think, what's next? Does Hezbollah then have to come in and provide that? What does that mean for stability? Because it does seem the country has been happy to sit back and let Hamas do the, let's piss off Israel role. Well actually to emphasize on your point, Hamas and Palestinians were put there exactly for that purpose, now I brought this up a couple of times that we call, I don't, but Western countries you call them Palestinians but if you talk to them, talk to Rashida Talib, for example, and listen to their chants on the streets of UK, France, US, Canada, anywhere, you don't hear Palestine, you hear Philistine. It's Philistine. The enemies of Jews, Philistine. They were picked. This name wasn't specifically picked. Their location wasn't specifically picked. That's one of the reasons when it comes to the argument of Palestinians versus Israel or the Gaza border. I just opened this up. First of all, you don't find an Arab-speaking person who can say Palestine. Again, my mother tongue of Farsi was not Farsi. It's Parsi. Parsi, the language of the Pars people of Persia. It turned into Farsi because in Arabic language there is no character as P they don't say Pepsi they say Bepsi, how do you expect them to say Palestine, no we have turned that into Palestine so we hide the
Kenneth Rapoza - How Free Trade and Soft Power are making China the #1 World Power
5d ago
Kenneth Rapoza - How Free Trade and Soft Power are making China the #1 World Power
Show Notes and Transcript Journalist and 'China smartypants' Kenneth Rapoza joins Hearts of Oak to discuss China's impact on Western manufacturing post its WTO entry and the free trade's negative effects on job losses and economic disparities.  We look at the challenges in competing with China's low-cost labour and its aggressive trade practices on other nations.  Kenneth walks us through evolving views on globalization, power shifts between the US and China, and China's strategic expansion in key industries. We address concerns about social control in China and democracy preservation, emphasizing the need to understand changing power dynamics in today's interconnected world amidst China's global rise Kenneth Rapoza is a seasoned business and foreign affairs reporter with more than 20 years experience. He was stationed abroad as a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal in Sao Paulo and was a former senior contributor for Forbes from 2011 to 2023 writing about China, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and other developing countries. After leaving Brazil in 2011, Ken started covering the BRIC countries for Forbes as a senior contributor.  He has travelled throughout all of the countries he covered and has seen first-hand China’s impressive growth and its ghost towns as recent as 2017 and 2018. His editorial work has appeared in diverse publications like The Boston Globe and USA Today — where he was given the unflattering task of taking an opposing view in support of China tariffs at the start of the trade war — and more recently can be found in Newsweek and The Daily Caller. He has either written for, or has been written about, in The Nation and Salon in the dot-com years, and almost broke the Argentine internet after publishing a story in Forbes about the return of the International Monetary Fund before the government opened up about it. Today, Ken does the radio and podcast circuit talking about CPA issues. Having grown up near the depressed mill towns of Massachusetts, manufacturing as a bulwark of household income and sustainability is not merely an intellectual pursuit, but a personal one, too. He experienced the life-altering impact government policy has on manufacturing labor in his own family back in the 1990s. He considers himself an American “lao baixing.” He graduated from Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH. Ken lives and works from a small farm and beach town in Southern Massachusetts with his family.   Connect with Ken... X                         x.com/BRICbreaker SUBSTACK        doubleplus.substack.com WEBSITE            prosperousamerica.org Interview recorded 15.4.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ TRANSCRIPT  (Hearts of Oak) And I'm delighted to have a brand new guest, someone who I've been intrigued watching their Twitter, and that is Kenneth Rapoza. Kenneth, thank you so much for your time today. (Kenneth Rapoza) Thanks for having me on, Peter. I appreciate it. Oh, great. And people can obviously find you @BRICbreaker is your Twitter handle. Ken is an industry analyst from the Coalition for a Prosperous America, former staff, foreign correspondent for Wall Street Journal and a senior contributor to Forbes covering China since back in 2011. And there's so many issues we could discuss, but it's that issue of China which I want to start with. And I've seen a number of your posts, I think on Daily Caller. One of the recent ones was on free trade. I think free traders are wrong. It's time to try trade a new way. And you started off simply by a statement on a Daily Mail poll recently showed 54% of voters support Trump's proposal to put 10% tariffs on imports from China and elsewhere, which is obviously opposite to a free trade thinking. Maybe start there. Why do you think free traders are wrong? And why do you think we need a new model for the future? Well, the idea of free trade, right, of course, goes back to the British colonial days, right? But in modern times, from our youth and what we recall, it really kicked off in its heyday, we could say, probably post-World War II, and then after the end of the Cold War. It was the end of history, peace in the world, right? No more Soviet Union. We're all on the same page with trade. Then it really went into high gear in 2001. This is when China enters the World Trade Organization. At that point, I would say, is the beginning of what some people have called hyper-globalization. That was the Western world's manufacturing base being sucked out of their towns and cities and shipped to Asia. It has been totally destructive. Led to the different policies that we have today. You could even say Brexit in some degree was because of it. It was an anti-globalization vote. You know, because really what's happening is the Western leaders are saying, oh, they know the plebs are against globalization for the most part. And they say, oh, you don't like it anymore. You don't like globalization. Fine. We're going to import all those people that you don't want to compete with in the third world. We're going to import them and we're going to pay them your job. And we're going to pay them your wages that That you don't want to accept. We're going to pay them that. And that's the way it's going to go. So, it's been a disaster for many people. Brexit is probably one of the examples of an anti-globalist push among the populace. And, of course, the Trump election was the creme de la creme of the anti-globalist push within the electorate. So, you know, when you go back to the 80s, 90s, and of course, China joined the World Trade Organization, that was the globalization heyday. And when what many people call a reverse globalization or a localization. The language is still being defined on this issue. But clearly, the populace of the Western world is against the old school globalization. When I say that, that's 80s, 90s trade, the model, the way it was. We're going to just import. We're going to make things where it's cheap to make things. And that's how it's going to be. We're a consumer society. We fill our garages not with cars. We fill them with toys and trinkets and all this other stuff instead. And it's going to be made in Mexico and Asia and so on. And if you don't have a job anymore, well, you can learn to code, or you can go drive an Uber, or you can go, maybe if you're lucky, you're good at math, you can go work at Goldman Sachs, or you could become a nurse. I mean, that's it. And people have rejected that. So, again, a lot of the people who are pro-free trade, they're guys who are older than us, and they came from the time when free trade was, globalization was becoming, was a topic, right? Again, the post-Soviet, the post-Cold War era, and they're thinking they still have that mindset. But there's nothing that shows that free trade has worked for the working class. The blue-collar class. There have been numerous studies showing that it hasn't. It's been great for Walmart. It's been great for multinational corporations, but it hasn't been great for workers because why? They have to compete in the West. They have to compete with labour in Mexico, with labour in Vietnam. There is absolutely no way someone in Manchester City; in Newcastle, can make a car, can make a shirt for what they make it in Bangladesh for. There's no way. They can't do it. They'll never, ever do this. So, if you're going to have that kind of world, then you're just going to outsource forever your manufacturing to Asia or over here in this hemisphere to Mexico. And I think that's where the backlash has come. And I think that's where free traders really have their blind spot is, okay, it's great. There's always going to be trade. There's always going to be imports, but to what extent are we going to allow this so that your industry, whether it is in England or whether it is the United States, whether it is in Germany; to what extent are you going to allow it so that you have no blue collar workforce, you have no manufacturing base anymore? That is the question of the day. That is the biggest pushback. In the West, we have globalism versus anti-globalism, for lack of a better word, you know and that's leading to a lot of political stress in the west. I remember being out on the campaign trail for Brexit with UKIP knocking on doors over the years and anytime you'd knock on the door of someone who ran a business that was a multinational business their response would be of: I don't want Brexit. I want cheap labour I want movement of goods and a cheap labour as low as possible. That's all I care about, it's the bottom line, and is this a conversation about maybe globalization has not gone the way we expected. That it's purely about the bottom line then removes the individual from it is that kind of the conversation that's beginning to now boil up. Oh, absolutely it's beginning to boil up. And again I think it started with Brexit and it started with with trump. Look what's happening in the world today. Look at look at Germany, primarily Germany. You see the headlines in The Economist. They're all worried about Chinese EVs coming in. They're all worried in the Netherlands now about Goldwind. Goldwind is the big wind turbine manufacturer that's taking market share away from precious Vestas. Well, that's too bad. But you want to make it all in China. What do you think China is going to do? They're going to say, well, I don't want to make Vestas. I want my own company. I don't want to make Vestas products. I want to be Vestas. Why wouldn't China want that? Why wouldn't they want that? It makes no sense that they wouldn't want that. I mean, the UK is a bad example here, because the UK used to have Land Rover and used to have the Mini, right? And now that's all Tata. That's all Indian now. I don't know who owns Mini, but I mean, certainly Land Rover and Jaguar. These are British iconic brand, auto motor brands. They're owned by Tata Motors in India now. They're probably still made to some degree in the UK, of course, but the brand doesn't belong to the UK anymore. It's Indian. So, they're panicking and they're panicking because they cannot compete. They will never, ever compete with low cost labour. They'll never compete with China because China is not interested in the free market competition of the West. They're interested in full employment. And it's a massive nation run by provincial leaders who have different viewpoints of the world than Xi Jinping. If Xi Jinping says, no, we just talked to Janet Yellen. We just talked to, you know, whatever his name is, the prime minister of the UK. I can't think of it right now. Now, he said that he doesn't want us to overproduce anymore solar panels and wind turbines and EVs. We're going to stop. We got to play by the rules. We can all be friends. Do you think the provincial guy in Nanjing and Guangdong is going to listen to this guy? He's got a million mouths to feed. Millions of people. Millions. More than the UK's entire workforce. He has in one province. He's not worried about what Janet Yellen says what Olaf thinks. To the Chinese, Olaf is a snowman from Frozen. They're not worried about this guy. So, this is something that they can't compete with. And so they're learning now. They're seeing it. And they're worried now. You see them worrying now because their precious renewable energy market is being taken over by China. Well, sometimes China's out innovating them. China just copied what we made here in the West. But China can do it easier because they get the subsidies. They got workers galore. They got workers galore who aren't worried about, you know, TikTok videos and, you know, trying to rehearse for, you know, they want to be the next EDM DJ or they want to get on Eurovision. That's their biggest dream. And then these guys are just flooding the market with product. You can't compete with that. You'll never, ever compete with that. But that's the free trade. That's free trade. China's saying, hey, you know, we're trading, we're making products. And the West will say, well, yeah, but you're subsidizing or you're doing this. Well, then the Chinese are going to say, well, you subsidize. You subsidize your farmers. The Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, you're giving huge tax breaks to produce. So, you're doing it. So, you stop. There is no such thing as free trade. There is no such thing as free trade the way people thought it would be. And that doesn't mean that importing is bad or that you and I, Peter and Ken, can't start a business. And we can't afford to pay $30 an hour. So, we decide on our own volition. We decide to, from the get-go, that we're going to make it in Mexico. We're going to make our widgets in Mexico. That's what we're going to do. That was our plan from the beginning. That's one thing. It's bad when Ken and Peter were making a widget. We wanted to make it in Newcastle. We wanted to make it in Portland, Oregon. And now we go, I can't do this anymore. I'm competing with Mexico. I have to close now. You and I, we got to lay off 100 people that we work with for 10, 20, 30 years. We got to tell them it's over. And these guys are making $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 a year. But that's 10 times what the, you know, the average salary in Mexico, I think is $16,000. In Vietnam it's nine. So, I mean, it's okay. Again, if Ken and Peter decided we're going to make a widget and we were always planning to make it in Mexico because of that wage variable, but then what happens when you and I were making a widget happily here happily, and now we cannot. Maybe we're done. Maybe you and I have finished, maybe we're finished. But maybe all the people that we work with every day, they're done. It's all over them. But that's the free trade world that is being criticized now because you cannot compete with developing nations on wage alone. Not only that, of course, in the US, we have a strong currency. Think about how far my dollar goes in Mexico or China or Vietnam. I could buy a mansion in Vietnam. I could barely buy a trailer in the United States for $300,000. Think about what I could do with that money in Vietnam or Thailand or Mexico, right? So, not only do you have the wage issue, you have a strong currency here because we're such a financial market. All the money from the world comes here. You have higher taxes here than you do in other places. So, you're competing on that level too. So, there really is the argument of free trade was always something that was for the textbooks, something that the faculty lounge could discuss and economists could discuss in a dream world. But in reality, it never came to fruition because it only was good for the big corporations who were transnational. They had no allegiance to a nation. It wasn't Peter and Ken making a widget. It wasn't you and I making bikes in Oregon. It wasn't that. It was Walmart buying and selling a million bikes all across the continental United States. We don't care about where we get the bikes. If I can get it for $100 or $99 and sell it for $110, and I'm selling a million of them. That $1 difference puts a million dollars a year in my pocket. It's a big deal. So, I mean, those are the guys who really benefited. But the guy who made the bike doesn't benefit. And for them, it's a huge blow. And I think that is where we are seeing in the West today. That's where the tensions are rising from the electorate against the established powers. We can look at even the immigration debate. What is the immigration debate about? It's about why are we giving these guys all this money? Why these guys are hurting our wages or these guys are hurting, you know, our ability to get jobs. And so it's always it always relates to that sort of what I call the immigration debate in the West. I call it forced globalism upon the people. You know, again, like I said earlier, the conversation saying you don't want us to make a factory in Asia. You don't want us to import goods because you all talk to your elected officials and cry because you want to make steel or whatever here. Good. We're going to import all of them here. You know, they're going to make it for half your pay or we're going to totally stunt your wage growth forever. You know, so that's always the stem of the issue in the West. It's always this rush to globalization, creating this, you know, where planet Earth is the nation state rather than the UK as a nation and Germany as a nation or the EU is a block. No, there's districts, like Hunger Games. This is the district that makes this widget. This is the district that makes that widget. And then free capital moves throughout the world. And that's a dream of the free trader, but that's not a dream of the person, again, Ken and Pete, who were making a widget, and now we cannot. We cannot do that anymore, because we cannot compete with Mexico. There is no way in hell we're going to do it. We're not going to make it for the same price you can make it in Albania, for crying out loud. It's all over. And so that has something's got to give. And there's a lot of politicians that realize that. And there's a lot who are pushing back, obviously. Well, in that order, you talk about some of the old understanding of the views on globalization are changing. So, you talk about trade deficits don't matter or imports don't take American jobs. I mean, those are two issues which will come home to roost for individuals because the U.S. Massive trade gap, that has a cost. And of course, if you're all getting your stuff from temu then actually uh no one needs to actually work in America to produce anything so, where are the jobs? And is it a waking up to the damage that unrestricted, uncontrolled, mass-globalization causes in those two simple things of trade deficit and simple jobs. Well yeah there is there is a waking up. Look, I look back; In fact, I'm not an old guy. So, I remember in the 90s, I was young, I was probably just starting to vote, when a man named Ross Perot was talking about this, what it would be like when the United States created the free trade area of North America, NAFTA. And he said it would be a huge sucking sound of American jobs going to Mexico. And at the time, remember, Mexico was a country that was in and out of default. It survived on the IMF. It was like Argentina. It was basically Argentina of North America. And of course, NAFTA saved it. NAFTA saved it, but it became essentially the United States, the 51st state. And what's happening now? Let's talk about the free trade agreement of North America. Let's talk about NAFTA for a second. That idea was always to Mexico is our neighbor. They're always in and out of a financial crisis or an economic crisis. Let's help them with trade. Let's help them do this. And it was a success to a large extent, right? I mean, it's still way poorer than we are here in the U.S. and Canada. Way poorer. You can't compare the wages between the two countries; it's just at least three times more here. But countries, companies from around the world are going to Mexico now. So, Germany is setting up shop to make electric vehicles there. Of course, Korea and Hyundai make cars there. But a lot of those cars are for sale in Mexico. Those are big sellers in Mexico. But I highly doubt that the BMW electric vehicle is a high powered vehicle, a selling vehicle in Mexico. I don't think that's the market that is going to come here. The Japanese have been making steel in Mexico. That is coming here. That's coming here duty free. So, now NAFTA has become a trade zone for any multinational that wants to set up shop in Mexico. It's helping the Mexicans and the locals and the Mexican workers, but it's really a multinational free trade zone. If you can set up shop in Mexico and, of course, employ Mexicans and so on and pay Mexican taxes, you can sell your goods where? Well, to the biggest consumer economy in the world, right? You've got to sell them here. You're not setting up to sell there, I mean, Mexico, tiny. Your next door neighbour is right here. So, this is a problem, but that's free trade. That's the free trade topic. That's the free trade model. And people do not like it. Clearly, they do not like it. It doesn't mean they don't like free trade. Obviously, we want to trade. Again, you and I have a factory. We make a widget. We want to trade with the world. We do want to trade with the world. And that's not a bad thing. That's a good thing. There's nothing wrong with that. But again, if people perceive from the UK, from Germany, the United States; they perceive that their leaders were obsessed, that's changing, with this globalization model of one world kumbaya. Everything's going to be made in Asia. Everything's going to be made in Mexico. And they cannot survive. They cannot survive on that. And so either you're going to have a city and town where you have marijuana shops and treatment centers, and that's going to be your new industry and casinos, or you're going to have a place where people can survive making things like kitchen cabinets or furniture. And if you don't want that, if you don't want that, then okay, then admit you don't want that. And what are you going to do to replace it? Okay, then what do they say? Well, we're going to have universal basic income. So they know. They do come up with solutions, but that's their solution. That's their solution. And I'm not convinced that people are on board with that for the most part. I don't know. Maybe there are some lazy people who are fine with universal basic income. I'm sure there are people who would be fine with that. But people are against this globalization model, and it's being turned on its head in the West, and it is a source of a lot of political problems. And of course, China is the 10,000 pound gorilla, whatever that saying goes in the room. And everybody, everybody sees that now. It was Trump really that made people see that, but Europe seeing it now as well. So, where that leads in the years ahead, I don't know. People clearly do not like the setup the way it was pre Trump, let's say pre Brexit, where the goal was: hey, we're just going to make everything in China. We're gonna make everything in Asia. And that's it. You can learn to become a new EDM DJ and you now train for Eurovision and maybe you'll get lucky and that's that's the extent of it. Well, we've got UBI coming in Wales as a test bed but that's a whole other conversation with Wales; have found how you get free money which is a change in how humanity works. I want to ask, you did another post looking at, I think the title was, U.S. Risks Losing Its Status as an Exemplar of a Free Country with Laws. And you talked about China's soft power slowly winning hearts and minds, see it in developing countries, in other countries it's not. But there does seem to be that move from that kind of American dream, everyone wants to come to America to see the sights, the sounds, to see the miracle that's America. That seems to now be moving towards China with a huge focus on it. So, what are your thoughts? Tell us more about that, about the US losing that position, having its soft power of influence worldwide. Well, for starters, America is still seen as a place in Europe as well, as a place where people from developing countries want to go. If we were seen as a failing society and failing countries, I would assume people from other failing countries wouldn't want to come here. But, I don't know how informed these people are about what it looks like today in the streets of San Francisco. How much it costs to live in New York City? They might still believe that, you know, California is paved with gold and they can become, you know, Hollywood actors in a year or two, you know, singing and dancing on the streets of Hollywood and Vine. Maybe they believe that. They'll learn from Rude Awakening. But that sort of vision of the United States may still exist in Latin in parts of Latin America. I believe that is eroding. OK, now on the China side with soft power, of course. You know so soft power is defined as, you know, diplomacy but it's also defined as culture. And it's also defined as corporate branding. So, culture United States wins hands down. Everybody knows Hollywood right: American music. We got Taylor Swift. China doesn't have the Chinese salesman, you know. So, we have you know the rock and so on. We have all these movies that's an immeasurable positive for the United States, culturally. But in terms of diplomacy and just soft power in general. Let's look at what happened recently. So, you have Russia's war with Ukraine. So, obviously Russia is part of the big four emerging markets. It's part of the BRIC collective. And these guys have been, these leaders of these countries have been talking and developing relationships for at least, I would say 20 years now. When the West asked all these countries to support them in their view on Russia, to a man, none of them went along with it. None of them. This is completely different than what it was like in the 80s. If you tell Brazil: hey, we need you to send some weapons to Ukraine. Brazil couldn't say no. Because the United States said, well, we're going to hold back that IMF loan. We're going to hold back that development loan for that bridge you're trying to build, that dam you want. Either you give, either you start putting out, make it look like you're on our side and start churning out some ammo for the Ukrainians or the money for that hydroelectric dam is off the table. That's not a thing anymore. That's not a thing anymore. The United States has lost that. So, when you see countries in the developing world that can say no to the West, say no to Europe and the United States, right, and ignore them. That is a sign that the soft power of the West is eroding. I'm not saying that's eroding in favour of China. But it's eroding in sense of there is imbalance in the world, right? There's a sense of that people in developing world, the leaders in developing world is saying, we don't want the unipolar view anymore, right? Let's, let's, let's go more of a multi-polar view, Right. Maybe that doesn't mean China's in the lead. We don't know who the multipolar is going to be. We don't know. But there is a pushback against the United States way. And I don't know. I think there was a real severing of that with with COVID, honestly, because, everybody in the world saw how the West treated its people during COVID. I mean, we saw what China did, right? Locking people in apartments in Wuhan and so on. We saw those things. Saw that. And who knows? That could have, for all we know here in the West, that could have been just orchestrated to make it look to us in the West that this disease is so bad. Look what the Chinese are doing. They have to literally lock people in their homes or they'll die. This is how bad it is. So, that could have been a psy-op in a way for all I know. But you had people in Canada losing their bank accounts. You had people in the United States being arrested for protesting lockdowns. You had people vilified for it, and so on. While Black Lives Matter and Antifa were able to parade around. Of course, they had their science-y masks on. So, I guess that was all good. And breaking things and knocking statues down and whatever. And they were fine. So that six feet distance didn't matter to them. And people around the world see that. I remember even the president of Mexico said, Obrador, He said, you know, COVID showed the Western world authoritarianism. He showed that the Western world can be authoritarian, just like, what they always criticize us as a being, you know. I mean, this is fascinating. This is not a language that you would hear Mexico ever say about the United States. You'd be instantly punished. What does Mexico do to the United States to help us police the border? What does Mexico do for the United States to help us stop fentanyl? Do you ever hear about them beating up on Sinaloa or Jalisco? I mean, unless like the DEA is involved, those guys just run around free like you and I, you know, going to get a sandwich in a local shop. I mean, there's nothing happening there to fight it, right? So, you know, and I think I look at that as being a sign. That is a sign that the West really is no longer the exemplar on a lot of the issues that it was. On issues like democracy, where all this talk about misinformation and control. That there is sort of a severing of ties, if you will, from the developing world with the West. And I'm not saying that China is going to replace it. We don't want that. But I'm also of the mind that there are many people in the West who really like the China model, and they wouldn't even complain if the China model replaced ours, because they love the top-down societal government control aspects of the CCP. And many of them think in the West that they can just wrap it in the pretty bows of diversity, inclusion and environmental justice. And all the urban educated classes will say: oh, that that sounds reasonable. That sounds like a good way to go. Within the eyes of the developing world. It's very difficult for me to say that they are all going to agree with the U.S. on certain things. That wasn't the case when we were kids. It was not. America was always the right, always in the right, always. Now it's like, you know, they might not agree. They're not going to go along with it. No, you've seen in Africa, especially China using their financial muscle to go in to start massive infrastructure projects for the Belt and Braces. And America seems to be very much hands off. And it seems to be as the West is maybe moved away from parts of Africa, China has gone into to that vacuum and imposed itself. And now is building infrastructure across the continent. The west then scratch your heads and wonder why they have less power. Well, it's because you've handed that industrial, that financial power, over to China and they are now the ones that rule, because of those tight contracts. And they're the ones that get people from A to B by building a road or building a railway. So, they're the ones that Africa need, and no longer the west. Yeah. And you know, where did they come up with this idea? This was what the West did. This was the United States did in the post-World War II, right? The United States went to the world and said, we're going to help rebuild. We're going to get you modernized. That was soft power. We're going to get you on our side. We're going to get you to see things our way. We're going to get you to be our political and economic partner. And so we don't really see that as much anymore. We don't really see that as much anymore. I don't really know why. Maybe it is like a late empire pirate type situation, right? Where we're worried more about silly things, cultural issues. That the other part of the world doesn't worry about. I mean, I think that was something famously said by someone in Africa. They said, look, China comes here giving us money to build roads and bridges. And when you guys come here, you give us lectures on gender, or climate change, right? But that's not to say the Africans don't want American business. I'm sure they do. But that's not, in a lot of ways, that's not what the United States is in there for. And I think only recently the United States has realized, oh, they've seen the error of their ways. Because where I work, I get to sit in on a lot of these hearings in Congress. And I know that they want to counter China in that way. But it's a knee-jerk react to China. It's a knee-jerk react to China. It's not necessarily a long-term planning thing. So, okay, well, how do we go to this country and propose this? What else can we do? Everything is a knee jerk. And that is a problem, but at least they see that they've been caught on the back foot over the last few years. Whereas China has in terms of soft power, diplomacy, getting their corporate brands all over the world that they see now, wow, we're losing. We're losing a lot of that. Think about it. I remember my first time going to Latin America in the 90s. I'm sure this was the case in the 80s and the 70s. Ford, McDonald's, Hollywood, those were symbols. Those are like the unpaid American ambassadors. And so look today; you can probably count on one hand, unless you drive a German car, how many German item products you have in your, in your house. You know, I have a Miele vacuum cleaner. I think that's German, you know, but for the most part, your kid has TikTok on their phone. You might have a Lenovo computer or a Lexmark printer in your office. There's a lot of Chinese corporate brands that are very well known. You probably, your kid probably buys clothes on Shein or, or you probably shop on Temu, right? What's the European equivalent to that? I don't know of any. I can't name one big European app, honestly. I just can't. And even e-commerce, I can't think of a single one. So, this is China. So, this is the soft power. These are very important issues for the United States that used to dominate that, for example, in Latin America. And now they do not. They do not dominate that at all. It's China that is moving in; China is moving in the auto industry. China is moving in big retail and in some areas even finance. So, you know, I think that's an interesting look to see. What's it going to be like in another generation? China may be seen as a better partner. And as I mentioned in Daily Caller, there was a survey by the Singaporean think tank run by the government that showed a small amount, I think it was 50.4%, so it's almost 50-50, of government leaders. Not just men on the street, who said, strategically they felt it was better the dial was moving a little bit more towards China than the United States. Even the fact that it's 50-50 should be worrying to the U.S., right? I'm speaking as an American here, right? It should be worrying that it's even 50-50, but it is. And so that goes to show the power of China. Not just militarily and all this stuff, but just doing business with China and then seeing things China's way in many degrees. Well, it's true. Then that report, Singapore report of the Southeast, it makes you realize that China doesn't actually need to use its military power, because obviously it is ramping up its military spending, wanting to actually impose itself on the South China Sea, make sure America is not there. In one way, it needs to do that because I guess you've got Taiwan and Japan maybe as entities that are not pro-China. But everywhere else, in one way, trade is actually building bridges with those countries. There's actually less reason for China to spend all that huge amount of money on military power whenever soft power through trade and commerce. That's actually winning over Southeast Asia. Oh, absolutely. They're more connected to Asia, more connected to China because of commerce. A lot of Chinese multinationals, especially, have been setting up shop in Southeast Asia to make everything from LED light bulbs to furniture and so on, solar panels are huge in Vietnam and Malaysia. Chinese multinationals are all there and they're selling it all over the world. Most of the United States and Europe. But again, China does want to build up its military because they see, and this is one thing I think the military worries about, is they see this. They think the military is a good place for me to have an industrial base. The military is a good place for me to make big products, big expensive items, maybe like a drone. Drones are a big thing now. Autonomous ships. Autonomous aircraft. China's big on that. I don't know if Russia makes those. So, who is the United States competing with a lot of times for like military contracts in Asia? Russia? So, India might buy, or Saudi Arabia. So India might buy an F-15, but it might also buy a Sukhoi. Might buy both. Might buy a MiG. Might buy an F-15. But now China's saying, hey, wait a minute. Why don't I also; so let them buy. I don't know anything about China. A China fighting tiger. Now, all of a sudden the Vietnamese don't just have F-15s. They got a Chinese fighting tiger too. So it's very important for China to move into the military, not because they want to protect the South China Sea or get the U.S. Military out of there, get that U.S. military protectorate agreement out of Asia because China sees this is my backyard, not yours. And they're going to muscle in and give options. But also, in thinking of the military as a product, I have autonomous boats. Hey, Vietnam, you want to have a coast guard? You want to police illegal fishing? You want whatever? You want to place drugs in the Malibu Straits without getting your soldiers injured? I got autonomous boats. America makes autonomous boats, but we're even better at it. And that's a big deal. That's a huge deal. People don't realize. All of a sudden, who's competing with the United States? Who's competing with Lockheed Martin to make an autonomous boat? The Chinese. Look, when you think of flying internationally,  there's only two planes you've ever been on. You've been on a Boeing and you've been on an Airbus. But now China, I only know the abbreviation of the company, it's called Comac, has the C, I think it's called the C919. Yeah. And that's an international wide-body jet that's going to take you from Shanghai to Paris. Well, guess what? So one day when that plane is seen as doing, in terms of safety record is solid and whatever, the airlines are going to buy that; going to buy a Comac instead of an Airbus, instead of a Boeing. And guess what else is even more interesting? Do you think that the Chinese are going to subsidize a Boeing jet or an Airbus plane? No, they're going to subsidize Comac, so Comac can become the Vietnamese airline of choice carrier. Maybe not Japan, because the United States would muscle in there, I'm sure. Maybe even France would, too. Maybe even Vietnam in the case of France and Vietnam. No. But other areas like Kazakhstan, Russia, for example, Aeroflot would probably be alright. I don't even I don't even envision a future of Aeroflot in Russia using Airbus and Boeing. I don't. I don't even see why they would want to if that Comac jet is safe. Well, you know, Boeing planes, their doors fall off in mid-flight lately. So, if the Comac is safe, why would Russia want to buy an American or a French plane? The Americans and the French hate him. I agree. I'm a plane buff, and I think I would rather fly on a Chinese aircraft than a Boeing at the moment. The aircraft could be better. I just want to finish on another issue. I think one of your tweets was that the established powers of the West love the CCP model of social control and governance. And you made the wrap it up in this diversity. But this whole thing on the control that China have on their citizens, and obviously during COVID, the
The Week According To . . . David Vance
1w ago
The Week According To . . . David Vance
David Vance returns to help Peter go through some of the news stories that have caught our eye this week and we take a closer look at some of the posts David has made on his Twitter/X including... - But it's a conspiracy! When geo engineering goes wrong. Dubai submerged. - The New Irish: Fine Gael. Ireland 2024. - Paedophiles could be stripped of parental rights under new law. - Rishi Sunak and Belgian PM criticise mayor’s halting of NatCon conference. - Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challenge. - Gutter Press: The Mail Online showing us once again how despicable it really is. - Here comes summer: 534 migrants crossed the channel yesterday. - Unbelievable! NHS spring Covid booster jab booking service to open. - Diverse: Dr Who and his new assistant. Unwatchable woke garbage. Pureblood David Vance will not submit, and he will not comply. He used to be disgusted but now he tries to be amused! In the battle for truth and liberty, David chooses the front line, he has been writing and talking politics for a long time and is a published author, political commentator and podcaster extraordinaire! If the Covid 19 plandemic taught him one lesson it is that critical reasoning and a healthy contempt for the mainstream media are desirable armoury in the fight against tyranny. Connect with David... WEBSITE           davidvance.net/ X                        twitter.com/DVATW PODCAST          vancedavidatw.podbean.com Recorded 18.4.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Links to topics... Dubai submergedhttps://x.com/DVATW/status/1780605966968381789 Geo-Engineeringhttps://x.com/DVATW/status/1780566730638532934 Ireland 2024https://x.com/DVATW/status/1780584179089986020 Paedophiles https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68830796 NatCon conferencehttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/16/belgian-mayor-natcon-conference-braverman-farage-brussels?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other prayer ban https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68731366 Mail Online https://x.com/DVATW/status/1779880464418845032 migrants https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1779808882069520555 Covid booster https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68789711?s=09 Dr Who https://x.com/DVATW/status/1778883835976958046
Prof Angus Dalgleish - The COVID Booster Cancer Time Bomb and Why the Experiment Needs To Stop
Apr 18 2024
Prof Angus Dalgleish - The COVID Booster Cancer Time Bomb and Why the Experiment Needs To Stop
Show Notes and Transcript Professor Dalgleish has spoken out about his concerns of the mRNA jab for years. And for the last 2 he has written about the rise of cancers he believes are linked to the jab.  We start by looking back at Professor Dalgleish's career and ask why he chose to speak up and what was the response from his colleagues?  He then delves into this rise of turbo cancers and why he had to sound the alarm despite the struggle to get full transparency from the authorities and "Move on, nothing to see here" is the reply to most requests for data.  His fellow cancer specialists agree with his concerns, but the authorities simply will not listen. Angus Dalgleish is an expert in immunology and Professor of Oncology at St George's Hospital Medical School, London. Article in The Conservative Woman: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/massive-cancer-deaths-study-vindicates-my-warnings-over-covid-boosters/ Japan Data: https://www.cureus.com/articles/196275-increased-age-adjusted-cancer-mortality-after-the-third-mrna-lipid-nanoparticle-vaccine-dose-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-japan#!/ The Death of Science:      https://amzn.eu/d/2w1wxk4 Interview recorded 15.4.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ TRANSCRIPT (Hearts Of Oak) I'm delighted to have Professor Angus Dalgleish with us today. Professor, thank you so much for your time. (Prof Angus Dalgleish) You're welcome. Great to have you. And of course, people will have read, I'm sure, many of your articles, more recently in The Conservative Woman, back before that, I think in certainly The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail. And since 1991, I know you've been the Professor of Oncology at St. George's University, London. And during this time, you focused on the immunology of cancer and conducted numerous clinical trials involving a variety of vaccines and immune therapy. I know you're well known for your contributions on HIV AIDS research. And of course, you stood for UKIP, which is another part of your story back in 2015. There's so many areas, Professor, I want to talk to you, but maybe you have got a background in understanding vaccines. We'll get on to, I think, the first article you wrote, certainly I read, was back two years ago, actually, on the madness of vaccinating children against COVID, and they started discussing cancer and what you were seeing back in December 2022. I certainly saw it in the Conservative Woman but maybe I can ask you just for a little bit of your background and then we can get on to what you have seen with your patients and the data. Okay well with regards to my background I mean it's, I've been reminded of something I'd forgotten and that is that I'm probably one of the only people in the country who's been an NHS consultant in virology, immunology, general medicine, and oncology. So when I had my chair in oncology, I had a great background in immunology and virology, which is what led me to go into tumour immunology. And I continued working on HIV pathogenesis for several years and worked with colleagues in Norway with designing a very good HIV vaccine, which is the only one that works. But I was staggered that nobody was interested or would support it. And yet the big medical industrial complex, such as the NIH and Big Pharma, kept plowing ahead with vaccines that had the whole envelope in different technologies, and none of them worked. In fact, it was worse than working. They had to stop all these worldwide trials costing billions because the vaccine was worse than the placebo, now so that's a very good entrée as to where I came from with the COVID virus. When that became a pandemic and the sequence became available. I was called up by my colleagues in Norway saying, would I be happy to do the same process? I help identify the major immunological components and avoid all the unnecessary ones, which is the most important thing. And I said yes, obviously. And we started to plan a MAPA plan when they came back and said, this is not an actual virus, this has been released from the lab in Wuhan or escaped then as we put it and the reasons for this was absolutely plain, is that there were charged inserts around the receptor binding site not one or two but six as well as the fusion site, fusion domain and I looked at that you know, and I had a background because I've done so much work on the HIV receptor, even as a clinician I was you know, had a scientific understanding of interactions and what is required etc and it occurred to me that these inserts some of them had been previously published and, you know, by the Wuhan group, they'd said, aren't we clever? We put this insert in and we made this virus more infectious to human cells. This is very good. They went on with two or three. But here we had one with six inserts. Now, my molecular biology, virology friends all told me, oh, don't get excited. All these things happen at random. And here I then realized what a problem was with science, people are only in their boxes, they don't get out of the boxes. Changes in sequence only matter when they translate into the amino acids which translate into proteins and that's what does the interaction, once the amino acids were translated by these inserts they broke all the rules of the game, they were far too too positively charged, which meant that the virus had been altered so it would act like a fridge magnet. So it would zap onto human cells over and above its natural ACE receptor. And when I realized this, it was 100% I was convinced it could not have come from anywhere else because it had broken the rules of biology. And the rules of biology would have edited out those changes because, put it in a simple way, the charge was around pH 8. The charge of any normal virus is around 6 or less. So it was just a supernatural leap. And that's what convinced me. But the big problem was that having written papers in Nature Science, Lancet on HIV and its receptor and how it causes disease and the epidemiology and got them all in the leading papers. When I pointed this out with my colleagues, Nature, Science, all these papers, Lancet, they all turned us down and said, this data is not in the public interest. Seriously, I've got the copies. It is unbelievable. So I realized then that a discussion about the science was being banned. This led to me, and I'm flagrantly admit that, you know, this ended up in us writing a book called The Death of Science, which is actually available, and I've probably got it somewhere. But this was unbelievable that we suddenly realized everything was being censored. I was told by my own university we were not allowed to discuss or research the origin of the virus. Well, I mean, that was really quite draconian. But then where do so many universities get their funding from these days? They're far too reliant on China. So it clearly comes from that source, the way China stopped the WHA doing their work. Now, I'm just going to mention, this is relevant to what you've asked me to talk about, because when we had that spike protein, we realized it was very fully charged. We also looked at it for a homology with now an epitopes. And 80% of it was similar to the human epitopes, some of them unbelievably identical, platelet factor IV myelin. So we said, do not use this as a vaccine, because it will cause all sorts of terrible side effects. This is how you do it. We've learned from HIV, a vaccine is not how much you can put in it, but how little you can put in it. So you go for the Achilles heels of the structure. So if those structures no longer exist, the virus doesn't exist in any variant. So we actually had a blueprint. And we told everybody about this. We had access to the cabinet, the SAGE, Chief Medical Officer of Science. Who basically deemed it all interesting but not relevant. Can you believe that? But they had a point that there was 150 groups reviewed by a Nature paper, all of them so stupid, I use the word advisedly, that they all said, this is our vaccine. They all used the whole spike protein. Well, it was obvious that you must not use the whole spike protein, in the same way we'd spent 30 years saying don't use the whole HIV envelope. And they still haven't got the process. I mean, it is unbelievable stupidity group thing. And anyhow, so we knew there was going to be a big problem if they use the spike protein with autoimmunity, etc. However, that had nothing to do with my interest with cancer at all. What got my interest in cancer in this was when they brought out the booster program. Now, I've done lots of model work on vaccines, you know, basic research funded by charity, done for industry too. And a basic adage is, if a vaccine needs a booster, it doesn't work. So here we are being forced by the government and all the authorities to have a booster when it was all based on the grounds that people who monitor the effects of people who've been vaccinated, their antibody titer falls off. Well, of course it does. I mean, that's what you want. And that was the basis for doing boosters, to stop it falling off. Well, I knew enough then about the booster is that by the time they were talking about rolling out the booster, we were already in Omicron territory. They were boosting a virus that didn't exist on the grounds that there was crossover. And there was all these species, the booster will give you extra protection from crossover. Well, apart from the fact that we'd widely published and it had been downloaded over a quarter of a million times, our objection to using the spike protein and what you should use for a vaccine, with another group of colleagues, I wrote a review of a virus. Coxsackie viruses and the attempts to vaccinate against them and why they had all failed. And actually, the need for them is greater in animal work than it is in humans. But they all fail because the vaccines against coronavirus lead to antigenic sin or immunological imprinting. Once you are vaccinated against a component of that and you challenge with a different variant, it will only see the first component. And it will not see the variants. But it will make antibodies that will bind to them. And then that enhances infection and this explains why people have just woken up scratched their heads and say why does everybody who gets a booster get infected again with COVID in fact three and a half times more likely according to the big Cleveland study and more than twice as likely according to one published after the second vaccine in BMJ, so this was not a surprise. I couldn't believe why nobody heeded and listened to these warnings. And the people that made the decision. It must have made them in ignorance because they certainly didn't read any of this stuff. Otherwise, they'd have been much more cautious. Now, instead, they were being pushed by Big Pharma, who selected the data. It's now obvious that Pfizer, if they had revealed the data, the VAERS data, nobody in their right mind would ever have approved it. And you've had Clare Craig and Norman Fenton on board. So all I can just point out was I was unaware of this carry on at the time, but they brilliantly pointed out that they did it all on relative risk as opposed to absolute risk and the number needed to vaccinate to prevent. If that data had been presented properly, nobody in their right mind would have approved a vaccine. It's just meaningless to have to vaccinate 120 people to prevent one infection. And when the VAERS data came out, it was clear that if you had a serious adverse event, you had a 3% chance of dying. Whereas if you got COVID, you had less than 1% chance of dying. In fact, a lot, lot less than 1% at the very most. So there was no way anybody should have done it. So I would argue that the Pfizer, and I'm not alone in having said that they went into shenanigans and all sorts of smoke and mirror to hide the truth and get everything approved. But, you know, others, such as the state of Texas, are actually suing them for fraud. So, I mean, it's not exactly, it's an open secret. So get back to the booster and the cap.... Could I just ask you just one little sidestep, I remember reading your numerous articles, I think it's probably in the Daily Mail and I remember thinking Professor Angus is saying, speaking his concerns in a great way to stay within certain restrictions and yet get the message out. And I was reading, thinking, this is exactly what I am hearing as a lay person. And you're explaining from your medical professional background. And those articles in the mainstream media, the newspapers, I think were vital in helping people understand what was happening. And you wrote them in such an intelligent, smart way. Well, thank you very much. With regards to the Daily Mail and the articles, I was staggered by the letter. Sometimes they would print a page of letters in the printed edition, and they were all from people saying, thank you so much for helping us understand just what the hell has been going on. You know that was the great thing, the big problem I had with the Daily Mail as soon as I pointed out that there was a problem with the vaccine, I would get to the draft I'd submit it, it'd be accepted and then it wouldn't appear and it had been censored by the chief editor, as soon as it was a vaccine, we now know why, it's because the mainstream media were paid a fortune to push the narrative by the government. A fortune so big that none of them were prepared to challenge it. The Mail did a fantastic job, and I helped as much as I could on the grounds that the lockdowns were madness, and there's no scientific justification for it. It was absolute madness, even to think of a second one. And many others, Carl Heneghan, et cetera, came up, and I was saying that natural immunity, and I was one of the few clinicians to sign the Great Barrington Declaration because that's what I said we should have done straight from day one. In fact, now in retrospect, my gut feeling we didn't need a vaccine program has been proven to be absolutely true because had we done the vitamin D properly and had one or two other drugs out there, we would not, and I include there, without beating around the bush ivermectin, I think Peter Curry's book is absolutely damning how Fauci and others went out of their way to damp that down. And the only reason they did was because you cannot introduce a vaccine if you've got an effective therapy. I mean, I really do believe it was that bad that they were doing this. And so many people suffered. I think it was criminal. I make no bones about that. But the media wouldn't touch my concerns about the vaccine, which is why I ended up publishing them in the Daily Skeptic and the Conservative Women, who, I must say, they challenge anything that they find they cannot collaborate. Corroborate they they check they do their own referencing and everything so they are very very hot and quite a lot of stuff I've had toned down because of challenges to the refereeing for instance etc, but the stuff that they do put out there they're all very happy about it, now what I did and why you were talking is that when the booster came in, I've said it's a complete waste of time. Not only will it induce antibodies to a virus that doesn't exist, but they will lead to more infection. What I wasn't prepared for was that my patients who I was monitoring carefully, who'd been stable melanoma for years, I had half a dozen of them go down within six to eight weeks of the booster program being wheeled out. And they had relapsed. And some of these had been stable for over 15 years. The average was five to seven. And I knew then something was going on because melanoma patients, once they're induced to be stable with immunotherapy like they all had, because I was using immunotherapy 20, 25 years ago, long before it became popular, I knew there had to be a tremendous immune suppression event going on, life event. It's usually bereavement, severe depression, divorce, bankruptcy. Something that goes over three months to cause this. Yet I was seeing it clear. I reported it. I was told by my own people to shut up and stop frightening the patients. There is no evidence. Get the evidence. So I said, you know, I am a canary in a mine and a man with a red flag. It's up to everybody else to react to this. Now, I was told no. I've subsequently seen a dozen and I've continued to shout. And I saw eight cases within my social and family circle of people who developed leukaemia lymphoma after the booster and so we started to say how is it doing that? When it became evident there was a very good, I mean my own group have done work on this, but to me what really convinced it when other people found that t-cell responses were suppressed after the booster not the first and second but after the booster and the t-cell suppression was so bad they called it exhaustion in cancer patients, well we know that the people who've got cancer under good control, it is t-cells nothing to do with antibodies. So the booster was doing more harm than good, it's suppressing the t-cell response, and then I found papers that was even worse on the grounds that the booster switched the IgG1, immunoglobulin class structure antibodies, from ones that would normally be intent on fighting viruses to one that were tolerizing them, tolerizing the IgG. The sort you induce in transplant patients. So not only had you switched the T cell response off, but you'd sent all the antibodies on to be tolerizing so they didn't reject the transplant. Of course the transplant in this case is the cancer so there's no doubt that it popped up, that was a major reason why it popped up, now why it's important to discuss this now is, having been told to shut up and be quiet, I did get by the way, people from all over the world saying thank you for pointing this out, we've seen exactly the same thing. I mean from America, Canada, South America, Europe, South Africa, Australia, all around the world people said we're seeing exactly the same thing. Well now we have this paper that's come from Japan, it's pure statistical analysis of events over COVID, including all causes of death and this is important, not incidents death, and they noticed there was no increase in death of any cause or cancer during the first one and two waves of COVID. But it started in late 21 and continued to rise, hardly doubling in 22. And so the all-cause in 21 went from a few percentage, three or four, to over 9% in 22. Death from cancer went from 1.1 to 2.2 + in 22 these are small figures but it's a very strong trend because it was in all the cancers, it wasn't just in any one and I got particularly interested because there was no great increase in colorectal cancer, which is what we've seen in the UK in fact the colorectal surgeons were the first to phone me and say we're seeing unbelievable colon cancer in young people, and they've all had the booster vaccine. You know, we think there is something related. So I reacted that there was no signal in Japan. And then remember, they have an incredibly different diet. It's a completely anti-inflammatory diet. So they haven't been primed for colon cancer to take off. But all the ones that were killing them were those that killed them before, but much quicker. But I mentioned mortality. I predicted there would be a massive increase in cancer problems just on lockdown alone because we weren't screening. People weren't coming to with their symptoms. We weren't doing the scanning. We weren't getting them on treatment early. So that alone, I predicted more people would die of that lockdown on cancer than would die from any benefit of lockdown on COVID deaths, which we now know there were zero. I mean I think most people will now agree with that, it was introduced far too late on both occasions, it was introduced just as the hot, the waves were dying out, completely utterly pointless, so I was very aware and actually preached a bit that you know, the problem with this issue is cancer incidence is massive, cancer deaths not nearly as much because we've got very good at treating it and the incidence to death can take several years, so here in Japan you've actually got the death rate clearly rising, it's all very statistical this, in one year two year now, That was finished in 2023, submitted in 2023. If we had the 23 data, I would bet that that would be a doubling again, probably, on the 22 data, because they have shown in the data they've got, it's worse with each booster, not just the first. If you have a fourth and a fifth, it gets worse. And what is great about this paper is it goes into explaining how it's actually induced the cancer early as opposed to just waiting for it to develop which is what I would have expected had it just been suppression of the immune system and one thing they have suggested, which I totally go along with and I hadn't thought of it first-hand myself but I'm fully aware and support it, is that the clotting tendency, these micro-clots that the spike protein causes. Actually would lead to enhancing the cancers to spread and metastasize. And we know that this clotting abnormality occurs in some cancers, prostate and pancreas, and all sorts of unusual things occur, like disseminated intravascular coagulation, etc. Now, this is the sort of thing, that it was being reported in people who died of cancer who'd been vaccinated. Really abnormal clots. If you look at the literature, there's a lot of people pointing out that the autopsy is highly unusual clotting going on. So the fact that that process was actually driving cancer is a very interesting suggestion. It's not proof, but it's yet another reason that might be driving it. In the literature are reports that the spike protein binds to p53 and msh3. These are suppressor genes. If you have mutations in these genes you're much more likely to develop cancer because they normally switch the cancer that has arisen by accident off. They're suppressor genes, they switch it off. So if you compromise your suppressor genes you're much more likely to develop cancer quickly. And I think that this is part of what the Japanese data is showing. I just point out that I don't think there is any ulterior motive in just pointing out what we've seen, whereas I am very concerned that the Office of National Statistics keep changing the rules with data. They stopped reporting the COVID deaths in May 22, and they've been doing adjustments and all sorts of things, which I think, what are they trying to hide? And Carl Heneghan has made a very, and Norman Fenton, made a very big issue of this. Why don't they just release all the data? And I'm convinced that data shows something very similar, just because of what I see. I look around my friends, the number who've gone down with cancer since they had the booster. Which they only had so they could travel in lockdown, and they wanted to have a decent holiday. And he said, you can't get on this plane or this boat unless you have the booster. And so they had the booster. And in two cases, they never, ever going to get on the boat and do the traveling. One of them died very quickly, and I was horrified by it because he'd had perfect treatment, absolute perfect treatment, but still progressed, suggesting there were other mechanisms going on. And another one had a lymphoma that he had years ago it resurfaced rapidly and killed him and his oncologist, I was quite surprised told him, I really can't ignore the fact that this has been stable for years but it's come back as soon as you had the booster and there's a chap in England who's pointing this out, I was a friend of this guy, he's in America. And then I've had other cases which have popped up completely unexpected. In my family, I've had cases of leukaemia uncovered after the boosters and brother-in-laws, etc. So it's really real. And friends who developed aggressive prostate, pancreatic, ovarian cancer since the booster program has been wheeled out. And my main reason for shouting about this is that I am still being told I can have a spring booster to protect myself. I spoke to a friend today and they were talking about their father who was told he had prostate cancer and I think he went for a psa testing, that's to look at how far the cancer is and it was very low it was six or eight, then after the boosters he went for another test and they'd gone up to 170 and was told it spread throughout out the body and that was it and I get those are similar stories you have heard and I'm looking at these studies which are coming out and obviously you, this has just come out, you've just published this in the conservative woman as of when we're recording actually on the 15th, but you need studies I guess to analyse the data and put it together it's one thing having the individual stories, but these studies seem to be telling you what you already had heard in your individual patients. Yes, indeed. I mean, we've been really waiting for proper studies like this, and there seemed to be a real hesitation. I mean, I told everybody who criticized me, well, go away and look at it. You're sitting on the data. You're head of trusts. You're head of of MRC, CRUK, all these things. That's your job. It's not my job. My job is to be the whistle-blower. But as we know, whistle-blowers in the health service are persecuted, and it would have seemed to be the same in science and everything as well. It's been going on a long time. I was reminded yesterday that Semmelweis, who was the first person to point out that the dreadful sepsis deaths in the maternity ward were due to the fact nobody washed their hands, and if you washed their hands, you didn't get it. All his colleagues turned around and said, you're a lunatic, and had him locked up. I mean, I don't think things have changed with this pandemic at all. That's exactly what's going on. It's the death of science. nobody wants to discuss the data whether it be the origin of the virus whether it be with a pandemic it's a good or bad thing whether it be that masks are a good or bad things or that whether we should have been able to early treat as you would any respiratory virus with a good boost of vitamin D, soluble aspirin, intranasal interferon, beclamide, if it goes to the chest all these things I believe, and ivermectin which having looked at all the data, I can understand now why nobody in the establishment wanted it anywhere near a COVID patient because it worked and it saved them and there would be no need for any vaccine whatsoever and Fauci demonized it as a horse de-wormer when it is probably one of the most effective drugs in humans ever in the history of medicine, because it It prevents all sorts of things, river blindness and the liver, all the flukes, et cetera, in Africa and Asia. And may well be a major reason why the incidence of COVID deaths in these places was so low, because they were all on ivermectin and getting good vitamin D, of course. I've just spoken out as these studies are coming out, and we'll put the link to the Japanese study in the description. Of course, it's in that article. As more and more people have spoken out, are you seeing more of your colleagues going public on it? Because surely when the studies are coming out, the data is released, then that's proving what has happened. And therefore, you will get more and more people from the medical community who actually are speaking up and saying, yeah, this is correct. Do you think that will happen? Well, I hope so. I hope so. So the ones that spoke up and said, you're correct, all said, by the way, we've been told to shut up too and not upset the patients. This is like it was a central script written somewhere because they told me the same in America, Canada, Australia, Europe and Britain, that to be quiet. I got carpeted for pointing all these things out and said I was breaking NHS guidelines. And this would go down on my thing as breaking rules. I said, I don't give a damn. All I'm doing is making sure I do no harm. I suggest you do the same. NHS is causing more harm. I think the NHS, one of the reasons it's crippling, it's spending so much time treating the side effects of the vaccine program. And they won't admit it, of course. And I've been doing some medical legal instances where people have clearly been damaged by the vaccine and none of the people concerned will admit it. They just say coincidence. It's just like a tape. And I've spoken to lots of people who had very bad vaccine and had just been really badly treated. They go out of the way to make sure it's not enough for compensation. And I hadn't realized how many people had lost their jobs in the UK because they refused to get vaccinated or they refused to get the booster because they had had such bad bad side effects from the first two. How can you possibly justify that? If you have a bad reaction to a drug, you don't take it again. You don't take another dose and hope it's not as bad this time, which seems to be the NHS and the government's attitude to it. Yeah. Another part is the cancer issue, and obviously seems to be speeding up cancer much faster. That's certainly the people I've talked to. But the other side, and a lot of the media reports have been a shocking cancer amongst younger people. And the journalists, right, they have no idea why…. Yes, they do. this has been happening recently but I mean tell because, it's that concern you think cancer is something you get maybe later on in life but this is happening younger, this changes the very nature of what that is the impact on society. Yes I mean we have seen and there there is a paper showing that there is a real increase in patients under 44. I think it's 19 to 44 a massive increase in cancers and particularly abdominal cancers. So colorectal. We were seeing this before, by the way, in young people in this country, obviously not in Japan. And so I've always said it must be something to do with the diet is driving this, and so do most people. But it seems to have accelerated since the vaccine program came on. But we're seeing all the others. I mean, I was really surprised. We're seeing oesophageal cancer, biliary, liver, pancreatic, upper and lower bowel, weird ones like appendix cancers. You know, incredibly rare. I was contacted by a fellow who said that he'd seen about one of these. He runs a colorectal surgery and he's seen about one in the last five years. And he said, I've seen 13 recently, and they'd all had the vaccine. They were all in young people. So, I mean, so when people get cancers, unusually unexpected. The first thing you should do is say, why? Do they have something in common? Well, they do. The vast majority, again, not all of them, because there's a background incidence, have all had the vaccine or a booster. And that to me is stop the bloody program now, you know instead I'm being told to go and get my spring booster what planet are these people on? This is, since you've spoken up nearly or 18 months or 21 months ago I've seen more and more people write about it, is this the end then of this worldwide experiment of this new type of technology, this mRNA which is massively backfired or is it just how Big Pharma work and then they come up with the mRNA now to fix cancer which is the the latest thing we've heard. Yeah, well, they were always working on that. And I actually, you know, when people tell me I'm a clinician and I don't know what I'm talking about and to shut up, I tell them I know a darn sight more than they do. And especially about the dangers of messenger RNA vaccine, because I was on a scientific advisory board for a company whose subtitle was the messenger RNA vaccine company for five years and I left about seven years ago and they were targeting cancer and they didn't get through, BioNTech had the same thing. Big Pharma and whatever's behind them at far more sinister, has used this pandemic and I mean, when it started I wouldn't even have thought along these lanes. I honestly think it was planned, it's like it was planned to get the messenger rna out, when you go back and you look at the Manhattan project for vaccines and world health, their big issue was why do we make all these vaccines? If we don't have a pandemic we won't make any money, we'll lose money so this really looks like it was all planned, why did Moderna have a patent on sars-2 in February 2019? Why did the German government go ahead and fund an an enormous big vaccine facility in Marburg to produce messenger RNA, long before they were anywhere near being approved. It sounds like the whole thing was part of some sinister plan. And that's what I find really, really concerning. And I've spoken up and on the record. I think the messenger RNA vaccines are an absolute disaster, should be banned. They should be completely, utterly banned. And they are what they say on the till in the early BN Biotech preparations for Pfizer, they have COVID vaccine-gene therapy. Well, that was honest. You don't use gene therapy on a pandemic that kills less than 1% of people. And then you go ahead with the plan, when you know that the people who did die had an average age in the UK of 82, whereas average age of anybody else dying of anything else was 81. So the logical thing for a statistician was to go around and prepare COVID and spray it all around the population and tell them they'll live an extra year longer, because you've got I mean, being very cynical about it. But why would you? You shouldn't do it. Chris Whitty occasionally said some sensible things, but then went on to being beheaded or whatever it is and go along with this madness. He said, you can't use a vaccine unless you've got a death rate of 30% in the main population. You can't justify it if you haven't got the safety data. Why did he not stand up when it was 1% and stop it? Could it be something to do with shut up and you'll get your rewards in the honours list which they all did these people all of them, Vallance, Whitty and all these, I was going to say goons from SAGE, I'll say that again I do, I disagreed with them totally and utterly and even the people working with the vaccines from Oxford, the Astra Zeneca, they all got knighthoods, damehoods everything long before there was any evidence it was of any any benefit. It's unbelievable. When these studies come out, a lay person like myself will think this then starts a catalyst of looking at other countries and wanting the data. But then the flip side is you realize the difficulty of data, and you touched on that. I think you had mentioned that whenever I saw you speak at Andrew Bridgen's event the end of last year in Parliament, the lack of data. It seems like there is British data. there is Israeli data and there does seem some Japanese data. Many other countries seem to have a complete void, but the UK government don't even want to release any of the data. Will this force them to release it? Will this mean there are possible financial penalties? I mean, these companies getting sued? Where does this go whenever one country brings out a study like this, which is so comprehensive? Well, I think you'll get other countries that will do it. I really do. I mean, Australia, who behaved appallingly during the pandemic, I mean, they were run by a bunch of, not just clowns, but really ghoulish clowns who seem to relish in power and locking down and God knows what else, have mandatory vaccines. Well, at least they have. They've had a lot of revolt over this, and they finally had a formal Australian Commission on Excess Deaths. And I've been asked to give evidence for it as have some other people who've raised their voice and we'll make it very very clear what's going on, some of the senators now in Australia know exactly what was going on and they're baying for blood as it were and the thing that I'm baying for, why were the people like me in Australia and I worked in Australia for seven years by the way, I did flying doctor for a year and I did internal medicine and oncology. I know it very very well, why did these doctors who thought like me, I'm going to look after the patients, this, that and the other, they got struck off if they they wouldn't go along with this madness. I mean, it's unbelievable. It was inhumane. And at least that commission is going to uncover it. I think our COVID inquiry is a whitewash to kick the can down the road for so long. By the time it comes to the conclusions, nothing to see here, nobody, no one person was guilty. There'll be lessons to learn. No, there won't be any lessons to learn unless they hold people to account, unless we withdraw from the WHO, this madness, this treaty they want us to sign up to, once they're all signed up, they release the next pandemic and they will have another round of vaccines for you. I mean, I thought this was absolute madness to even think like that. But George Orwell saw it all 70 years ago, 70 years plus. And I mean, it's just unbelievable. I re-read 1984 and Animal Farm when I went on holiday recently. They had a package, and I'd read them 40, 50 years ago, a long time. If I hadn't have read them, I'd have thought, oh, somebody's seen through the lockdown and written these in lockdown as to where it could lead once you give the power to the governments to bully the thing. Yeah, it's incredible. They could have been written in the lockdown, but he wrote them 50 years ago. He saw what was coming. Obviously, it was about the communist model coming out of Russia and the implications. But I never thought I would live long enough to see democracy being destroyed by the same tentacles of control that emerged due to the COVID. And it's given them a power to interfere in everything else. I mean, a power to block all kinds. I've lost my faith
Morton Klein - The Role of the Zionist Organisation of America and Why a Pro Israel Voice is Needed More Than Ever
Apr 15 2024
Morton Klein - The Role of the Zionist Organisation of America and Why a Pro Israel Voice is Needed More Than Ever
Show Notes and Transcript Morton Klein, President of the Zionist Organization of America joins Hearts of Oak to emphasize the significance of Zionism and what the term really means.  He delivers the case for the Jewish people's right to their ancestral homeland, discussing historical, legal, and biblical support for Israel, dispelling misconceptions about the region, and addresses ongoing struggles faced by them. The discussion covers ZOA's role in promoting U.S-Israel relations, combating anti-Semitism, and supporting security through education and advocacy efforts. Morton delves into the religious and political aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, critiquing media bias and highlighting support for Israel. He criticizes the current U.S. administration's stance on Israel and emphasizes Israel's efforts to minimize civilian casualties during conflicts. The conversation concludes with reflections on Israel's challenges in international relations and combating terrorism, acknowledging the importance of advocating for truth amid anti-Israel narratives. Morton A. Klein is National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the oldest pro-Israel group in the U.S., founded in 1897. He is a member of the National Council of AIPAC. Mr. Klein is widely regarded as one of the leading Jewish activists in the United States.  The US Department of State has awarded Klein a “Certificate of Appreciation” “in recognition of outstanding contributions to national and international affairs,” after he delivered a major address there. He is a member of the International Board of Governors of the College of Judea and Samaria in Ariel, Israel. He is an economist who served in the Nixon, Ford, and Carter Administrations. He has served as a biostatistician at UCLA School of Public Health and the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine in Palo Alto, California. He has been a lecturer in mathematics and statistics at Temple University. His successful campaigns against anti-Israel bias in leading textbooks, travel guides, universities, churches, and the media, as well as his work on Capitol Hill, were the subject of 30 feature stories both here and in Israel. His scientific research on nutrition and heart disease was cited by Discover Magazine as one of the Top 50 Scientific Studies of 1992. He has been invited to testify before the US Congress, Including the US House International Relations Committee, and the Israeli Knesset. He travelled to Germany and persuaded the publishers of Baedeker’s, the world’s leading travel guide, to correct the many anti-Israel errors in its guides to Israel and Jerusalem. He launched a campaign to correct dozens of anti-Israel errors in D.C. Heath’s “The Enduring Vision,” the most widely used American high school and college history textbook.  More than 300 of his articles and letters have been published in newspapers, magazines, and scientific journals around the world. Klein has appeared on TV and radio. Lines from his speeches appear in the respected volume entitled “Great Jewish Quotations,” He is on the speaker’s bureau of UJC, and Israel Bonds. Connect with Morton and ZOA... X                         x.com/MortonAKlein7                            x.com/ZOA_National WEBSITE             zoa.org  Interview recorded 11.4.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... 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 https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on X twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin  TRANSCRIPT (Hearts of Oak) And it is wonderful to have Morton Klein with us from the Zionist Organization of America. Morton, thank you so much for your time today. (Morton Klein) It's great to be here during these very extraordinary and important times. They are, and that's probably what makes this conversation even more interesting with what is happening currently over in Israel. People can obviously follow you @MortonAKlein7. That is your Twitter handle. And ZOA, not Z-O-A, like the Americans like to say, ZOA.org, ZionistOrganisationOfAmerica.org. I'd encourage our viewers and listeners to use both of those resources and understand what is happening in the Middle East at the moment. Now, there's lots to talk about. You're obviously president of the Zionist Organization of America. You've got a number of other accolades into your name, but it is this specifically which I'm intrigued and want to have a conversation about. And actually, I saw your name on the back of Robert Spencer's book. We had him on a few weeks ago on the Palestinian delusion. And you were there as an individual promoting the book and endorsing it. So I thought, I need to reach out to Morton. So it's great to have you on. Lots to discuss. And I think probably if we can step back and ask about the term Zionism before we jump into what is happening in the current day Israel. And I certainly call myself a Christian Zionist. And that's from a biblical understanding 3,000 years since Jerusalem was founded as a capital of Israel under King David. And then much further back, the promise given to Abraham. But maybe that's a spiritual understanding of the term, and the term Zionism is not necessarily a spiritual concept. Maybe you can unpack a little bit the term Zionism before we delve into some of the other issues. It's really a very simple term. All it means is that the Jews have a right to their ancient homeland that was given to them, for those who believe in the Bible, and a couple of billion people do, by God. In fact, he gave the Jews the land that Israel controls now, and much more. So this is a fraction of what the Jewish homeland consists of, according to the Bible and what God has promised in the Bible. It is called the promised land because God promised it to the Jewish people. We are the people who God promised the land to. That's why it's called the promised land. But it's not only a biblical right to have a Jewish state, but numerous international legal resolutions also give that right. The League of Nations Covenant, Article 22, the British Mandate for Palestine, the UN Charter, Article 80, the San Remo Resolution, the Lodge-Fist Resolution, the Anglo-American Resolution, and more. Legally, under international law, gave this land to the Jews when it was essentially a wasteland, just a desert. When the Balfour Declaration said this land is going to be given as a mandate in trust for the Jewish people in 1917. And historically, the Jews have lived in this land for thousands of years. This has been the place where Jewish people lived and occupied and lived in for all this time. And so all Zionism means is the Jews have a right to a country, just like the French have a country, the Italians have a country, even the Irish have a country, and the British have a country, and the Jews. There are 56 Muslim countries in the world, 56 or 57, why can't there be one small, little, tiny Jewish country, which is one-eighth of 1% of the landmass of the Middle East? There are 22 Arab countries in the Middle East. Israel is one-eighth of 1% of that land. So Zionism is not a complicated term. It simply means the Jews have a right to a homeland, just like so many other people have it. And this is a homeland, unlike most other countries in the world, where the Jews have lived in for thousands and thousands of years. That's what Zionism means. Nothing more, nothing less. Over the weekend, I actually went to the Churchill war rooms in London. And part of the story on Churchill, obviously, is involvement in the Belfort Declaration. And you see those maps and the discussion of British politicians and their relationship with Israel and whether they were pro-Israel or not. And you realize Israel is tiny. And you expand it out. Now, the Middle East is large and Israel is tiny. And it makes you realize that most people, I think, have forgotten the size of Israel in comparison to the Middle East. And it is really quite small. The Arab countries are 800 times the size of Israel. As I said, it's one-eighth of 1% of the land mass of the Middle East. It is smaller than New Jersey. It is smaller than Rhode Island. It is a tiny, tiny land. With 7 million Jews and 2 million Arabs. It's remarkable. The Arabs have a right to live in Israel, the Muslim Arabs and the Arab Christians as well. They have a right to vote. They're in the parliament, Israel's parliament. They're in the Supreme Court. They're in judges and courts throughout Israel. Their doctors, almost half of the doctors in Hadassah, Israel's major hospital, are Arabs. And yet the world, the Arab world, says the Jews have no right to be there. And it's really a racist, anti-Semitic, hateful disgrace to say that the Jews can't have this little tiny homeland. We talked about the term Zionism, but I want to ask you about the Zionist Organization of America, their role, why it's needed. You've headed up the ZOA away for, what, 28 years now, I think? 31. 31, sorry. I've got my three years. I blame COVID for that. So that three years have disappeared. Do you want to just let us know why it exists and why it's needed? The Zionist Organization of America is the oldest and one of the largest pro-Israel groups in the United States, founded in 1897 for a sole purpose, to reestablish the Jewish state of Israel. That's why it was re-established. Past presidents include Louis Brandeis, a famous Supreme Court justice, Abahel Silver, Stephen Wise. These are famous Jewish leaders. And that's its original purpose. Once Israel was re-established in 1948, ZOA's role has been to fight for strong U.S.-Israel relations and for the safety and security and prosperity of the Jewish state of Israel. And also, by the way, in recent years, fight against the scourge, the ugly scourge of irrational, mindless, anti-Semitism, Jew hatred and Israel bashing. So that's really been our purpose. We have a legal division. We have people on Capitol Hill who are educating members of Congress about these issues. We take young kids to Israel twice a year. We take adults to Israel. We have a trip coming up in June for adults where we go all over Israel, including Judea and Samaria, Hebron, Afrat, Ariel, Maladumim, Eli, those smaller areas in Israel. And we also have a campus department. We're on 80 different campuses bringing in speakers, disseminating literature, telling the truth of the Arab-Islamic war against Israel and the West because that's what it is. It is an Arab-Islamic war against Israel and the West. We now see it in all the rallies on campuses and around the world. They say from the river to the sea, meaning Israel should not exist. They don't say there should be a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, the West Bank and Gaza and half of Jerusalem. They say no Israel. So these are despicable, vicious, ugly human beings that want to destroy this tiny little Jewish state of Israel within any borders. They're not looking for a Palestinian state solution. They're looking for an end of Israel solution. And we're fighting against this with all of our heart and soul. Tell us about, because you mentioned it's the political fight, it's the media fight, you mentioned about on campuses with students. I mean, kind of break those down, because it is about winning hearts and souls and minds over to the position that Israel do have a right to exist like any other nation. And yet there seems to be a lot of pushback, certainly in our media and massively in our universities and educational establishments. It's incredible. After 80 years of re-establishing the state of Israel, remember 2,000 years ago, there was a Jewish state that was destroyed really by the Romans 2,000 years ago. This was the first Holocaust. The Romans murdered 600,000 Jews. And then they renamed this area Judea and Samaria, the Jewish state, Philistinia, translated to Palestine. So this is a Roman word. If this really was an Arab country, which it never was, why would they use a Roman name to name it? Palestine is a Roman name. Moreover, Arabs can't pronounce the letter P. They say Palestine with a B. They can't pronounce it. Would they name their own country with a letter that they can't even pronounce? There was never a Palestine. There were never any Palestinian kings and queens. The only state that ever existed in this area has been a Jewish state. In fact, 99% of the Palestinian Arabs live under their own control. Israel has given away Gaza and 40% of Judea and Samaria, the West Bank. 99% of the Arabs live in those areas under Abbas's rule, the dictator, terrorist, Abbas's rule. They have their own parliament, their own schools, their own textbooks, their own newspapers, their own radio and TV businesses, police force. They run their own lives totally in Gaza under Hamas, the Nazi-like dictatorship, and in Judea and Samaria under Abbas, another terrorist dictator. By the way, I don't know how many of your listeners know this, an ugly fact. Mahmoud Abbas pays Arabs a lifetime pension to murder Jews. If an Arab kills a Jew, They get a lifetime pension at five times the average rate of a salary of a Palestinian. It is very lucrative to murder Jews. They spend $400 million a year to murder Jews. How many people know this? Why would our college kids are defending a regime that pays people to murder Jews? By the way, and Americans, they've murdered Americans in Israel. And the Arab who murders Americans also gets a lifetime pension. And if the Arab was killed murdering a Jew or an American, his or her family gets the lifetime pension. So this is the most heinous regime on the face of the earth. And it is just mind-boggling that people around the world are supporting this regime and supporting Hamas in Israel's existential war. Hamas, Article 7 of their charter calls for the murder of every Jew on earth, every Jew on earth. Article 13 calls for the destruction of Israel. They massacred 1,200 innocent Jews, raped them, mutilated them, tortured them, and then kidnapped 250 mostly Jews. Six Americans, I might add, are left. And now they're saying that out of the 140 left, that they released 100, out of the 140 left, they're saying they don't think they have 40 Jews there. In other words, it's likely that these Hamas monsters have murdered all of the Jewish hostages, murdered them all. The world should wake up and understand this is an Islamic, radical Islamic war against the West and against the Jews. Mahmoud al-Zahar, the co-founder of Hamas, two months ago on the Internet, said, I want the world to understand this. This is the co-founder of Hamas. First, we're going to kill all the Jews, but we're not done after that. Next, we're going to kill all the despicable Christians. And then all the non-Muslims establish a caliphate where Islam rules the world. He said it two months ago. And so you have these non-Muslims supporting Hamas, who wants to kill every one of them. Not to mention, they immediately say every gay person will hang and kill immediately. The gay people, the transgender, they're dead immediately. So how are these left-wing students and left-wing people around the world supporting the most despicable ideology on the face of the earth, the ideology of the Hamas and Abbas regimes. I want to pick up on a few of those, and I would love for the Western liberals to have a pride rally through Gaza or West Bank and see how long that lasts. But that's a whole other issue. Modern-day Israel has been for 75 years, give or take a year, since 1948. And re-establishing that entity, that territory that had been Israel before the Romans removed, basically removed it from the face of the map. But tell us about that, because you obviously look closely at, since 1948, at the establishment, Israel has had to fight for its survival on a nearly daily basis. Israel's military spending is huge compared to other countries, and it must do that because it has to defend itself. I mean, tell us about that, because that 75 years, I see it as a Christian that Israel have the right to exist, have the right to take the land that is theirs, and seem to be a natural, progression from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to actually Israel re-establishing that in that vacuum. And yet many critique and mock and attack Israel simply for the right of existing in their land, which should be a given, really. Those who oppose the Jewish state's right to exist are mocking God Almighty from the Christian and Jewish Bibles, are mocking the United Nations resolutions and England's resolutions who controlled this legally, this land legally, since 1917. And it's nothing less than overt Jew hatred that's all it is. It's pure Jew hatred and Israel has offered a Palestinian state to the Arabs four times in the last 20 years, four times. Ehud Olmert was the most recent one, where Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, offered 97% of Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, 3% of Israel proper to make up for the 3% he couldn't give away because there's a half a million Jews living there. So Olmert offered virtually all of the West Bank, half of Jerusalem, billions of dollars in aid, and Mahmoud Abbas said, said, no. I called up the prime minister. How could he not turn down? This is not a compromise. You've given them every single part of the disputed territories and half of Jerusalem. And Olmert said to me, Abbas said to me, you must eliminate three clauses in the agreement. One, you must eliminate the clause that says we accept Israel as a Jewish state. Abbas said, I'll never accept Israel as a Jewish state. Two, you must eliminate the clause that says you must limit the number of Arabs we bring into Israel proper to 150,000. I want to bring in millions if I went into Israel. I will not accept a limitation on the number of Arabs I bring into Israel proper. And three, you must eliminate the clause that says no further claims. And the Olmert says, but that's the deal. We're giving you everything, virtually everything. It ends all the claims. It's done. Peace. And Abbas said, I won't sign it until you get rid of those three clauses. So they've been offered a state four times, turned it down every time in the last 20 years. In the last 80 years, they've been offered a state eight times, starting with the Peel Commission in 1937, where they offered 95% of the rest of Palestine, 80% of original Palestine mandate went to Jordan. There's only 20% left of the original Palestine mandate. The Peel Commission offered 95% of the rest of Palestine to the Arabs, not 5% of the Jews, the Arabs said no. In other words, they say no. They don't want a state. They want Israel destroyed. They won't accept a Jewish state. That's the deal. Because from 1948 to 1967, the Arabs controlled all of the West Bank, all of Gaza, half of Jerusalem. They had it. Did they establish a state when they personally controlled it? No. Because the goal is not a Palestinian state. It's Israel's destruction. It's Israel's destruction. Let me show you a picture if you can see this. This is the Palestinian Authority's official emblem that they commissioned. This is their official emblem. You notice it's the shape of all of Israel with a keffiyeh over all of it, not just the West Bank and Gaza and Eastern Jerusalem, all of it. Arafat, the arch terrorist in the centre, and a Kalashnikov rifle. So their official emblem is all of Israel is ours. What more proof do you need that they have no interest in a Palestinian state solution? They have in an end of Israel solution. That's what they're interested in. And by the way, I can show you another thing. It's quite interesting. Every Arab that murders a Jew gets a poster. This is one of the Arabs who murdered a Jew. This is on all the high school walls, all the university walls, calling him a martyr and a hero. This is just one of hundreds of posters honouring Jews. And when a terrorist who killed Jews dies, they have a parade and they honour him. What a great man or woman he was. And they hand out candy and sweets to each other, praising murder. They glorify murder. They glorified massacres. They glorify rape. They glorify terrorism. This is a vicious, Nazi-like, despicable regime. And the world has to wake up because the radical Muslims are coming after everyone that's not Muslim, not just the Jews. People better start to understand this and start supporting Israel, who's fighting a war against Hamas, to protect the entire world from radical Islam, not just Israel. Is part of the problem that, I know on the Jewish side, you've got a weird mix of those who support Israel and Israel's right to exist from a biblical point of view, from a spiritual point of view, and those who support it from probably a social, historical, cultural point of view. So you've got that weird mix in Judaism, which always confuses me. But then on the other side, you've also got the world refusing to recognize that this is a clash between Islam and Judaism. And the West thinks that you can come up with a solution which is a land-based solution. And if you've got one side wanting to destroy the other, actually, you've got a problem. And the world doesn't seem to want to wake up to the reality that this is not simply a land issue, that the Islamic nations will not be happy until Israel doesn't exist. Am I correct in my assumption or am I completely off? The proof of what you just said is the fact they've been offered a state, the Palestinian Arabs, eight times in the last 80 years, four times in the last 20 years. They've said no. When they controlled all this land themselves for 19 years, 48 to 67, they didn't establish a state. They still were committing terrorist acts. This is a religious war. war. The radical Muslims believe that the Jews or the Christians have no right to any land in the Middle East that is all theirs. Lebanon was a Christian country. The radical Muslims destroyed Lebanon. It is now a Muslim country. They massacred hundreds of thousands of Christians until Hezbollah. Now Hezbollah has taken control of Lebanon. So this is a religious war, and that's why it has nothing to do with land. Land for peace is nonsense. It's been offered repeatedly. They say no. It's a religious war. The issue is they don't want Israel in their midst. They don't want a Christian country in their midst. They don't want non-Muslims in their midst. I've met with many Christians who live in various parts of the Arab world. They're scared to death for their lives. Their lives are made miserable and dangerous by their fellow Muslims. This is a reality, so yes land for peace has been offered repeatedly, turned down every single time, it's a religious war. The radical Arabs will not be satisfied until Israel doesn't exist, just like they weren't satisfied until Lebanon was no longer a Christian country. Tell us I'm curious the ZOA obviously exists in the US in America and America, I think was Truman was one of the first leaders to actually recognize the state of Israel uh back in, just after the creation of Israel in 48 and there is that close link between America and Israel. Do you want to just expand on that a little bit? Because geopolitically, that's a fascinating relationship. And maybe then we can get up later into where it now sits at the moment between that maybe being more fractured than it has been. But yeah, America and Israel have always been strong allies, starting with that Truman Declaration of Israel's right to exist in 1948. Harry Truman, as president of the United States in 1948, was the first country in the vote at the United Nations to recognize the state of Israel. Or maybe they cast the deciding vote, I'm not sure. But they certainly cast the vote to support Israel. But the polls at that time in America showed Americans supported Israel by 80% of Americans supported the right of the Jewish people to have a state. So this was overwhelming support in the United States. The chief of staff to White House counsel to Truman was begging Truman to recognize it. Quoting from the Bible, he repeatedly quoted the lines from the Bible saying, this land was given to the Jews, Mr. President, you must recognize it. And by the way, many presidents since then have publicly stated there should be an Israel before there was an Israel. John Adams, Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, and many others have in their speeches, I've said, we hope and pray that a Jewish state is re-established. So there's been a love affair with the leaders of America and the American people and the Jewish state since America was created. George Washington was a supporter. In fact, this is an interesting story. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and I believe John Adams, I think. Proposed that the seal of the United States, which is now an eagle holding out its wings, they proposed the seal should be Moses splitting the sea as the pharaoh and the military Egyptians were coming across the sea to come and kill all the Jews who had just escaped. All the Israelis, the Hebrews who had just escaped, and the sea splits and swallows up all the military while the Jews are watching in the scene beforehand and cheering. That's the seal that Franklin Jefferson and Adams wanted as a seal of America. That's the kind of connection America's had to the Jewish people. It was barely voted down, barely voted. It almost became the seal. So to this day, in a recent poll, who do you support in this war in America, Hamas or Israel? I'm shocked. It's only 82 percent should be 100 percent. But it's 82% say Israel should be fighting against this vicious regime of Hamas. So there's overwhelming support in America. There's even overwhelming support in Congress. It has weakened. There are now a number of congressmen who are speaking out inappropriately in a hostile way toward Israel. But nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of the Congress is supportive of Israel. And that's been true really since Israel was – America was established in 1776. There's been support for the re-establishment of a state and now for the state itself. Well let me throw in some other kind of facts on that, I think the US is Israel's largest trading partner, I think I read is about 50 billion trade back and forward and of course you got the military aid that goes to Israel every year of billions and you mentioned the beginning about the U.S. backing Israel in the U.N. And the U.S. has used a veto dozens and dozens of times in the U.N. Supporting Israel, backing Israel. And, of course, President Trump moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem despite all the pushback, despite the debate over that. But all of that is actually Israel is shoulder to shoulder. And there have been a time where maybe Britain was shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel. That is still there in relation to Europe, but actually it is the U.S. that seems to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel. Well, let me first tell you about, you mentioned the aid, billions of dollars in aid. Let me tell something that I'm sure most of your viewers do not know. Israel was getting half a billion dollars in aid, 500 million, until the late 70s. Then Carter was pushing the deal with Israel to give away the entire Sinai which was five times the size of Israel. Israel when they controlled the Sinai developed four major oil wells themselves in the Sinai these oil wells gave Israel two and a half billion dollars in income in 1978. And Menachem Begin, the prime minister, then said, we cannot give away the Sinai because we will lose two and a half billion dollars of oil wells we found, we developed ourselves. And we can't do it. Carter said, I will make up the difference. I'll give you the extra two and a half billion. So it went from 500 million to three billion. But this is not really America's money per se. Israel gave up two and a half billion. So $2.5 billion of the aid Israel gets is the fact that they gave up the oil wells. And do you know, Peter, how much income today those four oil wells would be delivering to Israel? $10 billion because oil prices have gone up dramatically. So they've given up a tremendous amount. And people forget. Do you know how much aid Egypt gets from America? It's never mentioned. $2.5 billion. $2.5 billion for Egypt. Jordan, $1 billion. The Palestinian Authority, a terrorist dictatorship, gets almost $1 billion in aid right now. So people forget about the aid others get. And with Israel, 97% of the aid they get is spent in America, buying equipment here in America. So it comes right back to America in any event. And you mentioned that Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem. I was intimately involved in that issue with Senator John Kyle, who's a hero that no one even remembers. He's the one who really pushed this issue more than anyone else. And the vote to move the embassy in 1995 was 93 to 5 in the Senate, 93 to 5, 347 to 37 in the House. In other words, over 95% of Congress voted to move the embassy. Bill Clinton was against it. Now, he couldn't veto it because it would be overridden because it was such an overwhelming support. So he ignored it. If you ignore a law, if a president ignores a law, it automatically becomes law in 30 days. and it became law. And then Senator Dianne Feinstein had put in what's known as a poison pill. She said, any president can say, I'm not moving it if there's a security issue. And each president for 18 years said there's a security issue and never moved it. But people, of course, predicted if you move it, there'll be violence all over the place. Of course, it turned out to be completely false. There was no violence. But let me tell you something else that I'm sure most of your viewers do not know. Of course, they want to move the embassy to Jerusalem because Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Jerusalem has been the holiest state to the Jewish people since time immemorial. But the Arabs say this is their holy city. Well, is it? Is Jerusalem holy to Muslims? Jerusalem was the capital only of Israel throughout history, never of any other country. When the Palestinians conquered Palestine in 716, they made Ramleh their capital, not Jerusalem. It's called the Temple Mount, not the Mosque Mount because the Jewish temple was on this area. The majority of people living in Jerusalem since 1850, the first census, have been Jews. The overwhelming majority of people living there since 1850 have been Jews. The Jewish holy books mention the word Jerusalem 700 times. How many times is the word Jerusalem in the Koran? How many times is the word Jerusalem, if it's so holy to Muslims, this is their holy book, how many times is it mentioned? Zero. Not a single time. How can it be so holy to them if it's not in their holy book? So they say, Muhammad went from Jerusalem to heaven. But that's not what the Koran says. Read the Koran. It says that Muhammad went from the furthest mosque to heaven. It didn't say Jerusalem. And they say, well, the furthest mosque was in Jerusalem. Well, when the Koran was written, there was not a single mosque in all of Jerusalem. So if Muhammad went from the furthest mosque, it couldn't be in Jerusalem. There were no mosques there. So the truth is that Jerusalem is not holy to Muslims. In fact, from 48 to 67, when they controlled Jerusalem, When they captured that war, they captured it. They allowed it. The Jordan and the Arabs allowed it to become a slum. There was virtually no water, electricity or plumbing. There were 58 synagogues in Jerusalem that they captured. They destroyed all 58 of them to eliminate proof that Jews, this was a holy place to them. So that's another thing that most people don't understand. Jerusalem is minimally holy to Muslims at most. It is a holy to Jews and possibly Christians. I'm not a Christian, so I don't know the Bible so well, the Christian Bible, that may be holy to Christians, but it is not holy to Muslims. Yeah, well, I think the holiness to Christians is simply because of the biblical story. And without Judaism, there'd be no Christianity. Without Judaism, there'd be no Jesus. But I love the way Muslims can claim hold of a city because Muhammad flew there on a winged donkey in his dreams. So if we could all actually take our dreams and claim to hold, we could be in paradise more. We could be anywhere. But again there was no, it wasn't from Jerusalem it's from the furthest mosque, no mosque in Jerusalem, it can't be Jerusalem and by the way this is interesting, not a single Arab leader except from Jordan ever visited Jerusalem when the when the Arabs controlled it. It meant nothing to them, Mecca and Medina are the holy cities for Muslims, not Jerusalem, it's high time we make that publicly clear. No 100 % and Muhammad probably never went to Jerusalem if Muhammad did exist, but that's a whole other conversation I'll take up with Robert Spencer. Can I ask you, because the support for Israel comes from different sections of society, and certainly there is a strong support from churches, from Christianity, not across the board, certainly, but there is. Can you tell us, where does the support, the backing, individuals, organizations standing up for Israel's right to exist, where does that come from? I mean, have you been surprised maybe with some of the areas it's come from that you weren't expecting? The strongest support in America for the Jewish state and the Jewish people comes from the 80 million evangelical Christians. Why are they so supportive of Israel as a Jewish state? Because it's in the Bible. Because God gave the land to the Jews. When I speak at churches, they say it's in the Bible. This land was given to Jews by God. End of discussion. So and the Jewish people are not nearly as strong Bible believers as the Christians. So you have stronger support for Israel among the Christian evangelicals than you do, frankly, among the Jews. So for most Christians, it's simply a matter of religion and God. For others who are not religious, they recognize that this land was given to Israel under international law. In 1917, the Balfour Declaration and many UN resolutions after it, and they accept the fact that that's right. Plus, they see it's reasonable. Why should there be 56 Muslim states and not a single Jewish state where the Jews can practice their religion in the way they're supposed to? So I think it's just a rational support for what's right, for what's moral, for what's decent, for what's just, that most non-religious people support the right of the Jews to have the state. It's a tiny little state. There's over 200 million Muslims in the Middle East. There's only 7 million Jews. Imagine if there were – there's 22 Arab states. Imagine if there were 22 Jewish states and one tiny little Arab state the size of Israel. And the Jews would be saying, we want a 23rd Jewish state carved out of this tiny Arab state. The world would say, this is ridiculous. The Arabs have nothing, this little tiny state. Leave them alone. But that's the situation we have. 22 Arab states, 99.5% of the land mass, and they still want to make Israel even smaller in order to make it easier to destroy. That's the basis. It's a religious war to destroy the Jewish state. It has nothing to do with land per se. It has nothing to do with the Palestinian state. Nothing. Because they could have had it eight times in the last 80 years. They said no every single time. Can I finish just with the current situation, which we'll not give justice to in our time, but just to touch on it. And I am perplexed at how Israel seemed to be so bad at the PR war, at the publicity war, the media war. But I've been intrigued watching kind of different countries holding with Israel and then pulling back in the media conversation. And what is it like, maybe for our viewers, I mean, our viewers are 50-50, US, UK and Europe. Maybe just give us your thoughts on where the media and the government is in terms of support for Israel over the last six months. You mean the US government? Yeah, yeah. This government in America under Joe Biden and Barack Hussein Obama, Obama never left Washington. Every president, when they're finished their term or terms, they go back home. Obama stayed in Washington. Obama is running the show behind the scenes. How do I know this? Because almost every person that Biden has appointed that affects Israel is a friend of Obama's, virtually every one, and is hostile to Israel. This government of Biden, Obama, Blinken is the most hostile to Israel we've ever had in America, I'm sorry to say. So, and when the war started, Biden did come to Israel two days after the Hamas massacre. And he said he has total support for Israel. But in that speech, the original speech on the tarmac, Biden said we need to establish a Palestinian state. Now, that is his first speech two days after the massacre of 1,200 innocent Jews. What's he bringing up a state for? It shows the hostility he has toward Israel. And now he's pushing for a state relentlessly. He condemns Israel for killing too many civilians. Let me tell you something. The record is this is the smallest number of civilians per capita ever killed in any war in history. And the reason for that is Israel drops leaflets before they hit a building to tell the Arabs to get out of the building. They put knock bombs where they knock on the top of the roof as a signal, get out of here. They call on cell
Dr Sebastian Gorka - Biden's Campaign Against America, the MAGA Media Juggernaut & Trump's Hold on the RNC
Apr 11 2024
Dr Sebastian Gorka - Biden's Campaign Against America, the MAGA Media Juggernaut & Trump's Hold on the RNC
Show notes and Transcript Dr. Sebastian Gorka returns to Hearts of Oak to offer his insights on the importance of personnel in politics, emphasizing the challenges faced by Trump supporters.  He discusses the evolving dynamics within the Republican Party towards a more MAGA-centered approach and the need for alignment with the American people.  We move onto populism in Europe, media landscape changes, challenges in education, and the significance of local politics for societal change.  Dr. Gorka highlights the importance of grassroots activism and community engagement in shaping the future political landscape. Sebastian Gorka, PhD., served as Deputy Assistant for Strategy to the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, and is currently a presidential appointee to the National Security Education Board at the Department of Defense. He is the host of AMERICA First, a nationally-syndicated radio show on the Salem Radio Network, and The Gorka Reality Check, the newest show on the cable news network Newsmax TV. He is the author of the New York Times bestselling book “Defeating Jihad,” and “Why We Fight.” His latest book is “The War for America’s Soul.” Connect with Seb... LINKTREE              linktr.ee/sebgorka SUBSTACK            substack.com/@sebastiangorka X                            x.com/SebGorka WEBSITE               www.sebastiangorka.com/ Interview recorded  8.4.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ TRANSCRIPT (Hearts of Oak) And I'm delighted to have Dr. Sebastian Gorka back with us again. Dr. Gorka, thank you for your time today. (Dr Sebastian Gorka) My pleasure. Thank you for having me. Great to have you on. And of course, former Deputy Assistant to President, nationally syndicated radio host of America First with Sebastian Gorka and best-selling author. And people can find you obviously @SebGorka. And we'll get into some of your thoughts on your Twitter page in a little bit. But, Dr. Gorka, if I can ask you, maybe first, looking at the GOP, back at the beginning of President Trump's first term in office, he trusts the GOP to fill those, I guess, 3,000-odd positions to keep the system running. And he seems to, I think everyone seems to have learned that there was a concerted effort to push back. But it seems to be that the President has realised he needs to fill those positions himself and there's a concerted effort to fill those positions with the brightest, the best patriots that America have, do you want to just let us know about that because he is going into this with his eyes wide open. Well, absolutely, after what they did to him and to his administration the first time round. And this is my greatest concern going forward, because it is clear the American people want him back. He's trouncing Biden in the polls. If you look at the primary results, we haven't even finished the primaries. He's already broken his record for 2016. So whether it's wars across the world, the state of the economy, 16 million illegals, President Trump, if there is a free and fair election, will be God willing, if we do our part, the next president. However, as Ronald Reagan taught us, politics, you know, personnel is politics. And I am very concerned that we not have what we had last time, which is even at the cabinet level, subversives in the Trump administration. So we can't make that mistake again. However, I give credit to the left. My friend Chris Plant, who has the morning show here in D.C., has made this point very eloquently over the years. Why would a decent person, especially a family man or a family woman, why would you work in a Republican administration, especially a Trump administration? You look at my example. Look, I don't mind getting attacked by the left because, of course, I'm a proxy for the president. But when they came after my wife, I had one journalist write 52 hit pieces on me in three months. And when one of the articles named my 18-year-old son and called him a traitor in the headline, what person wants to actually put up with that? I mean, I'm prepared to do it again. And there's a handful of us who served in the Trump administration who understand America First, who are loyal to the president, are loyal to the mandate he received already, are prepared to do it again. But there are 4,000 positions, 4,000 presidential appointees. What lunatic is prepared to have the inhuman treatment meted out against them from a quote-unquote elite in the media that just dehumanizes. I mean, from Hillary's deplorables comment to Biden last year standing in front of one of the most important buildings in the world for us when it comes to American history, which is Independence Hall, bathed in red light, flanked by two Marines in their dress blues, and he calls half the nation fascists, MAGA extremists. I mean, this is how radical the left has become and how they've dehumanized the others. So, yeah, I mean, you've hit upon my neuralgic point, which is the personnel policy, if we win, God willing, will be second Trump administration. We cannot get it wrong this time. We just cannot get it wrong. What does seem that the left are utterly vicious and ruthless in going after individuals and I had the privilege of watching the president speak twice when I was over last in Pennsylvania and then down South Carolina and it's an hour and 40 minutes of a political speech I've never seen before and I've been involved in politics in many years in the UK but it connects you at a heart level as opposed to the head level and he knocks off those attacks but the left are adamant that they will go after individuals. Let me give you one concrete example, lest, you know, your listeners and viewers think this is just, you know, Sebastian Gorka's axe that he's grinding. So I had a colleague, I was deputy assistant to the president. My colleague, Peter Navarro, was assistant to the president for trade policy. He was one of the key architects of our China policy. Peter was subpoenaed by the infamous January 6th Committee of Congress, which was illegally constituted. So an investigatory, I don't want to get into the weeds, but an investigatory committee of Congress has to have delegates from both parties. It can't just be the majority party. Nancy Pelosi refused the then speaker to accept nominations from the Republican Party. So she picked a couple of the worst Trump haters who are nominal Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. And as such, this was an illegally constituted committee. Peter Navarro receives a subpoena from this congressional committee, ordering him to come and testify. He says, A, it's an illegal committee, I'm not going to comply. B, I have it in writing from President Trump that my work for him is covered by the executive privilege, which is a constitutional statute in America that the discussions between the president and his aides are protected and they can't just be just willy-nilly divulged to anybody. Peter lives one block away from the FBI. When he was in contempt of this subpoena, which is a misdemeanor offense, not a felony, it's a misdemeanor. Instead of the FBI writing to Peter or writing to his lawyer, could your client come to our offices tomorrow morning and we'd like to present him with his breach of congressional subpoena documents. Instead, my colleague, a renowned economist, academic professor, was tracked by the FBI to Reagan Airport, which is the airport for Washington, D.C. And after he boarded a plane on a business trip, he was arrested in public, not only handcuffed. This is when you realize we are in a police state. And I say that with all sincerity. He was handcuffed and put in leg shackles, which meant he had to shuffle out of the airport like some slave on a chain gang. Then he was taken to the FBI headquarters where he was strip searched on a congressional misdemeanour charge. He is now sitting, as of two weeks ago, he is sitting in a federal prison in Florida, serving a four-month sentence for being in contempt of Congress. So, you know, this is the left. This is the left. They talk about President Trump and MAGA is a threat to democracy. Well, the only fascists I see right now are the Democrat Party, Biden's DOJ, and the FBI. A woman, I had her daughter literally text me on Friday, said, my 73-year-old grandmother, who spent 10 minutes inside Congress praying for the nation on January 6th, has just been charged with four charges that will lead her to spend a year in prison. A 73-year-old grandma who's going to be on my radio today has been charged with being inside of Congress and praying, Peter. Yeah, I've seen the praying grandma. I've seen a number of clips of her and Peter's book, Taking Back Trump's America, certainly was an eye opener for me. And I learned a lot reading that. And of course, we've had some of the anniversaries of the J6ers. There's no Jake Lang's now fourth anniversary of him in jail. I mean, what does that mean? How do you see, God willing, President Trump winning the election? Well, not winning, but allowed to win the election in November. What does that mean for, for instance, some of those J6ers in jail, hundreds of them in jail for years and years, simply for going and being part of that event? Well, the president has said this openly just last week. I was with him at Mar-a-Lago, and he said it the week before. All the J6ers who committed no violent crimes, who simply walked through the halls, through the velvet rope, every single one, all the cases will be reviewed, and the president will pardon them. Wow, wow. That's simple and decisive. What you'd expect from Trump as opposed to Biden, and it's like, here's the job, let's get this done. I mean, this is, we could talk about this for hours. This is how he functions. I mean, you don't get to be the most successful entrepreneur in the hardest market in the world, which is Manhattan real estate. You don't have the most successful TV show for 14 seasons in a row unless you're decisive. And I saw this in the White House. You know, when we made the argument, the Iran deal, Obama's Iran deal is bad for America, bad for Israel, bad for the Middle East and actually gives the Mullahs a bomb, he said, okay, we're canceling it. He didn't waffle. He didn't say, oh, let's create a task force or let's have a conference in Vienna. He said, no, we're going to kill it now. Absolutely. Can I ask you about the RNC? Because I've looked at this and the media have billed it as Trump taking charge, taking control of the RNC, which seemed to be one of the biggest pushbacks to his presidency, certainly at the beginning with all those appointments. It's now a very different situation with a lot of good people put in and what does that take over mean? And does that mean that actually moving past November and that he will be in a very different situation Well it's massively significant. I mean I said this when I was in The White House. I said it when I left The White House, Donald John Trump won the election despite the Republican Party, not thanks to the Republican Party. The Republican Party hates him. I mean, it's the same as, you know, Brexit and the Tories. It's the same as establishment politicians and Millei or Meloni. We have these establishment, look, I think Bannon popularized it here. We have the Uni-party. There's really not much difference between this amorphous blob that is the Democrats and the establishment Republicans. Why? Because the Democrats are lunatics who hate America, and the establishment Republicans, we call them RINOS, Republicans in name only, are cuckolds who just facilitate what the left does and never push back even when they're in majority. And they hate President Trump. To this day, the likes of Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney think that 64 million Americans, voting for a man who'd never run for political office before, and him becoming president, they think that's an anomaly. They think that's, oh, just a blip, and we'll get back to business and footsie under the table with the Democrats. They have no comprehension of the global phenomenon that is populism. From Brexit, to Modi, to Maloney, to Orban, to Millei, you know, to Bolsonaro, there is a wholehearted international rejection of what a friend of mine called on my show recently, and I literally just wrote an article on this for my Substack, the un-accountable’s. It's, you know, it's not left and right anymore. We've got to ditch that taxonomy. It's not even conservative and liberal. It is the unaccountable elites who are completely cosseted and insulated from anything in the real world. The price of petrol doesn't affect them. They think a six-quid almond latte from Starbucks is a good deal, and they don't give a crap whether manufacturing jobs have been shipped over to China or Mexico. As long as the Wi-Fi signal in Starbucks is good, they can do their job as, you know, chief DEI officer or, you know, head of HR for some woke corporation. And then there's the rest of us, the accountables who, you know, the plumber who, when the price of petrol goes up 300% under Joe Biden, you can't put food on the table for your kids. Or you're the legal immigrants who came here from Mexico 10 years ago, got in line, took the exam, paid the money. And you're a waiter in Dallas, and along comes this Nigerian illegal, one of the 16 million let in by Biden, who tells the boss of that cafe, I'll do Jose's job. For cash, for 50% of what Jose's doing. I mean, these are the people who pay the price of the betrayal of the people who build America, betrayed by the Democrats and their enablers in the Republican Party. So yeah, that's where we are today. And the GOP, look, Lara Trump becoming the co-chair, the firing of Rona Romney McDaniel. OK, let's be clear here. The chair of the RNC, the National Committee, was Mitt Romney, one of the biggest rhino Trump haters, niece. And her loss of eight elections in a row had to have some consequences. Now Lara's in charge. They've hired Scott Press, a friend of mine who's one of the best grassroots activists in America. And finally, the choice of the people will be reflected in the party that is supposed to be his party. So to put it very briefly, the Republican Party will finally be a MAGA America First Party. I saw one of your shows recently, I think it was Scott saying maybe it should be renamed America First instead of the GOP. That was actually my associate producer talking in my ear. He wants me to shut up about that because he wants President Trump to drop that at the convention. I think it's right. Why should we be called the Grand Old Party? I mean, we're not in the 19th century, right? I mean, let's have something that reflects the will of the American people. And I watched that interview with Scott. And that's exciting to bring in a different generation, actually have different ideas. And someone who's done the groundwork for 10 years really should be rewarded with a position to roll out what he's doing in an area actually nationwide. So it's exciting to see that, I guess, the boldness that Trump changing the RNC now can have for going forward. Yeah, yeah. Look, the proof of the pudding will be the convention. The proof of the pudding will be the results. But we're seeing some incredible, I mean, look, it's a little bit arcane and only relevant to American politics. But we have this primary system where state by state you choose the candidate to lead the party for the election. And I know New Hampshire very, very well. New Hampshire is not an America First state. It used to be conservative. Now a lot of hippies and, you know, idiots have moved in. The record for primary votes, for the most votes ever cast in a primary, is held by Bernie Sanders. That tells you just how, you know, woke a state it has become. President Trump broke Bernie Sanders' standing primary record in New Hampshire this year. I mean, these things are unprecedented. The fact that he, as of last week, he's had more people vote for him in primaries than voted for him in the whole primary season in 2016. I think there's a grand awakening. And if just, if only 60, 70% of the reports are true about the Hispanic and black vote. According to the polls, the president now enjoys the majority of Hispanic votes in America. That's just mind-blowing. The man who we've been told by the establishment of media is the racist, bigoted, you know, yada, yada, yada. He's more popular with Hispanic Americans. And I don't want to, you know, tempt fate. He's getting upwards of 28, 30 percent of the black vote if that if that preference translates into actual ballots on November the 5th the democrat party will implode, I mean they've had a lock for absurd reasons, they've had a lock on the black vote for 70 years, the party that created the KKK, the party that was the party of southern segregation and plantations has had a lock on that vote forever and if 20, 30 percent of them leave that's it, there will be a crisis in the democrat party and it will be long overdue. Yeah I'm seeing that break away from the tribal politics, how your parents voted to actually voting with your gut and your conviction which could be a massive change. Does Trump actually need to do debates head-to-head? Obviously, he pulled out of the ones with the Republican field because he said, what's the point, and did his own. And that was genius, pure Trump. But actually, going head-to-head with Biden, what is the point? He's so far ahead in the polls. How do you think he will play it? Because then you fit into the CNN, MSNBC, you fit in the Fox News, you fit into their schedules, and he doesn't need to do that. Well, no, he doesn't need to because they're both known quantities. They've both been presidents, one the most successful president of the modern era, biggest economy we've ever had, no wars for four years, crushed ISIS, stock market rallies literally every other day. I had to watch the ticker tape in my studio because there was a new stock market rally, which isn't just for the fat cats. Your pension is tied to that stock market. So people's 401k pensions are like blossoming. And then we've had what? We've had Biden, record inflation. Petrol got up to $7 a gallon in California. You've got the invasion of Russia, the invasion of Ukraine, the surrender of Afghanistan, war in the Middle East. So it really should be a very stark binary option. So do you need a debate? Not really. But President Trump's great troll comment last week that, yeah, we should have a debate as long as Biden is drug tested, because they found a bag of cocaine in the White House, which the Secret Service, mystically couldn't find any fingerprints on, despite a bag of cocaine being the perfect thing to find fingerprints on, because it's not porous. It's absolutely like a sheet of glass that's plastic, right? And they definitely pumped him full of something for the State of the Union because this is a guy who is not compos mentis. This is a guy who doesn't function. And then, you know, he actually ranted like a lunatic, like on speed or something for an hour during the State of the Union. So it was a perfect troll. Will there be a debate? I doubt it. I doubt they'd let Biden debate with President Trump. But, you know, who knows? politics has been pretty weird for the last 10 years in America. And earlier you mentioned about some of the populism and across Europe, also in Bolsanaro and Brazil. And we're obviously having the European parliamentary elections coming up in June with a massive rise in populism. And you understand this as a Brit, as someone who's Hungarian roots and studied in Hungary and now you're an American citizen. You've got quite a unique perspective and view on this. And I'm wondering how, because with Trump going into the White House, having an open and possible very good relationship with Europe, which wasn't there in the first place, I'm kind of sitting back intrigued watching how this will play out. Because this could be a new, very strong relationship linking Europe and the US. Well, it could. It just depends who wins the elections in Europe, right? I mean, if it's the right people like Meloni in Italy, absolutely. If it's the wrong people like the socialists, the trounce, truth and justice in Poland, then it'll be a different kind of relationship. But people need to understand the president has a very strong soft spot in his heart for Europe because of his family background. But just go back to that video, if your viewers haven't seen it. Go back to the video when the president spoke at the United Nations General Assembly, long before Biden and the invasion of Ukraine. And he said, very declaratively said, by way of wanted to help, he said, Germany, Europe, why are you buying energy from Russia? It makes you dependent on a dictatorial regime that has military goals against NATO members or border countries. And then the camera panned from the president warning Europe not to do that to the German delegation. And the German delegation was tittering and giggling, saying, what does he know about geopolitics? Well, isn't it funny that when we leave the office? Vlad does what he did, puts a stranglehold on the energy of the Baltic states, Hungary, the Ukraine, and then Germany has to literally do a 180 and say, oh, we like nuclear energy now, and we're going to stop shutting down our nuclear energy plants. So, you know, which part of Europe are we talking about? The unaccountable asshole elites who are arrogant and don't give a fig for the people? Are we talking about politicians like Nigel Farage who understand that the political elite has been roundly rejected by the people of Europe? That's what will affect relations. Who's in charge? Are they the, what is it, the Klaus Schwab fanboys and fangirls? Or are they people who believe in the sovereignty of their own individual nations? Well, it could be rewritten with AFD in Germany and Freedom Party in Austria. Yeah, but look at the UK. Look at the UK. The UK's a disaster. I was with Steve Hilton yesterday in California, and I'm like, this is a guy who worked in 10 Downing Street, and I said to him, so what is it with the Tory party? And he said, he can't even explain it to me. How does, he said, Sunak is just so wet, so pathetic, and this is the best the UK can do. So Nigel, get busy. A hundred percent. It's depressing looking at every other green shoot across Europe and looking at the UK and having zero. But yeah, I know Nigel is seriously considering his political future. But he's involved in media. And I want to ask you about media. Nigel, of course, very involved in media and in GB News, probably the star on GB News. and in the States, I think it was an Axios article a few weeks ago talking about a MAGA media juggernaut that seems to eclipse, no pun intended for today, but eclipse any influence that Fox ever had. You're right in the centre of that, as is Bannon, Charlie Kirk. I mean, the list is wide of the names of individuals who have stepped up to the mark and helped the public understand. Tell us about that, because to me, that will be part of winning this war and getting the message out over the next six months. Well when it comes to the media there's only one mass media platform that conservatives control and that is of course talk radio, the left has tried talk radio and it's always recuperative and bile filled and nobody can listen to it for more than three minutes. I mean, my show's only five years old. I've got three and a half million daily listeners. You look at the Rush Limbaugh slot that is now divided between Dan Bongino and a couple of other hosts, Buck Sexton and his partner. And Rush was getting 20, 22, 23 million people listening. Fox doesn't even do that. I mean, before Tucker left, Tucker had the most popular show. And on a good night, that was 5 million, which tells you why television is kind of irrelevant. I mean, 5 million in a nation of 340 million, and radio is multiples of that. Now, since then, of course, we have what in the last few years, the rise of the Breitbarts, Newsmax doing incredibly successfully, pushing Fox out. But the hope, I don't know if you can can pull it off. The renaming was the dumbest thing ever. But Elon's buying of Twitter, I mean, he's been very open about he wants to make Twitter, the multimedia platform, he wants it to be the the Twitter, YouTube, Google, Spotify, all in one information platform. And we'll see what happens with you know, the next thing is going to be video long form videos on that platform. And God willing, power to his elbow, absolutely do it. And then President Trump, I don't know how the left failed to sabotage him, but with the SEC giving him permission to have that merger of the Truth Social and the SPAC on the stock exchange, President Trump just affected a, what was it, $8 billion deal. I mean, I don't try a lot. I mean, I put my segments from my radio show on Truth Social, and then I kind of cut and paste whatever I'm putting on Twitter on Truth Social. So I'm not, you know, really working on Trump's platform. And without trying, I got 900,000 followers. Now, that tells you, and this is a free speech platform that's not full of bots that are being generated for political purposes. This is a true free speech platform in accordance with the First Amendment. So I don't have a crystal ball, but the media environment is, it is being shook up something fabulous. You look at how wokeism, I mean, you look at what wokeism has done to the likes of Netflix and HBO, and along comes Angel Studios with the Call of Freedom and that mega series on Jesus, that reinterpretation of Jesus. Chosen? Chosen, yeah. This is like a boiling cauldron of things that are forming and shaping. And it's going to be, I mean, look, I'm not a fan of Tucker. Tucker's become a clickbait animal, in my opinion. But the figures he's getting for his videos, that presages something very interesting for the future. It's funny when the left think they've got rid of a problem like Trump, like Tucker, and they come back to haunt them. I love it. And I love it when they say, oh my gosh, President Trump's running out of money, and then the SPAC merger is approved, and he garners $4 billion himself from that deal. It's like, oh my gosh, Biden and Obama and Clinton, they're so cool. They had a fundraiser in Manhattan last weekend and they raised 25 million and president Trump had a fundraiser by himself, this weekend and raised 50 million, you just, you gotta laugh. You do, you read the headline, there was a guardian hippies think on the RNC takeover saying oh well you know it hasn't gone as planned, you're thinking, well actually he's really, he's taken over the apparatus, the party machine and actually, it's going to take a little bit of time to get smooth running when you're taking over. But it was the headline was anti. And then you read and you think, wow, that's bloody good. Well, it's at the tactical level. So my wife, who hates politics because she's sane, she, because it's a long story, but there was a drag queen story hour at our local community center that provoked her to run for the board of that community center. And then she became an election officer because she was worried about the integrity of the election. So she became the chief election officer for our part of Virginia. And then on Saturday, because she's fed up with the... We are in the richest county in Virginia. It's the second richest county in America. And it's run by... The RINO class at the RNC under Rona used us as a piggyback. They took all the money from Fairfax County. And then they never gave any money back to our candidates. So my wife was convinced to run for the chair of the GOP in Fairfax County. And I thought, oh my gosh. I mean, she'd never mentioned my name once. She didn't mention in any of her campaign promotional material. She trounced. It was a primary to other candidates. She defeated the second-placed loser by 40 points on Saturday. And then, the hit piece is, oh, my gosh, MAGA, wife of Trump, takes over GOP. It's like, you know that's how democracy works. When 68% of the delegates, 68% said, yeah, we want her. It's so weird how the left really hates the will of the American people now. But that's what it's about. It's about winning. And it's easy in some ways to say, let's all move to West Virginia and get an area of freedom. But actually to stay and fight, that's what's difficult. And that's what's required to win. Right, right. It's like, who's that guy who wrote Liberal Fascists, that conservative who went lunatic, anti-Trumper? There's this, I can't believe he actually said it live on television. He's become, you know, the quasi-Republican on CNN. And here it's, oh yeah, so it's Jonah Goldberg. Jonah Goldberg was bashing Trump again on CNN or whatever, and he actually said out loud, all these small donors that President Trump is getting, it's a real problem because they don't understand the world, and it should be the policies of the mega donors that shape the Republican Party. I say, Jonah, did these words just come out of your mouth that the plebs, the plebs are stupid? How dare the people's desires like wanting to have a border and jobs in manufacturing? How dare, leave it up to the billionaires because they really care about America. Jonah Goldberg actually said that live on television. And he didn't apologize. He didn't catch himself and say, oops, I said the quiet bit out loud. These people believe it, Peter. They believe it. How dare, how dare the American people vote for Donald Trump? How dare they? I've seen a number of your tweets and you've been pointing that out, Biden at war, not with America's enemies but with America itself and America last, you put war on common sense, war on Christians, it's war on our children war on free speech. Think of this I was speaking in front of about a thousand conservatives yesterday in California and I think, this is so, to diagnose the situation we live in the most perverse of ages because never before has a society or a civilization been run by those who hate their own country. I mean, Obama said it. He said, I wish to radically transform, fundamentally transform America. Well, you don't love anything that you wish to radically transform. And it sounds extreme, but look at what just happened. The federal government, the federal government, whose number one duty is the safety of our citizens, That's its number one thing, is now suing the governor of Texas because he deployed his National Guard elements to put container boxes along the border to stop it. The feds were letting in the illegals, 10,000 a day. And the governor, Abbott, said, OK, well, I've got to do something because I'm responsible for the citizens of my state of Texas. In the Texas Constitution, it says he must secure his state if there is an invasion. So he moved the Conex boxes to just put a barrier along the Texan border. Biden is suing Texas for trying to secure the territory of America. It's like that's when you realize these people truly hate their own country and hate their own people. 100% and that's what seems to be the big two issues are the border and the economy and there are many other issues but I guess those two are simple election but then when the election is won you've got a much, well you've got a whole litany of issues that then need to be sorted out. Well yes I mean here's the massive irony. I'm going to write a piece on this today or tomorrow that, this is the delightful thing about the left. They're evil bastards. They hate Judeo-Christian civilization, but they're really quite stupid. Why did Donald Trump win in 2016? If you have to boil it down to one univalent answer, he won because of illegal immigration. I mean, the most powerful mobilizing slogan of 2016 was build the wall. I mean, that really was, if you had to choose one, it was build the wall. What have they just done in the last three and a half years, if there's one issue if you know you're running against him again, what's the one issue Peter, you shouldn't give to Donald Trump a second time round, you probably shouldn't give him the issue he won on the first time, you probably shouldn't give immigration back to him as a weapon and they haven't given it back to him as a weapon. They've given it back to him as a nuclear bomb. When you let in 10,000 illegals a day, and there's this guy who actually sealed the border eight years ago, you're actually re-electing Donald Trump on the same issue that you helped him to get elected on the first time. These people are cretins. I mean, they really are cretins. Completely, can I just finish off on education because it was your wonderful Oxford Union speech, I think it was the beginning of this year and it was Sebastian Gorka explains why America and the world needs president Trump back in office and you realize this is a battle for education for the next generation for children to actually rediscover the American dream that their parents fought for and strived for. But let me just tell, what was that like going into an arena where you are hated because you stand up for the best of a country itself? And then what are your thoughts on, actually, it is about reclaiming the education system? Well, look, I thought twice about it, because it's got to be as, a heart of darkness when it comes to wokeism but I've got to give them full credit, I mean really, it's not part of the University but it's affiliated to it and it's run by the students of Oxford so, and look when the Oxford Union invites you to debate on any subject you have to go, when you see the photographs of Einstein, Maggie Thatcher, Ronald Reagan who've all debated in that beautiful building, you don't say well sorry, I'm not, I'm too good for that, And so they believe, you may not have it in the British system, but they believe in a First Amendment and freedom of speech. And I'm just absolutely stunned that I had 120, 130 students vote for President Trump after I gave my speech. But let me tell you a story. So it's run by this committee who, interestingly, are mostly classic scholars. So the dinner beforehand was, you know, debating the Pliny versus Tacitus. I felt like I'd arrived in some Evelyn Waugh novel. It was quite, quite funny. But one of them, because you can only go and listen if you're a member of the union. One of these students, after I gave my pitch, he stood up, took the microphone, and he was a perfect exemplar of what we face. And he said, in front of hundreds of people, I mean, it was a packed crowd, standing room only, and I've literally just given my speech and I've traveled, what, 8,000 miles on my own dime. And he says, I hate you and everything your former boss stood for. And I'm an American. He was like an exchange student or whatever. And he said, I would rather vote for a dead twig than to vote for President Trump. And I accosted him afterwards over the little, you know, cocktails we were having. And I said to him, you do realize how privileged you are, that you're an American at Oxford, and you really shouldn't dehumanize other people. And to say in public that you hate a man you've never met before, and you'd rather vote for a piece of wood than a human being, you're actually dehumanizing at the level that the Nazis dehumanized somebody they politically disagreed with. And then to his credit, he apologized. He said, yes, you're right. And then literally 40 seconds later, he did it again. And he made an ad hominem attack against me in front of witnesses as we're drinking. And he just, the level of indoctrination is stunning. And I had the president of the Heritage Foundation on my radio show the week he was appointed. And he's a former president of a college in Texas. He's a fourth-generation educator, PhD in history. And my wife, who worked for Heritage at the time, smuggled me a question to ask him at the end of the hour. And I said, so, Dr. Roberts, it's exciting to see Americans take back the schools, the mama bears rising up against the insane COVID mandates, the masks, the CRT, all this garbage. That's cool. But what about higher ed? What about the colleges? What about the universities? You've run one of these. Can we salvage them? Can we rebuild them? Live on air in front of three and a half million people, he said, it's brand newly minted president of the Heritage Foundation. No, we have to burn them to the ground. Now, when he says that, you think, you know, let me think about that. And then what happens? Three years later, the president of the most famous college in the world says, genocide of the Jews, that's a contextual statement and may not be hate-filled. Then he's right. I mean, I got in an argument about this with a fellow conservative who said, well, we've got to save the colleges. I said, you can't save that. I mean, when it's so ingrained that calling for genocide on Harvard campus is something the president thinks is OK, you can't change that unless you change everybody who works at Harvard, because they're all like that. I mean, maybe there's two professors left who aren't woke, but you can't build it with thousands of people who hate America. It's like, let me make an analogy that you're not supposed to say. It's impolitic. My thing is national security and people tell me, well, Israel has to do what it has to do and it has to crush Hamas and then
Lois McLatchie Miller - Protecting Everyone’s Right to Live & Speak the Truth in the UK
Apr 8 2024
Lois McLatchie Miller - Protecting Everyone’s Right to Live & Speak the Truth in the UK
Show notes and Transcript Lois McLatchie Miller is the senior legal communications officer for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) UK and is a regular media commentator.  She joins us to discuss the work of ADF who's tagline, “Protecting everyone’s right to live & speak the Truth in the UK”, is needed more than ever.  Are Christian freedoms really under threat in the UK?  Lois discusses a number of issues which are off limits legally. Speaking up for the rights of the unborn. SIlent prayer on a public footpath. Common sense factual statements on gender and sexuality. Asking people if they want to talk about the sanctity of life. Criminalising thoughts that are the wrong emotion. So many views and actions have been attacked by this so called conservative government. And where is the church amidst this woke wave of censorship? Lois McLatchie serves as a senior legal communications officer for ADF UK . She works with journalists and press representatives to advocate for fundamental freedoms in the “court of public opinion”, both in written pieces and through public speaking. Before beginning her current role, Lois was a legal analyst on ADF International’s UN Advocacy Team at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. There, she provided Member State representatives with key legal resources and amendatory language which promotes the inherent value of every person. She is an alumnus of ADF International’s Veritas Scholarship, under which she she completed training on on international law, communications and argumentation. Lois also holds an LLM Human Rights Law with distinction from the University of Kent, and an MA (Hons) International Relations from the University of St Andrews. During her studies, she participated in Areté Academy and Blackstone Legal Fellowship, where she completed extensive research on bioethical issues, including surrogacy. Connect with Lois and ADF UK... X                      x.com/LoisMcLatch                          x.com/ADF_UK SUBSTACK      tradical.substack.com WEBSITE          adfinternational.org Interview recorded 5.4.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... 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 https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on X https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20  Transcript (Hearts of Oak) I'm delighted to be joined today by Lois McLatchie-Miller. Lois, thank you so much for your time today. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. Great to have you on and followed you on Twitter, on your many, many different media outlets in the UK, GB News and Talk TV, Talk Radio. People can follow you. There is your Twitter handle and all the links are in the description. You're the Senior Legal Communications Officer for ADF, Alliance Defending Freedom. I followed ADF for many, many years. And it's ADF.UK, but everything is there. And I think the tagline on ADF on the Twitter is protecting everyone's right to live and speak the truth in the UK, which is under attack. And that's truth with a capital T. Maybe we'll touch on that as well. I said before, I've had the privilege of doing work with Paul Coleman, who's your executive director. Great to have you on and discuss this whole area, which I don't know if we've talked about for a long time on Christian freedoms. But maybe I'll ask you a simple question that the left trans say, of course it's not, and that is freedoms, specifically Christian freedoms. How are they actually under threat in the UK? Yeah, well, thanks for that question. Well, I think looking around us as Christians in the UK, we can sense that there is a changing culture, which is fine. Christians at the church have survived throughout thousands of generations of many different challenges. But the one that faces us today is one that's particularly sensorial. I say that because of a lot of the legislation that has been brought in recently in my home country in Scotland, most notably, but also across the UK, where the ability to speak truth. We're taught to speak in grace and truth is increasingly being reduced for the fear of offending somebody sometimes or because, more likely, different ideologies set to take precedence. I think, in Western countries, there has always been one belief or one ideolo​gy that is dominant. In and many years ago, that was the church. The church had in place blasphemy laws back in the 1600s. It was wrong to stop people from challenging or questioning the church or even having conversations about what different interpretations of the Bible might mean, of course. We should have allowed those conversations. It was wrong to always impose blasphemy laws with very harsh sentences. But what we're seeing today is in the West, in the UK and across different countries like Finland and across the European Union; we're seeing laws come in which actually just reverse that and we have situations where we can't speak out against what are considered to be the true dogmas or the the most popular narrative views of our day. Whenever we're in a situation like that uh that's a disadvantage to everyone because we don't get to have the conversations about important societal issues that we need and especially right now it is a disadvantage to Christians who are commanded and who love to be able to speak about their beliefs and share and exchange them with other people. And maybe you want to touch on the role of Alliance Defending Freedom. I know that you work here in the UK, but I initially saw it as as a U.S organization. I think it's expanded now to to many parts of the world. It's to my mind, it's probably the major Christian organization defending individuals' rights to speak truth in many areas in society. And the attacks are becoming wider and wider in every area. But maybe our viewers in the UK may not be so aware of ADF. Do you want to just let the viewers know what ADF is and what actually it does? Yeah, absolutely. Well, ADF stands for Alliance Defending Freedom. And the US reference that you mentioned, well, we as an organisation began in the US over 25 years ago. But, 10 years ago, we started up a new branch of ADF, called ADF International, which is headquartered in Vienna. We, as a new international organization, have an eye to keep the right to live and speak the truth free all over the world. So, we have an alliance of over 4,000 lawyers who we support. Whatever their challenges are in their own country, to the concept of being able to speak the truth. They can come to us and we can support them in being able to take these things through courts. And we also have in-house legal teams based in situations of political significance: at the European Union, at the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg, or we have a big office in Washington DC because of the Latin American jurisdictions there or the institutions there. Here in London, we have an office ADF UK, and we work in-house to be supporting these rights, to be serving serving those individuals who are dragged through courts unfairly because of their faith. Or to be promoting in the media and in politics, these foundational ideas that are core. For example, over here in the UK, freedom of speech has been a core value to the Brits for a long, long time, as well as supporting things like the right to life, again, which has been secured in our understanding of human rights law in the West for a long, long time. Although, we have an international presence in each location that we're based in, we work locally with a local team working on local issues with local laws. I think there's a big difference between stateside and over in Europe where in the States you wear your faith on your sleeve more. The conversations are, I think, more vocal and more public, where certainly in the UK, your faith is supposedly a private thing that you keep away from your public life. Is that one of the reasons why we've got to where we're going; Christians taking themselves out of the public sphere? I think probably these things are symbiotic aren't they. As laws and culture and this kind of concept of cancel culture increases it can put pressure on Christians and others of minority beliefs to stay quiet and then that can perpetuate the kind of myth that these views are outdated and don't really exist and therefore legislation comes in to make it even more difficult to express our faith and therefore this cycle kind of continues. And that's one of the reasons why it's so important for Christians to be standing up for their freedom of speech. Sometimes, this can be seen as kind of an icky thing to do to be engaging in our rights and we were supposed to, you know, we are called to be persecuted and some people feel awkward or difficult about speaking up for their rights but we're encouraged to do so, because Paul the apostle when he was under pressure for assessing his beliefs he called on the Roman Roman justice system and invoked his rights as a Roman citizen. And it wasn't because he was afraid of going to prison or afraid of suffering, but it was because, for many reasons, firstly, upholding justice in a country is important. Secondly, because this can be an opportunity to share our story with a wider group of people and to secure the right for them too, to be able to live and speak the truth, to share their faith. It's important to engage in the structures of society that we have around us. And of course, we know that the message of Christianity can have a phenomenal impact, not only in the lives of individuals and in us loving our neighbour to be able to share the truth like this, but also in societies. If you look to pre-Christian Rome, for example, the culture was more hedonistic and awful than today. They were engaging in child sacrifice in some instances. Women were treated as about the same worth as a loaf of bread. Babies were exposed on rubbish heaps if they weren't wanted simply because they were girls. Yet, Christianity came in with a transformative message and instituted this first concept that we ever had of having human rights, of having the equal dignity of each person just because they are human. That is a message that we still carry with us today, the equal dignity and worth of each person, no matter black, white, male, female, born, unborn, child, adult, all of these things. We believe that they have equal dignity and worth. We believe that no child has ever been born in the wrong body, for example. And these are values that can be positive and make a hugely positive impact on those around us. There are great reasons to be upholding this freedom, to be able to share our faith, to be able to share this perspective in society and help shape the laws around us to be the best that they can be for the flourishing of everybody. I've been surprised. I mean, I remember back when I was working at Christian Concern and engaging with churches. And you're kind of thinking, well, surely churches should be engaging in this fight. But it seems as though often, and maybe Americans may think, you've got to stay at church. You're in a wonderful position. Well, it's not necessarily so. And it seems that the church have retreated and left the fight to organizations like ADF. That's your job to speak truth and we'll quietly have a Bible study on a Wednesday evening and that's kind of our job ticked. I mean, how do you see that? Because, really it should be the church that are standing up for rights and freedoms and truth in the world. Yeah. So, the church has a commission, doesn't it, to be sharing the message and making disciples of those who believe. And I don't think that everybody in the church has the same necessarily frontline role in the politics that I do. I think that we all are called to have different parts of the body, but especially when we have state churches. But the church as an institution in society does have freedom to be able to speak into the societal issues of our day and to be sharing a perspective about how lives can be approved for everybody. And I think that church leaders have perhaps lost confidence in their ability to do that, that they do have a voice, that they can speak to politicians, they can speak to newspapers, to society and share their perspective and that it isn't wrong to do so. I wonder if there's been a little bit of a shyness over the last 50 years and speaking externally, but also internally about some issues that can be seen as controversial and maybe not having the language to articulate these things well. It is so important that we do so because we know, we believe the Bible as a church, not just because it's the Bible or because we're told to do so, but because we fundamentally do think it's true. We do think it holds valuable knowledge about how to best support everybody in society, best point them towards the way that they can be flourishing the most. If we truly believe that truth, then it is unfair, unjust and unkind of us to not be sharing that message, to not be speaking out. So, if we take our mission seriously, if we think that this is good for society, then we must be speaking about these issues in compassion and grace and holding out the wisdom that we've been taught. 100% Many of our viewers, not necessarily Christian viewers, may be non-Christian, but I think certainly the response we've got is many people looking for what truth is and looking for certainty in life, especially during the last four years of COVID chaos and trying to find that certainty. I want to talk to you about the the pro-life conversation and the Christian freedom conversation wider. I do need to ask you as a scoff of the the chaos that's north of the border. We've all read about uh it wasn't an April fool's joke it was actually the SNP going fully woke and restricting all conversation. As been reported on a lot, but maybe you want to just mention that, firstly, as an example of this wave against the right to speak what you believe. Sure. Well, like I mentioned earlier, it was 1697 that the last man in Scotland was condemned for blasphemy. He had, Thomas Aitkenhead, a 20-year-old Edinburgh student who had questioned the validity of the miracles of the Bible and made some jokes about Scripture. He was condemned for that, and that was absolutely wrong. That law went defunct for hundreds of years nobody used it in 2021 it was repealed finally, but on the same day that it was repealed a new blasphemy law was put into place. That came into action on the 1st of April this year. That law creates a new offense called stirring up of hate. I certainly don't like to be hated. I don't like anyone else to feel hated either and obviously we've talked about Christianity. Christians should never be called to be stirring up hate in any measure. The problem with this law is that we don't know exactly what kind of language can be seen to come under this. There's no definition of what it means to stir up hate and essentially it's been left wide open to abuse for the government to decide what speech they don't like and to ban that now JK Rowling very famously tested this law right in the morning that it came out. She tweeted, of course, some some fiery tweets about trans activists. She asked the police to come and arrest her if she had done anything wrong. The police investigated these tweets that had been reported as a hate crime. They found that they did not meet the threshold and that is good. It is really good that we've had that benchmark set for feminists that these particular tweets did not meet the threshold. However, we don't actually know, because there is no clear definition if different tweets were worded differently on a different day. And perhaps even might I add, coming from somebody who isn't as famous or on a big platform, or doesn't have the world's attention watching them. We don't know if the police will find a different reason as to prosecuting tweets as hate crimes and we don't know also about other topics that haven't been tested so JK Rowling talked about um trans activists and their link to criminality. We haven't tested this out when it comes to speaking about marriage we know one of the protected categories within law is obviously transgender identity and sexual orientation so we don't know about Christians who might speak out about marriage being between a man and a woman and if in different contexts. That could potentially meet the threshold. There's many Questions about this law that we have not been bottomed out. Police of Scotland had three years to clarify you know to a greater extent what this law was really going to mean for us and really all the best they came up with was a kind of campaign about a hate monster and watching out that the hate monster doesn't doesn't get you doesn't cause you to accidentally commit a hate crime I think it's very disappointing from our establishment that we're in this situation. I do see it as a new form of blasphemy law and that can essentially be used in the future to to criminalize people who are simply expressing their beliefs and it creates it's a culture I think of kind of you can't say that. You know, we'll chill conversations about important societal issues even in the home. This reaches into the family dinner table. Where it still applies, and if kids were to report their parents for their quote-unquote hateful beliefs if that's what they've been taught in school or hateful beliefs, then their parents could be ended up in trouble for what they've said there too. I think it's a very far-reaching law. It is something to be concerned about. And it's frightening that a government are trying to legislate feelings. Maybe the first government in the world to say a certain feeling or a certain emotion is wrong. I guess we'll be told what emotions are right and you must feel those emotions at certain times. And then it falls on the police and in some ways although it's the bobby on the beat that they will have to implement this. They're probably thinking this there are no guidelines this is not explained properly and it it's dangerous. We see it time and time again. Legislation coming in that's worded so badly, so widely, that actually it's up to any individual. And on a Monday someone could be arrested,  on a Tuesday they're not and that's frightening. I guess no safeguards and it's so subjective. Yeah, that's right. I mean we've seen this actually with hate speech laws across the world, so we kind of have a flavour of where this is going already. ADF International was supporting a case in Finland and still is a politician a parliamentarian of 20 years and a former Home Secretary, and a grandmother mother. Paivi Razanen, tweeted in 2019, she tweeted a Bible verse and she challenged her church leadership as to whether they should really have sponsored the Pride parade in Helsinki. She felt that that was perhaps an inappropriate thing for a church to be doing. She was charged for hate speech. She was dragged to the court. She's been acquitted twice at the district court and the court of appeal, and her case has been appealed a third time to the Supreme Court in Finland. The charge that she has been, or what she's been charged under carries a potential sentence of up to two years in prison. We don't think that she would get the full sentence, but the fact that that hangs in the air is quite phenomenal. We've seen where this lands of grandmothers being dragged through courts for years for tweeting their beliefs. Again, in Mexico we've seen this with politicians out there who we've supported, who were convicted actually of gender gender-based political violence for having expressed their beliefs on biological reality. Their are cases being appealed to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, but there are two politicians whose careers have been severely jeopardised because they simply tweeted their well-founded beliefs about reality. They spoke the truth. We know where this goes. We know how the story ends. For Scotland and Ireland are now looking at putting in place their own hate speech law as well. It is concerning, but we're going to have to wait and see how this shakes out. Of course, like you say, it comes down often to an individual police decision on the day, and Police Scotland are now a centralised unit. There's no kind of peer review between different forces in Scotland. It really is down to just one hive mind making the decision on what could count as offensive in the future. The police recently in Scotland said that they were no longer going to be investigating over 24,000 crimes including some examples of theft, because they simply don't have the resources, but we're told that they are going to be investigating every single report of hate speech that comes in. And we've had over 4,000 so far. Bear in mind that this law has been enacted for four days. If you can compare the before and after the effect this is going to have on our resources of policing in the country when it comes into looking about who said what on Twitter. It's a phenomenally interesting place for a country to be, but we're going to see how it shakes out in the next few weeks, I imagine. It really is weird whenever politicians are more concerned of hurdy words than rape, because the rape convictions are, what, one and a half percent, I think, is a conviction from an allegation to conviction. And yet, it's falling over themselves to find a word that may cause someone offence somewhere and to go after that. It is unbelievable the waste of finance and police resources of going after something while you've got these massive problems in society and simply turning a blind eye to it. Yeah, no, absolutely. And you're right. Hate isn't a human emotion. It's a motion of the human heart. It'd be as well trying to ban greed or envy or lust. Hamza Yusuf. Justin Trudeau. Simon Harris. All of these guys can try to ban hate, but that's not essentially what it's going to make the difference in society. Do we have societal issues, societal tensions, of course we do, but resolving those conflicts is going to take more conversation not less. Telling people that that their views or that they are bad people for expressing beliefs is not going to be helpful in engaging those societal conversations. If we let bad speech go underground and be hidden, then it festers into even worse speech for the issues that the government is concerned about. Having conversations out in the open is really the best place for a democracy to be. We need to have these types of conversations and the marketplace of ideas will sort itself out. The ideas that need to be fleshed out can be done so with debate and discussion. I think that's the direction the West needs to be headed. It was certainly historically where we seem to be headed for a long time when we've taken this U-turn back to a kind of more authoritarian, censorial approach, which I think is going to not have the desired consequences of our government. I want to move on to life. Lots of conversation, probably in the UK more on what they call assisted dying or assisted suicide, which is assisting someone to end their life, so to murder. We've seen that, especially probably during COVID, it's becoming even a bigger conversation. I see a number of MPs just get rid of the older members of society and that fixes us, the survival of the fittest. It's a frightening. I guess,  where the conversation goes when you don't have any Christian ethos or belief of the value of life. But the value of life at the beginning as well; I mentioned to you before we went on we've had uh some great individuals: Scott Klusendorf and Seth Gruber, and Janique Stewart. It's always great to drop this in the conversation, because when you look at the other alternative media, I think this is a topic that people are afraid to go on and choice seems to trump life and the right to the individual. Maybe you want to touch on what the situation is in the U.K for me for U.S audience who aren't sure. What is the life abortion situation in the U.K? Legally speaking our uh our laws in effect allow abortion for any reason up till 24 weeks. Then after 24 weeks there's three reasons why it could go all the way up to birth. One is in cases of disability. For the child, one is if the mother's life is at risk, and one is if there's a risk of serious risk of physical or mental injury to her as a result of the pregnancy. That's as things stand now. We are are a bit of an outlier in Europe. Average kind of benchmark for European abortion caps between 12 and 15 weeks. At 24, we're almost double. We are much, much more liberal in our abortion law than others. But an amendment has been put forward as part of the criminal justice bill in our parliament by a politician who would like to see abortion decriminalised all the way up till birth in the UK for any reason. Whether you count yourself as pro-life, or pro-choice, or pro-abortion or whatever label you hold, this iteration of an abortion law is extremely dangerous and should be opposed. The reason is that it puts women's lives in danger. We have a scheme in the UK called Pills by Post. Since the pandemic and now permanently, a woman can call up an abortion provider, say that she is less than 10 weeks pregnant, and the abortion provider will be able to administer her by the post Misoprostol pills for her to perform her own abortion at home. The danger with this, of course, without saying obvious, is also that a woman can essentially acquire these medicines very easily, even after the 10-week mark all the way up to the 40-week mark. And this has happened in various instances. There was a case over the summer of a lady called Carla Foster who performed an abortion by obtaining pills in this way on, I think it was, between a 33 and 35 week old baby I believe. She had a very traumatic experience performing her own abortion in her bathroom at home and she talked she later named her baby who she had to give birth to of course, after having performed the abortion she named her baby Lily. She talks about the traumatic experience that was. Now, if we we take away laws which prevent women from doing this, because a small number of women have got around the system to do it. If we take away laws that prevent many more women from doing it, we'll have so many more women like Carla who obtain a very dangerous style of abortion at home like this. It would be an absolutely traumatic result for women. So, no matter what your ideological stance on abortion is, this is something to write to your MP and oppose, because no woman should be going through an abortion alone at home. We're told it was meant to be safe, legal and rare. There seems to be none of those things. Now, there's also been another amendment proposed to the same bill that MPs will have to pick between. The second amendment looks at this 24-week mark and says, well, hang on. This means that now that babies are surviving from 22 weeks outside the womb. We now have situations where in the same hospital; there can be a woman having a 23, 24 week baby aborted whilst the same age of baby is fighting for their lives and we're supporting them to survive. How can we just be discriminating against these two children simply because one is wanted and one is not. That doesn't seem just at all. They're taking the very they made the very modest and moderate proposal of simply lowering that limit on abortion from 24 down to 22 in line of the current state of viability in the UK. Now, of course this still makes us very much out of sync with Europe which is 12 to 15 weeks, but it is a step towards a more humane view of life. I think it's something that should be definitely supported by all MPs. Again, it's not even a defining ideological stance. It's not the Only pro-life. People should think this... It is just a reasonable measure to take to ensure that babies of all, at least at the same age, are treated equally. That no baby's life is being ended in the womb that could be surviving on the outside. My hope is that plenty of people in the U.K will see the sense in this, see the justice in this, and write to their MP and encourage them to support the amendment for 22 weeks and opposed the amendment for 40 weeks. Sorry, that was a lot of information in one go, but I hope that it came across okay. No, it did. And the changes in legislation are often incremental that you don't go for it straight away. It is a conversation and slowly you have to move people with you. But it's interesting, the state, the conversation in the legislation, acouple of states on the heartbeat legislation, and that goes around actually what is life? Can we define what life is? And I've been perplexed with conversations with those who are are absolute desperate for abortion. It's actually something that people are really fired up with, certainly in the left. And I remember touching on different issues, and it's fine, you touch on the issue of abortion, how dare you stop a woman taking the life of her child. But that conversation of life, and I don't see that as much in the UK, because the Harvard legislation, what is life? You feel the pulse, actually the heart's beating, and that makes sense. I would go down to conception, but hey, let's have a conversation. But no one seems to understand what life is and that seems to be the crux of the problem, I think. Yeah, and I think ideologically we're always put into this debate mould where we're told that we have to pick between a woman or her baby, you know, it's like pro-woman or pro-baby. Some people say that, you know, we should protect the woman at all costs and therefore if she doesn't want to have a pregnancy in her body at at all, then like it's absolutely her choice and the child gets no rights. There's not many people who go to the full extreme of saying that at any point up to birth, she should be able to make that choice or even after birth. Very few people would go to that extreme. But there are some. And on the other side, we have this kind of polar opposite opinion of only the child's life matters. And the woman doesn't matter at all. And forget about her. We just have to protect this baby's life. I personally never met anyone who said that, but I'm sure that there have been instances where that's come across. And that's obviously not right either. We're kind of locked into this strange polarization where actually very few people think on these extremes. And I think what most of us want to see is an option where we can protect both. Can we find solutions where we can protect both mother and baby? And I think that's what needs to come through far more in this debate into the mainstream and stop feeding this idea that we can now just have to pick a tribe and in fact look to solutions where we can support mothers and support babies far better. I know the U.S have a great network of pregnancy help centres, which I think do a great service to women, because many, you know, in one in five women in the U.K who have had abortions say that they didn't want to, they felt pressured or pushed into it. So, if we had better options of support, and I think we can all work towards situations where we can be doing more to support and encourage women to take the empowered step to choose motherhood, to choose life. In a culture where so often they're told that the only option is abortion and that they have no future apart from that. So, I'd love to see further changes in our culture towards supporting women. And I guess the danger is the organisations that provide abortion make money from it. BPAS are not going to provide a conversation with a mother saying, actually, these are your options. The option for them is one thing because that's their business. We don't seem to have a, mothers don't seem to be able to have a conversation, actually, of the options. And it seems to be if a mother is thinking of ending the life of her child, then she's kind of funnelled into one direction, and that is abortion. I think that probably needs to change. I guess that partially is the role of the church to have that conversation. Yeah, there's a lot more we can be doing for sure. I think we can all agree that women deserve far better than abortion. When we think about it no little girl ever grows up saying I would love to have an abortion when I'm older. It's never an ideal choice so, the fact that we are in a culture where one in three or one in four women are ending up having abortion is a great failure on society. It's a great failure in the rhetoric that, you know, my body my choice is so empowering when in fact it's really allowed men and family members and people that were meant to be rallying around women in crisis pregnancies to say, well, your body, your choice, your problem, I'm out. And the kind of abandoned woman to a responsibility that was always meant to be shared. So, I do think there's a lot more churches and charities and things to be doing, but we also, we do have great charities in the U.K who do volunteer support. Outside abortion facilities and have made a real life difference in the lives of many women who have chosen help and decided that they would like to continue their pregnancies if only they could have support. But unfortunately, we're seeing a clampdown on their work at a governmental level, which I think is the most anti-woman policy that this government has ever proposed. Completely. And you've written to Rishi Sunak. Have you got a reply back to your letter? I did not. You know it's so funny I I wrote that letter it wasn't an ADF initiative I would just write to my MP, but my MP is standing down and I knew that she wouldn't agree with me anyway on this. At the last minute I said, oh I'll write to Rishi, and I put it on on Twitter. So thank you for saying and noticing that, I'm glad I'm glad somebody did. Yes, no. I wrote to Rishi because I think that we've had a quote-unquote conservative government for 14 years in this country. But in the course of those years, we have seen the destruction of the family. We've seen no support for mothers. Our maternity policy, in essence, has really amounted to just cheaper childcare, which, of course, cheaper childcare is fine and good. But many women feel that they would love to be able to invest more in their families, in their children by staying home, by having tax rewards for being able to put those years into early motherhood. Yet we have very little support for the idea of a family other than getting women back into work as soon as possible. We've had an abortion rate that's only growing under the Conservative government. We've had pills by post implemented by this government and now potentially abortion up to birth under the the criminal justice bill amendment. So I think it's an absolute blight on any party that calls themselves conservative, who should be standing up for family, for freedom of speech, for life and for cherishing these values that are so important to so many of us in society. I felt frustrated that that had not been done. And so I wrote a letter. If only in the manifesto, all lives matter and both lives matter were two policies, I think, actually would have a very different society. You know, it's funny, in the Conservative manifesto; I checked in the 2019 manifesto and family is mentioned dozens of times as support for the family as this campaign was promised to us. But I personally have not seen any measures taken to support and uphold families. I've only seen the opposite. So I think that's a real miss by a government who could have done much better. Yeah, if only we could listen to Hungary and have the most family friendly policies in Europe, it could be quite different. I saw you, I think, recently, back in March, you'd been with, I think, Right to Life had been outside Parliament, highlighting what was happening. Just mention that because it's important for the public to come around initiatives and to try and let MPs know that there is vocal support for policies like this. Yeah, absolutely. I really encourage everybody in the U.K to be writing to their MP about this. The group right to life. I think it's https://righttolife.org.uk, have a tool on their website where you can very easily write to your MP. Put in your postcode and they'll let you know who it is and provide you with information that you can send on to your MP. It's very easy, just takes a couple of clicks and, yeah, even if you want to do it in a different matter you just get in touch. I think there's so many, I wasn't really aware until recently about the number of methods we do have available to us to engage in really important decisions that are made in Parliament. Writing to your MP can make a difference if they're on the fence, or at least letting them know that people in their constituency do care about this issue. It's something important to them and they of course are elected to represent you. There's also things like public consultations that frequently come up, and it's always worth just filling out that consultation and making your voice heard and engaging with these tools that we have before us, because other people do. And so if we're not voicing our own opinion in these measures where the government is looking for opinions, we won't be heard. I really encourage everyone to engage with those tools. Completely. And one MP who I saw you retweeted, a former guest of ours,  Andrew Bridgen. His tweet was there should not be double standards when it comes to free speech, yet repeatedly we see evidence that Christian expression is harshly censored while the right to voice more fashionable views is protected. This was a sign, someone holding up a sign if you want to talk you can talk, and this I think fits in with the buffer, so do you want to fill the audience in on that? Yeah, of course he was referring to the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt Livia has been volunteering to help women outside an abortion facility for quite a few years now. She's a retired medical scientist, and so she frequently has has held a sign that says here to talk if you want, or she's provided information about a helpline and just giving women that chance to talk over their options to hear about resources available to them, if they want, to consider keeping their child if it's if they're at an abortion, but they're not sure about whether they want to go ahead. It's a chance just to look at other options. I think you know pro-life or pro-choice,  especially if you're pro-choice, you should be pro having having these conversations, looking at all the true choices. However, Livia was recently charged and now faces trial because she held this sign near an abortion facility in Bournemouth, where there is a buffer zone, or a censorship zone, as we sometimes like to call them. Placed around the clinic. These buffer zones have been rolled out in five places across England and Wales so far, and under new legislation coming in soon, they will be rolled out across the country, and it makes it a crime to engage in influencing within 150 metres of a clinic. The law, the regulation that Livia was
The Week According To . . . David Kurten
Apr 6 2024
The Week According To . . . David Kurten
Welcome to our regular review of some of the talking points and headlines of the past seven days and we are joined by the brilliantly outspoken David Kurten. David is full of common sense and fearless in his use of free speech as the listeners to his weekday show on TNT Radio will very well know. Plenty to get stuck into as we dig a little deeper into some of the posts David has made on his very popular X social media account and we discuss some of what has caught our eye in the press and from across the web, including... - He needs to be gone: The unelected UK foreign secretary wants more LGBTQQIAAPPP+ in Africa. - Not Our Flag: What is this woke abomination?  - Former foreign minister being investigated after he said pro-Israel “extremists” in the party should be kicked out. - Police Scotland has received more than 3K hate crime reports since a new law was introduced. - US Secretary of State Blinken says Ukraine will be NATO member. - BULLSHIT ALERT: 'This could be 100 times worse than Covid' Bird flu warning from scientists. - Poll putting Tories on 98 seats shows ‘real anger’ of the public. - Illegal migrants are eligible for £1,600 a month under a “nonsensical” system in Labour-run Wales. David Kurten is the leader of the Heritage Party, a political party in the UK which stands for free speech, traditional family values, national sovereignty, and defending our culture and heritage against extreme political correctness and ‘woke’ ideology. He was a London Assembly Member from 2016 to 2021. Before entering politics, David was a Chemistry teacher and taught in high schools in the UK, Botswana, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the USA and Bermuda. David presents his own show on TNT Radio, weekdays 10-11am (gmt) Connect with David and The Heritage Party... WEBSITE          heritageparty.org       X                       x.com/davidkurten TNT RADIO      tntradio.live/presenters/david-kurten Recorded  5.4.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Links to topics... Foreign secretary https://x.com/davidkurten/status/1775762615093923973 Not our flag https://x.com/davidkurten/status/1775199279218373079 Conservatives https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-peer-israel-gaza-investigation-duncan-b2523466.html Police Scotland https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-68721208 Ukraine https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-secretary-state-blinken-says-ukraine-will-be-nato-member-2024-04-04/ Bird flu  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13268235/This-100-times-worse-Covid-Bird-flu-warning-scientists-say-HALF-infections-H5N1-people-fatal-White-House-says-monitoring-situation.html real anger https://web.archive.org/web/20240403015344/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/31/sir-iain-duncan-smith-votes-are-angry-at-government/ nonsensical https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1884146/illegal-migrants-basic-income
Dr Naomi Wolf -  Enhancing Health Through Nutrition: Strengthening Your Immune System
Apr 4 2024
Dr Naomi Wolf -  Enhancing Health Through Nutrition: Strengthening Your Immune System
Show notes and Transcript 'Cooking with Naomi' is probably not something that Dr Wolf had on her list of things to do, but it fits perfectly into the widespread concern of health and food.  Naomi Wolf joins us once again to discuss a series of videos she has been doing called 'Liberty Lifestyle' that highlight natural remedies that are not fashionable for many of us in the West but are essential ingredients in many parts of the world and have been used for centuries.  We have been sold a lie that Big Pharma are here to keep us well, and healthy eating seems to be a thing of the past so Naomi gives us a little history behind it and shows how this is a massive myth.  We start by looking at why her recent episode on the benefits of Mustard Seed Oil was banned, why would a discussion about a healthy ingredient be so dangerous?  Naomi tells us of the effectiveness of natural remedies like mustard seed oil and turmeric, how FDA regulations are impacting herbal remedies, and of the holistic benefits of alternative treatments for cancer.  This episode advocates for informed consent, challenges mainstream medical interventions and empowers individuals to explore alternative health solutions. Share this with your friends, even your liberal ones.... Because this topic effects us all. Dr. Naomi Wolf is a bestselling author, columnist, and professor; she is a graduate of Yale University and received a doctorate from Oxford. She is cofounder and CEO of DailyClout.io, a successful civic tech company. Since the publication of her landmark international bestseller, The Beauty Myth, which The New York Times called “one of the most important books of the 20th century," Dr Wolf’s other seven bestsellers have been translated worldwide. The End of America and Give Me Liberty: A Handbook For American Revolutionaries, predicted the current crisis in authoritarianism and presented effective tools for citizens to promote civic engagement. Dr Wolf trains thought leaders of tomorrow, teaching public presentation to Rhodes Scholars and co-leading a Stony Brook University that gave professors skills to become public intellectuals. She was a Rhodes scholar herself, and was an advisor to the Clinton re-election campaign and to Vice President Al Gore. Dr Wolf has written for every major news outlet in the US and many globally; she had four opinion columns, including in The Guardian and the Sunday Times of London. She lives with her husband, veteran and private detective Brian, in the Hudson Valley. Interview recorded   2.4.24 Connect with Dr Wolf and Daily Clout... Website              www.dailyclout.io X                          x.com/naomirwolf                             x.com/DailyClout VIDEOS               rumble.com/user/DailyClout BOOKS               https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/Naomi-Wolf/author/B000APBBU8?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ (Hearts of Oak) And I am delighted to have Dr. Naomi Wolf back with us once again. Naomi, thank you so much for your time today. (Dr Naomi Wolf) Thank you so much for having me. I love speaking with you and your audience. Always great having you and so much to talk about. But I think first thing I'll mention, your books, obviously, you've had you on twice before. Well, a couple even more times. But on your latest book, the latest one, Facing the Beast, Courage, Faith and Resistance in a New Dark Age. And I love that spiritual thread that runs through that. And before that, the body of others, new authoritarians, COVID-19 and the war against the human. So they are all available and the links are all in the description. But I wanted you all to talk about something quite different. And that's maybe eating for health, I think, and taking back control of your immune system. And I came across, I think it was the one on mustard seed oil, whenever that got restricted. And then I started delving into a number of the other videos you had done. And I'm guessing you probably hadn't thought that you were going to be doing cooking videos from your kitchen. No, indeed. And, you know, as I headline it, I made bad cooks. So this is the bad cook cooks that I had to change my life when I realized just how serious the interventions in our food supply and our pharmaceutical, like over-the-counter supply were. Well, there seems to be no end to your talents, Naomi, and I've really enjoyed watching those. But maybe we'll get into the mustard seed oil video. I'd never heard of mustard seed oil, and I had no idea that actually it was a bad product. And then it got bad. And then I started delving into that. And the first thing is, where can I get mustard seed oil? That's my first thought of the UK. But tell us what that was about. And then we'll step back and maybe look at, mention some of the other videos and this whole, I guess, battle with FDA and what their role is in our health. But mustard seed oil, why on earth was that banned? [2:30] It's so crazy, Peter. I, you know, people who know my work know that I'm not a I don't think of myself. I've never prepared. I'm not a doctor. I'm not a nutritionist. I'm a poetry defill. You know, I have no background in any of this. And I I didn't think I'd ever be shining a light on this issue of taking back control of our health and well-being. But this is what happened to me. As you know, because you've had me on several times for this reason, I oversaw and oversee a group of 3,250 doctors and scientists and specialists and biostatisticians and medical fraud investigators, clinicians. Research scientists who united to go through the Pfizer documents released under court order, there are 450 000 documents and the fda had asked for those to be kept hidden for 75 years well our volunteers have now produced almost 100 reports linking to the originals so you don't have to take anyone's word for it you can click through and see the original document right, that is it links to and... The latest book is coming out in a month I believe. That is correct and what they found, sadly, is the greatest crime against humanity in recorded history, that Pfizer, with the collusion of the FDA, meaning the collusion of the CDC, the collusion of the White House, all of whom were looped in to this genocide, really, and sterilization of the population. They inflicted catastrophic damage on us that is not over, right? And on Western Europe, no doubt, everywhere Pfizer was rolled out. And this is just what the documents we got to see because of the successful lawsuit. So we don't know the AstraZeneca papers. The Moderna papers are just coming out. We're seeing the same sterilization effect in the Moderna papers. But we see from the Pfizer documents that Pfizer knew they were killing people, creating catastrophic events like stroke and blood clots, lung clots, leg clots, dementias, heart damage, catastrophic scale liver damage, kidney damage. They knew that the vaccines didn't work to stop COVID. The third most common side effect in the documents is COVID. And they concluded a month after rollout that the vaccines had failed to stop COVID, didn't tell us. And the centrepiece, and I'm just recapping quickly, is that they were grossly experimenting on disrupting human reproduction. And they knew they were causing what they called reproductive disorders in women, especially at industrial scale. And so now we have a 13 to 20% drop in live births in the United States and Western Europe. Igor Chudov, a mathematician who works with government and databases, confirms that there are a million missing babies in Western Europe now. And we know why. So given all of that, and given the, It caused such an emotional toll to look at this and report on this week after week that I started to think, well, okay, we know what the sicknesses are. How do we heal people, right? We need to be able to focus on something positive and constructive for humanity so that people have some hope, You know, that they are not beholden for their health to the same institutions and industries that murdered them or and sterilized them and disabled them. So I began to look back at, I began a series called Liberty Lifestyle, right, that looks back at traditional remedies, forgotten remedies that used to be very common. And also alternative treatments, notably herbs and spices, which have been used for millennia to treat the kinds of conditions that people now have, you know, have always had, but now, that the injuries, we know that they're ramped up. And so I've been looking at, okay, if my loved ones who are vaccinated are going to have circulatory problems, what has traditionally healed circulation, if people are going to have heart problems, what's traditionally protected the heart? And then, you know, and other questions, right, based on what we knew to be the damage and injuries in the Pfizer documents. And so what has been amazing about these videos, and the research I've been doing is, you mentioned it with mustard oil. Well, A, what's amazing is that it's even more censored than our work on the Pfizer documents, like even more censored, as censored as you can be. And I was censored by the White House and the CDC and the, you know, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, Dr. Walensky, 15 White House staffers in 2021 singled out my tweet about menstrual dysregulation and identified it, put pressure on Twitter and Facebook to censor me. This has all come out in the lawsuits by two attorneys general. As censored as our work on the Pfizer documents has been, And even my alert to women before the Pfizer documents, you know, as recently as last week when my husband was detained in the Netherlands for seven hours and questioned by three different officials when I was in Europe for the first time to talk to people face to face about the Pfizer documents. As censored as all of that has been, our work on common traditional remedies such as a mustard oil or turmeric have been even more censored. Literally YouTube de-platformed us for the mustard seed oil. Twitter briefly froze us. You know, every, to this day, I just did a report on a sperm suppressor and a hormonal oestrogen disruptor in personal lubricant over the counter CVS personal lubricant. And YouTube is having none of it. And it's not because it's an adult subject. I mean, you know, there's polyethylene glycol and toothpaste and you know YouTube is having none of it so it and it stands to reason, I mean I looked up the numbers and the numbers for, basically we're not just threatening one product of one pharma company now right since what i'm doing is is not just saying oh turmeric's been used for millennia but actually looking up peer-reviewed studies on turmeric or mobby bark and coconut water or, you know, sassafras or guava leaves or, you know, all of the traditional remedies I've explored, the peer-reviewed studies show very often much better outcomes using these remedies than their pharmaceutical rivals. So I'm not surprised. And you can imagine the scale of the market that we're then threatening. So I'm not surprised that I'm being so widely censored, but I do feel like it's a very positive thing to explore. It's changed my life for sure. And I do feel like it's a race against time because many of the traditional remedies that have been marginalized, you can say, well, this is just normal pharmaceutical greed. They don't want us to know that actually you stabilize hypertension in two weeks more easily with Mabi bark and coconut water, traditionally in use for centuries in the the Caribbean than with, you know, blood pressure medication that is patented based on pharmaceutical petroleum derivative products. But in addition, we're finding shocking, like if they can't get us with the injections to restrict our sex drive and our reproductive health, they're getting us with our food supply and our personal care supply, meaning we found a sperm suppressant in common baking mixes in the United States. I don't think these are allowed in Britain or Europe, but it's worth looking. I just threw out Progresso breadcrumbs because they had the same sperm suppressant. We don't need a sperm suppressant in our food supply, any of us. And also in our personal care products, we're finding parabens, which are hormone disruptors, bad for men and bad for women. But I'm literally astonished to find it in personal lubricant, which goes right into your body if you're a woman and directly affects your partner if he's a man. So it's shocking that these ingredients continue to to be fed into our food and personal care supply, to lower our sex drive, lower the aggression of men as warriors, for sure. You know, destabilize the family, I would argue, because everyone's less happy and degenderize us, basically. But this is all part of, I think I've so many conversations with, with friends in the UK saying, actually, where do we get food? And beginning to to look at going back to how food is produced and going to local farms and that sort of thing. And this is a much wider conversation, I guess, of massive mistrust that a lot of us now have over the last four years of regulatory bodies of what we are told and looking for alternatives. So I get what you're doing fits into that massive void that people are crying out for, just good, honest, straightforward ideas, of how we need to live our lives better because the government certainly aren't going to do it for us. It's up to each of us. Indeed. And we used to, in the United States, we have what used to be a very good law compelling the FDA to compel any food or medicine to fully disclose all of the ingredients. And I've been shocked to find that, you know, there are huge carve outs. I mean, I shouldn't be shocked at anything now after the Pfizer documents. But, you know, one of the issues I disclosed in my video today is that in the U.S., toothpaste only has to disclose a fraction of 1% of their ingredients. We literally don't know what's in the rest of the ingredients. However, we're warned that if we swallow any toothpaste, we need to go right to the poison control center or right to the hospital. So, yes, the distrust is, I guess, long overdue. I think there's they're different. I feel like when I'm in Europe, the food supply is healthier because I don't think you're allowed some of the adulterants that we have that we have in the United States. I mean, there are memes on social media and I've experienced this for myself where there's a long list of psycho chemicals added to a global brand in the US that is not added, at least not disclosed in the UK. However, I think that, I know from having lived in the UK and gone back many times to visit, not since the pandemic, but I know that your wonderful tradition of healthy farming, good treatment of animals. Local production of vegetables and fruits is being disrupted by Big Ag and no doubt by Big Pharma the way ours is in the US. And one of the immediate things, too, is they want to mRNA inject animals and they want to, like in the US, they're they're starting to do kind of a social credit score for animals or like, surveillance for animals that you that every single animal is tagged. You know, livestock is tagged. And they also have ridiculous laws in the United States. Thomas Massey in our Congress is fighting, is trying to pass freedom to farm bills or food freedom bills. And I'm sure you'll need something similar in the UK, from what I understand, in the sense that there are laws against local producers of livestock or cows or sheep slaughtering their cows locally and bringing the meat to farmers markets. They have to be fed into this whole kind of industrial food system and shipped for miles and slaughtered in FDA slaughterhouses that are largely, you know, then many of our meat producers like Smithfield are owned by China or being bought up by China. Right. So you're not even getting, you're getting food processed by our worst enemies, the ones who my reporting showed have the IP, the manufacture, the distribution of these mRNA injections that have decimated our populations. So why would you trust food manufactured that way? And from what I understand, I do think something similar is happening in the UK. Like you used to be able to, I remember when I was a graduate student in Oxford, you could go to the local market and local farmers were selling their local apples and carrots and their local meat in a pretty farm-to-table way and I would be surprised if that is still as reliable as it used to be but you tell me. Well yeah with the regulatory board we've always had kind of a gold-plated regulatory industry across Europe on everything and we I guess see the US has been lax in in different industries but I think that's, there is a lot of restrictions now, certainly the farming community, we've had massive demonstrations, as they have all over Europe, at the restrictions and the pushback against farming. You said you're in the Netherlands and they are some of the biggest farmers in Europe, actually, for what they provide. And they are up in arms at the massive restrictions that they face, which I guess means that actually the food will be brought in from elsewhere, from far away. So, yeah, we're seeing a big change, certainly in our farming industry all across Europe. Well, let's think about that, right? If the people are brought in from far away, you don't – I mean –, This is a parallel, right? And as I always say, I'm the daughter of immigrants. Granddaughter of immigrants. I believe in legal immigration. But if you have no control, if the globalist plan is to throw millions of people from all over the world at Britain, at France, at Germany, at the Netherlands, you're not going to have a European culture in the same way that you used to. You don't have a European culture that you can or a British culture, right, or a Scottish culture, Welsh culture that you can tend as a social contract. And that's not a racist thing to say. Right. Anyone can be Welsh. Anyone can be British from anywhere in the world. But citizens need to be able to have borders and have laws about how many people that country can absorb and acculturate to that culture, right? And if they can't do that, then they no longer have a country or a culture. And that's the globalist plan, right? Because destroying Western Europe as a beacon of liberty, destroying Britain as the home of the Magna Carta and the free press, all of that depends on throwing millions of people who don't come from constitutional republics or share European values at Europe, and I'm including Britain. So having said that, think about your food supply, right? If your food supply comes from, if you're in Wales and your food supply comes from a Welsh farmer up the road, you can pretty much trust it. You know, if he poisons his neighbours or she poisons her neighbours, that can't be concealed. But if you bring in the food supply from anywhere and you add additives like Apeel, which is this Bill Gates-derived coating on vegetables... Or, which I found to be the case in Europe and in Britain, the legislation is so opaque that you really don't know what's in, what you're bringing in to your local greengrocer, local supermarket at Sainsbury's. Then horrible things can be done to your population just like they're being done to ours. No, 100%. And we now have labelling that it says has a Union Jack on it. You think that's a British product, but it only means it's packaged in the UK. It could be from anywhere else. So I know. So it goes on and on. And you think you can trust that, but actually you can't. But tell us about it because, again, it's a bit different in the UK than it is in the States. You've got the FDA that covers everything, covers the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry. We kind of have separate. We've got the Food Standards Agency for the food side and then the Medicine and Healthcare Regulatory Agency, which is the pharmaceutical side. But tell us how the control that the FDA, the Food and Drugs Administration, have in the States, because it does seem to be all encompassing. I've talked to farmers and they talk about how they, I think there are only four or five processing, meat processing plants in America now. And so it's all reduced down to a industry that controls that process. But the FDA seemed to have absolute control of everything that the Americans consume, just as the FSA, the same in the UK. Yeah, I mean, I have to drill into it in a little more detail. But broadly speaking, you're 100% right. I would throw in another agency called the USDA, which oversees farms and what happens to farms. So something has to be USDA approved before a farmer can bring it to market, certainly when it comes to milk and meat. So we do have a much more centralized system now, and it's one that no doubt the EU is trying to impose on Europe. I think Europe has, I mean, look at, you know, France and Italy. They have such a legacy of terroir, right? You know, this local production, they fetishize it as much as they should, right? So much a part of tourism that you go to Burgundy and you get grapes from Burgundy. You go to, you know, you get your pâté from Normandy. Your people have permission to call something champagne if it's from champagne, right? And that's been wiped out in the U.S. And so I do think Europeans and British people should look at what's happened in the U.S. And the fight we're having here over our food supply as their future if they don't resist resist and rebel. And especially resist EU directives, leave the EU like more aggressively than Britain's managed to leave the EU, and reclaim the right to grow and sell and buy food. Because what's happened in the US is not only this massive centralization, you're right, there are only a few meat processing plants, but also what you see behind me is an agricultural cultural area. It's the Hudson Valley. And it's a very rich agricultural area. And there have been a lot of small food producers in this area. But what's happening is that the state is intentionally making it more and more difficult for people to be the independent farmers that they used to be in our nation's history, let alone for citizens to purchase from independent farmers. So for example, right up the road, there used to be this wonderful barn where you could on the honour system go into a little shed and there was cheese and milk products and ice cream made from these cows that were in this giant shed. And you would just leave your $5 for the pint of ice cream. And it was fantastic. And you'd sit in the sun and you could see the cows and you could eat your ice cream. And it was just, it contributed to the local economy. It was something tourists love to to do. The cows looked happy. Well, I spoke to the owners of that little dairy and they were freaking out a few years ago because the state said, suddenly you need a $60,000 investment in pasteurizing this milk. And by the way, it is illegal in many places to purchase raw milk and pasteurized milk in the United States. And they weren't even. They weren't even selling raw milk. They had this $60,000 equipment imposed on them unnecessarily. And she kept saying, it was heart-breaking, she kept saying, look at our cows, they're healthy. We don't need this for our cows to be healthy. Our cows are healthy. So that was designed we're seeing all these regulations to drive people out of, to close small farms right and then BlackRock buys up the land or the big producers buy up the the farm essentially and streamline it, we bought half a cow from a neighbor and like, we had to, it was like a drug deal. We had to go to them without anyone knowing and they loaded these packages up in the back of our car and, but we feel happy to be able to do that because we know that they raised the cow, they slaughtered the cow, they didn't put any sperm suppressor in the cow's meat or mRNA. But we're down to that, right? Let me give you one other example. They're so sneaky. Like the Union Jack thing is just typical of the sneakiest. At the start of the pandemic, there used to be a thriving farmer's market in the town of Great Barrington up the road. Well, I was astonished to go to the farmer's market during lockdowns and a farmer's market is outdoors, right? So it's the safest possible place you could get your food if you're worried about a respiratory infection. Well, I was astonished that they had made the population of farmers in the farmer's market half the number it had been and I said why are there only half the number of farmers here and one of the people had been tasked in such a Marxist way by the governor with telling which farmers could show up and which couldn't which meant that their farms would go out of business right they wouldn't have an income if they couldn't come to the farmer's market and she was very upset that that was her job but she had to do it if there was to be a farmer's market per our governor. And it was just and she said it so that there won't be crowding. But here's the farmer's market on one parking lot and here's an empty parking lot right across the street. They could have just doubled the acreage of the farmer's market and had all the farmers. Right. But it was intentionally designed to crush local farms. And that's what it did. Tell us some of this seems to go full circle. Some of your background is in political consultancy work where you control the narrative and you decide who gets which information. And at one time, I guess the political system controlled the news narrative. It's not so much anymore with 24-hour news. But it seems that the FDA are the gatekeepers of food and health in the same way that politicians want to control the news narrative. Is there a way past that because it does seem certainly, well I don't even know if you can blame the democrats or the republicans but it seems to be they're given more and more power and authority and you mentioned that sixty thousand dollars to fit into new regulations that more and more regulations come that don't seem to have a reason. But it does seem as though they are the absolute gatekeepers of all our health and food access. Yeah, it's true. But I don't want you to, you know, Europeans and British viewers to be lulled into thinking it's not a risk to their own system. For example, I was a student in Britain, a graduate student for many years, and I was in your national health system. The NHS is an even more rigid gatekeeper of health than in some ways than our system, where at least you can get a private doctor pretty easily. At least there's private medicine. I mean, the state, like it's been so interesting to me to go back to Europe and see how Europeans and British people are losing their liberties. And it's so genius, because both in Britain, even with this nominal exit Brexit, and in Europe in general, what I've seen is that for the post-war era, everything has been made increasingly lovely. If you rely on the state, you get your benefits, you get your health care, you get your free university, or your low-cost university. but, that seemed fine for decades when the EU or the NHS was not trying to murder you or imprison you in a 15 minute city or, you know, kill your grandma with Midazolam or whatever the British version of Remdesivir is. But then in the, then in 2020, it's like the, the lulling seductive superstructure got, the window dressing got pulled away. And all of a sudden you realize like, oh my God, if the NHS wants to administer end of life drugs for someone they say has COVID, they can do it. And there's no alternative. And if the NHS wants to, I got so many desperate emails from NHS workers saying, I don't want this injection. My daughter doesn't want this injection. There's nowhere else to go, right? If you're a nurse or a doctor, very few other places to go to make a living. You know, the, the, oh, I remember just one tiny example. I was a graduate student and I went to my local NHS clinic and don't get mad at me because you pay 60 pounds if you're not British, which is as it should be. I was not mooching off your system, but there, there was no other clinic to go to. And they said, oh, you can't have your records. And I'm like, why can't I have my my records. They're like, well, because look at the fine print, you've, there is no medical privacy anymore. And Boots, I went to Boots and I'm like, I want my records. They're like, we don't have them there. It's digital. Like it's all digital, right? I'm a tech CEO. It's all digital. They're like, they're in a warehouse in, you know, bodily. No, they're not. You have my records. You're just not giving them to me. I understood that the NHS data was being monetized and sold to third parties. People's privacy was being sold. My privacy was being sold. But you had absolutely no recourse, you know, legally. I mean, the hoops people went through. And British people sign away their right, essentially, to sue their doctors or the NHS if something terrible happens to them by the fine print they have to sign in the contract in order to just get seen by the doctor. So the state screws you as, you know, active advocates of your own health if you want the NHS to care for you in any way. And it's very difficult to go around the NHS. So I just want to say that because this is intentional, right? And for 50 years, it was lovely or 60 years. And then they're like, OK, now we've got you. And same with, you know, benefits. I mean, people in the Netherlands were telling me they were scared to speak up about losing their liberties because they were scared of losing their benefits. And it's not great in a way that in the US there aren't any benefits, you know, except Social Security or Medicare. But it does mean that people aren't scared of losing their benefits. So we'd be able to mount a more effective resistance. So I just want to like... How can I put it, yes the FDA is very effectively strangling our food and drugs but there's a lot of illusion of choice in Britain and Europe that does not bear scrutiny. Trust me most of our viewers will have gone past the point where we believe that our institutions want the best for us. Hey can I, you've done the the whole thing on food and your cooking and your herbs or I think it's herbs with an H but anyway I will go with herbs, but mustard oil and then turmeric where people obviously have heard of and then you'd one, astragalus anti-cancer immune boosting and again all the I think we've been told up to this point that, that is kind of backward those are societies that actually haven't advanced and we've advanced so far that we've got got a drug for that problem and you're going back to actually, you don't need a drug, in fact if you take a drug you probably need another one and another one to fix all the side effects that have happened, but what, whenever that video was restricted, I mean what were your thoughts, you're simply talking about a herbal, not even a medicine, just a herb that's been used for some of these things are Chinese medicine that have been used for maybe hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years. And suddenly in America, it's bad. What was your first response when you're thinking, you're just trying to put out good information on food and then suddenly that gets removed? Well, I mean, it's a gift as a journalist, right? The more bots and trolls and censorship you see in a certain subject, it's like a big sign saying, dig here, there's a story. So I was struck, but then I did the math and I understand why these resources are being thrown at suppressing this information. I mean, I mentioned some of the numbers, but let me just give you one example briefly. There's a tonic called Lydia Pinkham's tonic, and it was famous in the 19th century, may have been sold in Britain. I don't know. It was an American tonic. Lydia Pinkham had learned about these herbs from Native Americans who had used them for, as you say, centuries. And it was bought. She was heralded as a pioneer in the history books I'd read as a child. Then the formula got bought and reformulated by a small pharma company, then bought again and reformulated by a larger pharma company. And now you cannot get the original version of Lydia Pinkham's tonic. And notably, I saw that in JSTOR and all over the Internet, there's like a campaign that started in about 2020 to smear her as a quack and to even smear the women who loved her product, which were thousands and thousands as like alcoholics. Right. Because she used some alcohol in her formulation. Well, that's really interesting. You know, whenever you see a smear campaign, there's something going on. And I bought the herbs to reconstruct Lydia Pinkham's tonic. Well, you know what? What are the numbers? The numbers are astonishing. It's a 16 billion dollar menopause industry worldwide. And if black cohosh and false unicorn root and fenugreek can ease the symptoms of menstrual pain and menopause and be a uterine tonic so women don't miscarry, all the things that, like, for me as a feminist, if thousands and thousands of women are writing thank you letters to Lydia Pinkham, something's working, right? And so it's very interesting to me that that formulation was bought up and erased because it was working. So that's a 16 billion dollar industry. The whole notion that menopause is a disease or menstruation, you can't handle it by yourself. You need these pills or those pills, you know, is just nonsense. And Native Americans have known that forever. And that's what got suppressed. So I'm not surprised, even though I'm kind of impressed that we've stumbled on something that threatens so many profit centers. But I guess the other thing I would say is that many people, the kind of marginalization of like traditional remedies, right? Or herbal remedies, herbal remedies. It's so fascinating to me because it's not science based. And I guess I, too, daughter of hippies, you know, whatever. I, too, kind of thought, oh, yeah, sure. Ginger tea, whatever, you know, that maybe these things have some mild benefit, but it's nothing compared to, you know, prescription medicine. But now I've looked both at the formulation and distribution of prescription medicine, but also I've read Rockefeller Medicine Men, which shows how the Flexner Report took over basically all medical licensing and medical education in the United States to direct it to a petroleum based pharmaceutical product system by the guy, John D. Rockefeller, who had the petroleum. Right. And then lastly, as I mentioned earlier, I've learned to read scientific peer reviewed studies and these so much does better. As I said, so much does better. So I think that's why my stuff is being censored because I actually don't just say, Hey, try garlic. You know, if you're having inflammatory conditions, here's this NIH database, which has this peer reviewed study from the journal of oncology that shows that you're actually going to do better or as well with the guava leaf tea or with the sassafras or with the mustard oil than you would do with the pharmaceutical equivalent. I mean, can I just say, and then I promise I'll stop ranting. I have a friend who has cancer. So many people have cancer now. The number of herbal products that kill cancer cells, both in vivo and in vitro, meaning both in the lab and in mammals is off the charts, off the charts effective. And so that's all I want to say. You know, like people deserve to know this is informed consent. Where do we then, massive, but we'll reduce the dot to just a little bit, where then vaccines fit into this. I saw a couple of days ago, I think it was RFK put a post up, or it might have been Ed Dowd, talking about, I think something like 18 times the level of cancer in those who are vaccinated, as opposed to those who are non-vaccinated. And this is coming again and again. We've had all different, with William Makis on recently talking about this whole area. And again it's looking for alternatives and the difficulty of finding those and being dismissed as crazy for looking at a way to solve your situation outside the norm, but that whole thing, I kind of think that's what will resonate with a lot of people, a friend of mine came down with cancer a few days ago, came out and again it's happening again and again and there does seem to be these natural remedies for it, that that haven't never been discussed. I remember a friend taking natural remedies maybe 20 years ago and I was thinking they're just crazy, just blast your body with chemo and now I'm thinking, actually there probably was a lot in that. I think people are delving deeper into this and I know a number of the the posts you put up, the videos you mentioned that actually, they are, can be used to actually combat cancer. And I think that's what will resonate with a lot of people. Yeah. And I really want to stress, so I don't get arrested because the FDA, seriously. You're not a medical doctor. You're not a medical doctor. But when I say anti-cancer, that is the conclusion that these peer-reviewed studies come to, so yeah, like I agree with you. I think there's it's a matter of urgency to get these, this evidence, I'll put it that way to people so they can decide for themselves, but what I would say here the the fundamental error in the western medical, post Rockefeller medical approach, I was in a store where they were selling these herbal treatments. And I stumbled upon them because I live in Brooklyn now part time in a Caribbean and African neighbourhood basically where they have these, and Latin American, where I have these very intact herbalist traditions, right? Like they never stopped. They remember what they're for. They use them appropriately. They never stopped. So I'm in a Caribbean owned store and I'm looking
James Roguski - World Health Organization: Two Months to Flatten the WHO
Apr 1 2024
James Roguski - World Health Organization: Two Months to Flatten the WHO
Show notes and Transcript James Roguski has been calling out lies and propaganda for decades. He believes it is every person's responsibility to question their most cherished beliefs, challenge claims of authority and disobey unjust laws and that is how we grow while remaining free and maintaining our integrity. In February 2022 the company that had hosted James's websites for over a decade deleted his account and tens of thousands of hours of his work.  They gave no reason other than the content violated their “Terms of Service.” They may of deleted many of James's websites, but they ignited his passion to burn even brighter. If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then this interview and James's Substack are the places to be. Connect with James... Substack             jamesroguski.substack.com Website               exitthewho.org X                          twitter.com/jamesroguski Interview recorded  29.3.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ TRANSCRIPT (Hearts of Oak) And I'm delighted to be joined by James Roguski today. James, thank you so much for your time today. (James Roguski) Oh, any time. I'm honoured that you'll have me share this information with you and your audience. And so thank you very much for having me. Well, we're going to delve into all things WHO. And people obviously can find you @JamesRoguski on, that is your Twitter handle. And obviously Substack, it is again the same, just .substack.com. On the end of your name all the links are in the description and I know that our audience will be interested and hungry for that information so you're an awesome source of information and thanks to Noor for actually connecting us when she said I know someone who knows all things WHO you need to have them on so although I don't really know Noor yet the answer is yes and then I delved into and found out, she was completely accurate. So thank you to Noor for the introduction and connection. But James, before we get into the topic WHO, can I just ask you to take a moment and introduce yourself to our guests? Well, you know, you mentioned my Twitter handle, and I don't honestly really spend a lot of time on Twitter. But if anybody goes to my Twitter account, you'll see that right at the top, I have my phone number and I encourage everybody to give me a phone call. 310-619-3055. I'm in California. So, you know, wherever you may be, I'm that serious about what's going on with the WHO that if anybody out there, you know, wants to have a conversation, happy to do so, you know, reach out on telegram or signal or WhatsApp or phone call or text message or whatever it might be. You know, we got connected through Noor, but I'm readily available because this is complicated. It's confusing. And what I have observed is that almost everybody gets a little tiny piece of information that's been mangled. You know, the game of telephone, right? You know, you tell somebody who tells somebody who tells somebody who tells somebody. I just want people to get the facts. Don't believe anything I say. All I've been doing is pointing to the WHO's documents and their video recordings of their meetings and going, hey, did you see that? Did you see what they said? Now, I obviously have opinions and happy to share my opinions with you. But what I encourage everybody to do is to go to the source. Read the darn documents don't listen to hear, you know hearsay, it's funny I hear I have a lot of people reach out to me and they go, oh did you hear what so-and-so said I'm like okay that might be a clue but by definition that is hearsay if you hear somebody say something interesting and you dig in and you find the source, man, 99 times out of 100 the source is a little bit different than what what you heard somebody say about the source. So don't trust me, right? I think I'm trustworthy, but don't trust me. Don't take my word for it. The problem that we're dealing with is people hear something, they accept it, and then when they're greeted with the actual source, factual documents, it conflicts with the confusing thing they heard somebody say, and they don't wanna let go of their initial understanding, one of the hardest things in the world to do is to unlearn something that you thought you knew but maybe where you got that information was a little bit mangled. So be careful out there I agree too often our feelings are to accept things and to assume things and I always whenever I see someone posting something I, with so many memes you kind of think think, okay, is that accurate? And delve into it. And you're right. Then you find out whether it's true and you're not repeating hearsay, which can be extremely dangerous. But James, WHO, how did you, before we get into kind of what it is, and I do want to give that kind of overview to the audience, because I think it's important to put together the piece of the jigsaw. And I know you delve deeply into many different parts of it on your Substack, but how on earth did the WHO come on your radar and how did you decide that I tell you what I think I want to delve into this and make this a large part of my life to understand it and expose it? I'll have to thank some invisible sensor out in the world. I have been talking about natural health for 30 years and written a number of books and you know had many many many many websites. And in 2022, I learned that the FDA on, if my memory is correct, I believe it was January 21st, 2022, that the FDA approved outpatient injections for infants to receive Remdesivir. And my head exploded. And I wrote a couple of articles on websites that I had. And a couple of days later, I got an email from my website hosting provider that I had been with for like a decade and everything was gone. And I was like, Oh, must've been right over the target with that one. Okay. And I, I have to say, I was a little bit happy with myself because I was like, Oh, all right. I guess this is one of those midlife crisis change of, you know, direction things that the universe is trying to tell me something. And so, I ended up, I had many, many websites and they were all gone and rather than rebuild them, I'm like, okay, fine. What should I be doing? And I ended up on Substack. So jamesrugoski.substack.com. And I started writing on Substack and I got to give credit where credit is due. I bumped into an article by Shabnam Palaisa Muhammad, who's connected to many, many things, but she's also with World Council for Health. And she had started started talking about something that had happened really on December 1st, 2021. So this was February 2022. And I ended up doing about a month's worth of research. And on March 24th, so slightly more than a year, two years ago, I published a big article about what was going on with the proposed pandemic treaty. And I thought I was done with it. And four days later, would have been two years ago yesterday, I woke up at four in the morning and I was compelled to go searching for something. And I found a website that had a document and it said, we've obtained this document. And the document was hyperlinked. So I clicked on it and I went down the rabbit hole and I started reading the document and I just got a massive shiver down my spine. I'm like, wait a minute, what is this? It wasn't anything to do with the treaty. It was amendments to another existing document called the International Health Regulations. It had been submitted to the WHO more than two months prior in January. And it was to be discussed in May, which was, a month and pretty much two months away. And I'm like, nobody's talking about this. What the heck is this? And it was the Biden administration trying to do many things. They had a number of different amendments, but what they were mainly trying to do was shorten the time period through which any future amendments might be put into effect. Currently that's two years, they wanted to shorten it to six months. And I'm like, okay, what does that mean? what's coming? And down the rabbit hole I went and I haven't gotten out of the WHO rabbit hole since. I've got a slogan for myself. I want to get out of the WHO and on with the new, but we've got two months to flatten the WHO they're shooting to, they're hoping to adopt amendments to the international health regulations and a new pandemic treaty, two separate things. And it's really important to keep those things separate. May 27th to June 1st is their yearly world health assembly. And so for the next two months, just trying to raise everyone's awareness of what it is they're trying to do. Well we'll get on to the pandemic treaty and a lot has been made out of it, I think it was the World Council for Health had that petition in the UK and we'll maybe touch on some of that but we, I mean you've got this organization, a massive power grab and I don't think many people will have had any idea of this and the role this played, I mean it's 75 year history probably most people don't even know it's a UN organization and the power it had I think maybe the WEF is higher on people's radar where the WHO seems to have been much under it and I mean just give us a little bit of a snapshot and I know you've looked into the the current proposals. But there's 75 years of history of this organization, but it seems to be having a massive power grab, certainly COVID time. But what about the organization itself? Because we're told it's just a benign organization, but it doesn't seem so. I don't know if anything in life is benign. It all depends on what is going on with it. So you've really got to go back almost to the Civil War in the United States and the 1800s where –, If you think about living in a world where you ride a horse, okay, and you don't have a toilet that goes into a wastewater sewage treatment system, okay, you know, manure everywhere. People who lived in cities would have a chamber pot, maybe throw it out the window in the gutter. I can only imagine, I've heard stories about the stench, you know, of the River Seine in Paris. Getting control in large cities of everyone's excrement is what really cleaned up a lot of infectious disease. Okay. And so from the 1800s, early 1900s, all the way through World War II, after World War II, when the WHO was brought into being, and in 1951, they sort of organized the sanitary regulations. We kind of take a lot of things for granted right now, but the pathogens found in excrement from animals and humans are a problem. Well, we don't really deal with that so much anymore. And the fallacy of all of the many childhood diseases that just plummeted in the 1800s, 1900s, you know, after World War II, they were primarily gone. And then started jabbing people and they gave credit to the jabs for what sanitation actually did. And so fast forward to 1969, I don't know how old you are, so I'll have a little fun with you. Where were you and what were you doing when the moon landing happened in July of 1969? I was just a thought somewhere. I wasn't around. 77 is my birthday. Okay. I was a nine-year-old boy. I was born in 1960. And I was watching, you know, black and white feed from maybe it was the moon, maybe it was the Hollywood soundstage, whatever. At that same time in July of 1969, the 22nd World Health Assembly was going on in Boston. And five days after the moon shot, or the moon landing, they agreed to the international health regulations. That was sort of an update on the sanitary regulations. Nobody was paying attention. Nobody read them. Nobody ever ratified them. What they put in there, all of the diplomats who met said, okay, you know, we've agreed to all of this. And if nobody objects, it'll be international law. So it wasn't the case that the UK parliament or the Senate of the United States or any other body around the world considered it and voted to, you know. What they put in there was, we'll give everybody nine months to object to it. And if nobody objects, then we're good. So on the first day of January 1971, it went into legally binding effect. Everybody's kind of default, ignored it, and it was now international law. Fast forward to 2005, after 9-11, after the anthrax scare, after SARS-1, they made a whole bunch of changes in 2005. And that went into effect in 2007. So for 17 years or so, we've been under the international health regulations. Raise your hand, everybody, if you've read them. Okay. Why would you, who, you know, two and a half years ago, I had no idea. Okay. So I can, understand why that's just mysterious. Well, the idea behind the 2005 regulations was they wanted nations to feel comfortable, not just seeing if someone who was traveling at the border was bringing in leprosy or smallpox or whatever, checking ships to see if they're infested with with rats or, you know, other vectors that might bring some kind of disease. They also wanted nations to set up an office in their nation to surveil their health system. To say, you know, if something's going on, you know, I've talked to many people in the UK and where all the mussel beds and oyster shells and all the many seafood areas around the coast, with the sewage not being as well processed as it might be, you get E. Coli infections and things like that. So they want the nations to immediately notify the WHO if something is going on, not just at a border crossing, but inside the country. And on one level, you go, you know, that's just, okay, we got a problem. As a good member of the international community, you tell the WHO, if it's deemed to be a public health emergency of international concern, P-H-E-I-C, or fake, the director general can alert the world that you've got a problem. On a certain level, much of that makes sense. And we've been operating under that rule, those rules since 2007. When COVID hit, it all went out the window. Everybody panicked, right? Oh, you know, something's going on in China. And everybody went nuts. They threw their plans out the window. They started making rules out of thin air to do lockdowns and social distancing. Just an absolute mess. Okay. And so there was a call to strengthen the international health regulations because everybody ignored them. Right. And the, one of the biggest issues that triggered these negotiations, it didn't trigger it necessarily, but it certainly is embedded deeply into it. If you can recall when South Africa and Botswana said that they had found a very different variant called Omicron, and they publicly quickly said, hey, look what we found. And Europe, and I think the UK, I'm not 100% sure about the UK, but European Union, you know, travel lockdowns. Oh, you know, no more travel to South Africa. Well, that's what the international health regulations were supposed to prevent. Don't punish nations for being honest. But that's what happened. And then the real kick in the balls, quite frankly, from their point of view, was Pfizer and Moderna put that into the boosters and made a couple of billions of dollars. And so what we're dealing with here is not what people think it is. What we're dealing with here is a trade dispute. We're dealing with an understanding that, wait a minute, the international health regulations are supposed to encourage transparency. Hey, we got a problem. But what's being negotiated is not, how do you deal with that problem? How do you give someone good early treatment? How do you let doctors be doctors and deal with the patient in front of them? You know, there's all these many, many issues. And so the confusion has been enormous because there's, on one hand, amendments to the international health regulations. But on the other hand, there's a whole new agreement that they would like to have passed, two separate related but separate tracks. And almost everybody's getting them all co-mingled and confused. And so I'll stop right there for that. That's the setup, right? The reason why these negotiations are happening is because the relatively poor nations like South Africa and Botswana said, hey, we identified something. We turned it over to you. You put travel restrictions to hurt our economy and then you took that information and made billions of dollars off of it. Oh, hell no. That ain't happening again. Okay. That is what these negotiations are really all about. And then it gets worse from there. It's not about your health or, you know, what you should do to maintain or optimize or regain your health. This is a business deal and it's an evil, evil business deal. Well, I can, I want to get to the session they've just had and you have titled it, the spirit of Geneva, which I know is a reference used many times in it, and that's on your latest sub-stack. But looking at the WHO, it seems to be, I think we've learned a lot, the relationship the governments have with Big Pharma, with the mass lobby power of Big Pharma, I think has been exposed to many people during the COVID tyranny. And I'm guessing the WHO is no different and very much part of that collusion with Big Pharma to assist in making money. Because in the West, obviously, this is the opposite of your thinking, your background. The thinking we're told now is you've got a problem. Don't worry, there are drugs to treat it manufactured by a mass company that will make a ton of money from you. No conversation about health, style, lifestyle, diet, anything like that. So it does seem as if the WHO are very much part of that big pharma global entity. I have dubbed what's going on with this negotiations for the new treaty, and maybe we'll talk about that first, as the new OPEC. OPEC currently stands for the oil producing and exporting countries, Saudi Arabia and so forth. Well, the new OPEC, in my view, is the Organization of Pandemic Emergency Corporations. If you think about this from a business perspective, if you were doing some sort of thesis or something at a business school, or I don't know if people in your audience are familiar with United States television program called Shark Tank, where entrepreneurs pitch their business idea, right? If 10 years ago you said, hey, I got this business idea, we'll put a bunch of letters in a data file, and we'll say that that's the genetic sequence of a deadly pathogen. And we'll then wrap that up in a lipid nanoparticle and say that if we get your body to make that pathogenic compound, to get your immune system to attack your own body, to trigger immunity to this deadly pathogen, we can scare everybody, get governments to put billions of dollars into our business model, and we'll be billionaires. You'd have probably gotten laughed off stage. You probably would have failed your business school course. But wait a minute. That's what just happened. Well, that's a really good business model. And I got clued in to great detail in November of 2022. I was actually waiting and trying to find, I had put in freedom of information requests and they were being denied. By that time, the treaty had first come out in July and then again in November. But the amendments that were not the ones Biden proposed, but a whole new batch of amendments had been submitted, but they were being kept secret. So I was looking all over the place to try to find information. And I watched the Indonesian health minister speak before the B20 meeting, not the G20, the 20 biggest countries, but the business leaders from the 20 biggest countries. And he had advanced information about something that was going to be happening the next month in December. And what he told the audience was, hey, United States and a whole bunch of other nations, they're about to implement through the World Bank, the pandemic fund, got a multi-billion dollar fund. And this is a great business opportunity. Go invest. Well, invest in what? Pandemic-related products and the industry that surrounds them. Testing, laboratory, genetic analysis, anything related to pandemic-related products was viewed as a potential growth industry because the nations were putting together this multi-billion dollar fund and contracts were going to have to be dished out. The next month, the Congress of the U.S. passed and President Biden signed the National Defense Authorization Act. Well, that pledged $5 billion a year from the U.S. Defense Department to oversee the global health security agenda, which is a build out of, you know, bio labs and the one health approach, which is predicated on the, I think, misguided belief. Oh, well, you know what happened in Wuhan is, you know, a bat and a pangolin got together and somebody had some soup in a wet market in Wuhan. And that's why we got a pandemic as opposed to, Hey, wait a minute. People were going to bat caves in some other part of China, bringing the guano or whatever they use to get the pathogens. And they're messing with them in the lab. Maybe that's where the problem started. Who the heck knows at this point, right? But what they want to do is shut down, you know, animal, trade with wild animal meats or domestic animal, you know, oh, you're going to get sick because you're eating meat and there's going to be some pathogen in there and it's going to transfer to humans and we're all going to die. So the solution is let's go find those pathogens and bring them into a whole WHO coordinated laboratory network where if we identify a pathogen, we'll put that into the pathogen access and benefit sharing system, stamp it with our information so that if anybody turns that into a product, we get to share the benefits. And we'll put the WHO in charge of a global distribution and logistics network to distribute the products. Well, if you've ever worked retail, you know that if you have a lot of products in storage, you've got to rotate your stock. So if you've got pandemic related products sitting in a big old warehouse, they proudly talk about their 20,000 square meter distribution hub in Dubai. That's four football fields. Okay. How many contracts could you disperse amongst your cronies to fill four football fields with pandemic related products? Well, that's not good enough. You got to rotate that stock. You need an emergency here and an early action alert and a pandemic and this and that and the other to move those products, get them either jabbed into people's arms or, or use the gloves, or use the tests, or whatever it might be. What we're dealing with here is organized crime and racketeering and a business model that needs another pandemic. Let's go look for it. They call it a pathogen with pandemic potential. Whenever I hear that phrase, my mind says, well, that's a pathogen with pandemic profiteering potential. Let's go find something scary. Scare the people who will be scared by that kind of thing. People will line up to get jabbed or take drugs or whatever it might be. What it's really predicated on is an argument from the relatively poor nations who, when the jabs rolled out in 2021, they couldn't afford to get contracts to buy the jabs. Canada bought 400 million jabs for 40 million people. European Union did a few text messages and cut a deal and bought up gobs and gobs. So the smaller nations, while they gave the information about Omicron, they couldn't beg, borrow, or buy, get a contract for any of the jams. They should be down on their knees praising God that they were so lucky that they missed out. But they also missed out on the profits. And that's what these negotiations are about. Nobody, nobody has had the guts to go, excuse me, the jabs didn't work. They didn't stop infection. They didn't stop transmission. They deranged people's immune system. Now we've got, you know, disease, disability, and death, excess deaths, sudden deaths. Why are we arguing that we want investment to build out mRNA manufacturing plants? You know, send a container from Germany to build a manufacturing plant, you know, in Rwanda or wherever they're setting this up. They're not questioning the flaws in the treatment, right? They want more ventilators and more midazolam and more, you know, Paxlovid and Molnupiravir or whatever the next drug, you know, Remdesivir, whatever it might be. They missed out on the the profit of being able to produce that and poison their own people with it, but they don't seem to understand what probably most of your audience understands, that they did quite better than the nations who did all of the pharmaceutical treatments. On the WHO's own website, site, if you look at the stats, on a population basis, there's about a billion people in North and South America. There's about a half a billion in Europe, and there's over a billion in Africa. 16 times as many people in North and South America died and their deaths were attributed to COVID when compared to Africa. And in Europe, it's like 30 times. We should be exporting whatever they did into our systems, but that's not profitable. So they're trying to export what killed many, many more people into their nations so that they can profit from it. And the cognitive dissonance and the just bias in their thinking were if you stood up in one of the rooms where they're having these meetings and you said, excuse me, are you people absolutely insane? Why do you want the thing that doesn't work and causes health problems? Oh, wait a minute. It's very profitable. What they want is the wealthy nations, United States, UK, Canada, European Union, Australia, the global north, which is not a geographical thing. It's a line of of wealthy versus poor. They want the global north to put a bunch of money into a big fund. I actually think the WHO has fund envy. They're looking at the United States and the WHO pandemic fund, and they want to have a bigger fund, you know, $30 billion a year that they can distribute to oligarchs in poor nations to build out what I call the other fake. You know, they talk about the Public Health Emergency of International Concern, PHEIC, and I talk about the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex. They want poor people in rich nations to either take their tax dollars or debt money, put it into a fund that they control to give to oligarchs in poor nations under the premise that looking for pathogens, bringing them into the laboratory and turning them into pandemic-related products is how you would stop the next pandemic. Well, how about good, clean water and healthy food and essential medications and nutrition and maybe herbs and some vitamins? How about that? Well, that's just nowhere near as profitable. There are lots I'd like to pick up on you, but I will hold myself back. And I will ask you for what's been happening the last number of days. And that is the ninth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, which most of the public will not know this group has ever met once, never mind nine times or whatever it is. And that's, I think, how a lot of these organizations wanted to be. But that was going to finish on the 28th. So we record this Good Friday, so yesterday. And they don't seem to have come to an agreement. So I think you're saying it's going to resume again end of April for another 10, 12 days. What exactly was the international governmental negotiating body negotiating and what exactly did they not, were they not able to agree on? Pretty much what I was just talking about. They were negotiating the new agreement. Many people call it a treaty, but it's really not properly called a treaty. It's a framework convention, think framework convention for climate change. That was an agreement that was reached in 1992. And year after year after year, unelected, unaccountable, unknown bureaucrats get together. They have a conference of the parties and they would decide how to dish out all this money, have all the contracts to fill up the distribution hubs with whatever they think they need for whatever pandemic they're looking for. And so the problem that they're having are many. I'll try to summarize it this way. They keep saying that it's a member nation-led series of negotiations. Well, what they've been doing is they get together, they talk, they submit for two years now, whatever their input would be. And then the six members of the the Bureau, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Bodies Bureau, one from each region of the WHO, would then craft a new version of the treaty. Well, that was the wrong way to do it if they were really trying to reach an honest agreement, because what has consistently happened is when they came back with each new version, all of the member nations said, well, did you not hear what what we told you we wanted in that treaty, you ignored us, right? Back in April, they did this, and there was a 208-page compilation text that was everything that all the nation said they wanted. And rather than make that public, they kept that hidden forever. They came out with a 43-page Bureau's text. Well, you can't eliminate 200, you know, take 208 pages and boil it down to 43 and keep everybody happy. So all summer long in 2023, they were arguing about that. They came out with another one in October. Same thing. They came out with another one in February. Same thing. In these past couple of weeks of negotiations, it was the first time that they took the Bureau's draft submission and treated it as a negotiating text. And so in these past two weeks, they started with a 29-page document that looked all nice nice and clean, you know, here's what it is. But it didn't reflect what the nations actually said that they wanted. It was all sugar-coated and sweet looking, but it didn't actually say what the nations had been telling them they wanted. So in the last two weeks, that ballooned up to 140 pages with over 5,000 text edits. It's the first time the nations actually got to have them, you know, put that in and they're going to go back and do the same dumb thing. They're going to have the Bureau take that 140 page document and have them try to winnow it down to probably even smaller than 30 pages because they're desperate to just get any agreement. Because if they get any agreement and it's a framework convention, then next year they can add whatever they want to add. It's like signing a blank check or an empty contract. If you were contracting with somebody to do something, and at the last minute they said, hey, you know what? Let's just sign on the dotted line. I've got all these blank pieces of paper. We'll figure this out next year. Just agree, and we'll have other people work out the details later. That's insane. But that's what they're trying to ram through. And tell us how there has been some pushback on this WHO power grab in the UK media. We had that petition. And I know there's a pandemic treaty, there's international health regulations. And I know, I don't want to confuse them, but also want to simplify them. Maybe another time we can delve even deeper into this. But there is a slow awareness, but yet governments seem to be very willing. And I guess the government doesn't want to be left behind. It has to join in the club and agree. It doesn't want to have any punishments or any negative response from Big Pharma. You know, if they don't sign this, then I can imagine the UK being told by Pfizer, well, you may not get the drug at that cheap price. It may be double the price for you. So I'm sure there's pushing behind the scenes. But how does it, I think I've watched some of your videos talking about, and you've mentioned the beginning, this automatically comes in, that it's not that governments opt into it, it's kind of they need to opt out of it. And if they don't put up their hand, disagree, it automatically becomes part of the laws of each country. To clarify all of that, again, it is important to start with the awareness that there's two separate negotiations, okay? And so in the UK, very specifically, it's a little bit unique in how international agreements are concluded and agreed upon and put into force. And so in other countries, it's very, very different. So everybody needs to take this with the proverbial grain of salt, depending upon where you live. In the UK, what is supposed to happen is the executive branch of government, the foreign minister, the health minister, the prime minister, whoever is given the authority from the crown to approve or adopt any international agreement is supposed to then have the foreign development and Trade Office, submit it for 21 days to Parliament, not to be approved, but to be reviewed and potentially rejected. If they just sit on their butt for 21 days and don't do anything, you missed your chance too late. Okay, so that's for any new agreement. With the international health regulations, it's cooked into the IHR from 1969 and 2005. If your nation and your executive branch sends a delegate to the yearly World Health Assembly and they agree to regulation changes or amendments to the international health regulations, it's assumed that you're good with it unless the executive, you know, head head of state, writes a letter to the WHO and says, nope, we reject them. And so in 2022, they tried to pull a fast one. They submitted amendments in violation of Article 55, which says you've got to give four months notice. They submitted amendments to five articles on May 24th, 2022, four days later, they concocted a fake document saying that they adopted them, but they never voted. And nobody, with the exception of Rob Roos and 11 other members of the European Parliament, on November 28th, 2023, they wrote a letter to Tedros and they said, said, hey, you guys purportedly adopted these amendments in May of 2022, but there's no record that you ever voted. Silence. November. So what is that? Four, five months now, four months, five months. They don't really seem to care because the propaganda and the hypnosis, they just keep saying, well, we adopted these amendments. No, you didn't. Not by any proper voting means that anybody's been able to find. And so they don't really seem to care about rules. Article 55 said that they should have submitted a final package of amendments by January 27th, 2024, four months in advance of their May meeting. Well, they just blew that off and they're still negotiating. So to wrap this up and let everybody know what's coming in April, from April 22nd to the 26th, they're supposed to have the last week of negotiations about the amendments, which we we haven't really spent too, too much time talking about. And what's of great concern to me in the amendments is they want to make it easier to quarantine people when they're traveling internationally. Look at article 24 and 27 and articles 35, 36, 37, and annexes, you know, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight, they want the WHO to be the one to determine which vaccines can be required. They're not requiring them. They would be the ones who decide if the nation you're traveling to, when you disembark, if they say, well, you got to take a rapid antigen test, or you got to show that you've gotten this jab, or boom, you're in quarantine. The WHO's international health regulations have almost always been about restricting international travel, and now they want to add quarantine to the language that was not there before. Now, that's not your doctor and you. Whatever people are talking about in terms of mandates and mask mandates and any kind of lockdowns or social distancing, no one in the UK, no one in the United States, no one in any nation around the world needed any amendments or a new treaty to abuse your rights and freedoms over the last four years. So the concern about that is local. What is your local health official doing? What is your local city council or mayor or school board or medical review board? What is your hospital making their doctors do, the NHS or whatever it might be? Those issues are very, very local. The amendments are about international travel and quarantining. You know, you get off the cruise boat and your vacation might go to crap in a heartbeat because you didn't pass the test that the WHO authorized and the nation you're visiting requires. The treaty is a big money game. It's just corruption. Let's get rich nations to put billions of dollars to build out the infrastructure in poor nations so all our cronies can make a bunch of money because they missed out the first time. And so in the end of April, from the 29th of April to I believe May 10th, they've scheduled a new additional two weeks worth of negotiations on the treaty because they're having a hell of a time, meaning the greed on both sides is causing great difficulty in reaching an agreement on how to distribute all of the billions of dollars that they want to collect to run this criminal operation. So we've got two months to flatten the WHO, and I have every faith that people around the world can see through this. They're not addressing the real issues of what it is that people need to do to be healthy. They're just trying to redistribute the wealth under the guise of preventing the next pandemic. But I'm pretty sure that going out looking for pathogens and bringing them into laboratories to do gain of function and then create more biological weapon mRNA jabs that local people can manufacture and profit from. I think that's how you profiteer from the next pandemic, not how you prevent it. 100% and can I just remind people of James Substack, jamesroguski.substack.com, piece every day and it is, when I looked into it I thought this is good and then as I've looked into it further I think
The Week According To . . . Ben Harnwell
Mar 31 2024
The Week According To . . . Ben Harnwell
As we bid 'arrivederci' to the month of March we are glad to be joined once again by the International Editor of Steve Bannon's WarRoom, Ben Harnwell. Ben has his finger on the pulse of all that is happening and has even been making headlines himself, which we will cover in this episode as we look at some of the news and talking points from the past seven days including... - Big Win for Ben: Steve Bannon wants to open MAGA 'gladiator schools' after Harnwell wins a legal battle in Italy. - It’s time we talked about the fall of Kyiv. - Gaza: Security Council passes resolution demanding ‘an immediate ceasefire’ during Ramadan. - An Italian town is struggling to sell off its empty homes for one euro each. - UK chancellor defends remarks about high salaries after being criticised for being out of touch. - Teacher loses claim of unfair dismissal after 'humiliating' student over preferred pronouns. - Why Steve Bannon's WarRoom remains a juggernaut. - Ramadan lights in London, no mention of Easter. At what point is enough enough? - Councils flying transgender flag to support Trans Day of Visibility In the two years between December 2006 and December 2008, Benjamin Harnwell was engaged in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Dignity, consulting widely with various experts around the world. This work was drawn to a conclusion on 8 December 2008, when (with Gay Mitchell MEP) he founded the European Parliament’s Working Group on Human Dignity (of which he remains Honorary Secretary); and on the same date, simultaneously established (with Nirj Deva MEP) the Dignitatis Humanae Institute (of which he is Director). The Working Group was publicly launched on 25 March 2009 by European Parliament Speaker Dr. Hans-Gert Pöttering MEP (now a Patron of the Dignitatis Humanae Institute). The DHI has since been engaged in launching parallel parliamentary working groups on human dignity in various legislatures around the world, all based on the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Dignity. Ben was the Chief of Staff to Nirj Deva MEP until the end of 2010, since which point he is now based permanently in Rome, directing the development of the DHI. When involved in politics, he was an active member of the British Conservative Party for over 15 years. Benjamin identifies himself philosophically as an Austro-libertarian, co-founding (with Vincent de Roeck) the European Parliament’s Mises Circle, which exists to promote greater recognition of the Austrian School of Economics; he also co-founded the international Right Approach Group (with Patrick Barron), to explore free-market solutions to contemporary problems. In 2002 and 2004, Ben was seconded to Colombo as Special Advisor to Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. H.E. Mons. Sánchez Sorondo, Bishop Chancellor of the Pontifical Academies of Science and Social Sciences, appointed Ben External Counsellor in 2016. Since February 2018 Harnwell, as director of the DHI, is also the director of the Abbey of Trisulti, founded in AD 1204 and National Monument of Italy since 1873. From October 2021 to date Ben serves as international editor at “Steve Bannon’s War Room” on the number 1 ranked US political podcast. Connect with Ben... GETTR                gettr.com/user/harnwell X                         x.com/ben_harnwell WAR ROOM        warroom.org/ Recorded 30.3.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Links to topics... gladiator schools https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13170455/steve-bannon-gladiator-schools-italy-maga-politicians.html  Kyiv https://archive.ph/9HWzj Gaza ceasefire’ during Ramadan https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147931 Italian homes one euro https://edition.cnn.com/travel/patrica-italy-town-one-euro-homes-struggle/index.html Jeremy Hunt https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/24/jeremy-hunt-doubles-down-on-100k-a-year-doesnt-go-far-claim pronouns https://www.gbnews.com/news/teacher-loses-claim-of-unfair-dismissal-pronouns Bannon's WarRoom  https://x.com/gc22gc/status/1772265343265734879?s=20 media's 12 splintering realities https://www.axios.com/2024/03/25/news-media-filter-bubble-different-realities same sex marriage https://x.com/David_Cameron/status/1773636628382155214?s=20 Ramadan at Easter   https://x.com/DVATW/status/1773281910967390625?s=20 Trans Day  https://x.com/NewcastleCC/status/1772942201049235851?s=20
Robert Spencer - How Gaza is Used as a Proxy War for Islam vs Judaism
Mar 28 2024
Robert Spencer - How Gaza is Used as a Proxy War for Islam vs Judaism
Show Notes and Transcript The current Israeli-Gaza war has sparked much debate focussing on geo politics and historical land disputes.  But few dare ask if Islam is the root cause of the ongoing tension.  Robert Spencer has studied Islam for 3 decades. His dozens of books and the Jihad Watch website are all go to sources of background information on Islam and the history behind it.  He returns to Hearts of Oak to ask if this is a religious problem and we start by looking at what Islam actually says about the Jews.  The aggression and vitriol throughout Islamic text and the history of behaviour towards the Jewish people is an eye opener to all of us.  Armed with this deeper understanding Robert then touches on how the term Palestinian was invented. The history, leader, flag and culture had to be invented as it was all non existent before.  His short book "The Palestinian Delusion" goes into much more detail and is a recommended read.  Enjoy the interview and get ready to see this current conflict in a whole new light. 'The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process' on Amazon https://amzn.eu/d/cPigAab Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is the author of twenty-seven books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, The Truth About Muhammad and the bestsellers The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS and The Critical Qur’an: Explained from Key Islamic Commentaries and Contemporary Historical Research. His new book is Empire of God: How the Byzantines Saved Civilization. Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and the U.S. intelligence community. He has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He is a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy. Connect with Robert and Jihad Watch... X                                x.com/jihadwatchRS  @jihadwatchRS WEBSITE                   jihadwatch.org/ Interview recorded  26.3.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA   heartsofoak.org/connect/  SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ TRANSCRIPT (Hearts of Oak) It's wonderful to have Robert Spencer back with us again. Robert, thank you so much for your time today. (Robert Spencer) Always good to talk to you, Peter. Thank you. Great to have you on. Always good to have guests on talking about their books. We'll get into a book that I've been delving into and got a couple of months ago, but only picked it up recently and have read it. We'll get into that in a moment. But obviously, you can find Robert: that is his Twitter handle, @jihadwatchRS. And obviously jihadwatch.org is the website. You can find everything in the links below. Make sure and use it. Make sure and sign up to it. One of the latest, I think the latest piece on that, and we're doing this just two days before the video goes out, is the U.S. Supreme Court gives Hamas-linked CAIRE a 9-0 thumbs up. And CAIR obviously is the Council on American Islamic Relations. I encourage you to delve into that, which gives some of the geopolitics, I guess, that lies behind some of the difficulties that the U.S. Faces as it engages and grapples and understands Islam, which is a massive subject. But the book that I've been delving into and enjoying is The Palestinian Delusion. Short book, 200 pages. And if you want to understand what is happening at the moment in the Middle East, I would encourage you to get a hold of a copy. Available US, UK, wherever you are. The links are in the description. Grab it. And I know you'll want to get it after this interview. But , I do want to get into modern day; what is happening? But right at the beginning, chapter two; chapter one is about the formation of Israel. If we just go on to chapter two, does religion, specifically Islam, lie at the root of the problem? What are your thoughts, Robert? And of course, you delve into this in chapter two. Yeah, absolutely, Peter. Islam is what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about. If you look at the messages from Hamas, from Palestinian Islamic Jihad, from Fatah, from the Palestinian Authority itself, they are all about Islam all the time. Yet that is the one aspect of this conflict that is universally ignored by policy analysts and by policymakers in the West. Every attempt at a negotiated settlement initiated by the President of the United States or any other entity over the last 50 years has completely ignored, 100% ignored, Islam as a factor in this conflict. And yet, from the standpoint of the Palestinian Arabs, that's what it is all about, and we ignore it to our own detriment. Now, chapter two is entitled The Roots of the hatred of Israel. Hatred is a very strong word, Robert, is it not? Yes, but it's entirely accurate in this case, because what we are dealing with is not only a hatred, but what has been termed the longest hatred, that is the hatred of the Jews, which of course is not solely the province of Muslims or Islam, but, many people in the West don't realize that there even is such a thing as Islamic anti-Semitism. Yet, it is very real and it is at the roots of the problem between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs today. Now, we all hear the term Islam being one of the great Abrahamic religions, and yet there doesn't seem to be a lot of love for the Jews in Islam in the text and the history. Do you want to just let us know; because that is a different side that many people will certainly not hear in the legacy media. Yes. Islam, the Quran teaches that Islam is the third revelation after the revelation of the Torah and the Gospel. That is the core scriptures of the Jews and the Christians, and that it confirms the message of the Torah and the Gospel. And that Moses and Abraham before him, and Jesus after him, and all the other prophets in the Bible, in both the Jewish and the Christian scriptures, are people who taught Islam. Islam was the original religion of all the prophets. We can see this particularly in chapter 3, verse 67 of the Quran, which says Abraham was not a Jew or a Christian. He was a Muslim. And you might wonder, well, this doesn't make any sense. How could Abraham be a Muslim when Muhammad is the originator of Islam in the 7th century and Abraham is many, many centuries before that? The Islamic answer is that Islam is the original religion of all the prophets and that it was their followers who twisted their teachings to create Judaism and Christianity. The only legitimate expression of the true teachings of the prophets is Islam. And that being the case, the orthodox mainstream understanding among Muslims of Judaism and Christianity is that they have no legitimacy at all. Now, this is a very important point because, then the Quran commands Muslims to fight against and subjugate the Jews and Christians, among others. And it's in part because of their rejecting the true faith and corrupting their scriptures, although that part comes from Islamic tradition. Now, the difficulty that people have with this arises from the fact that Islamic spokesmen in the West very deceptively, frequently, refer to how much they as Muslims revere and respect figures such as Abraham and Moses and Jesus himself himself. And so Jews and Christians who are uninformed about Islam hear this and they think, isn't that wonderful? How generous and open-minded and ecumenical they are. And we should do the same. We should reciprocate by acknowledging Muhammad as a prophet. And they don't realize that the Muslims do revere and respect Abraham and Moses and Jesus and the rest of them, but as Muslims, not as they are portrayed in Judaism and Christianity. I mean, everything seems to be on the terms of Islam. I knew your book: Did Muhammad Exist? Actually, I think we need to remind ourselves of the world that Muhammad, if he did exist, was born into, which wasn't an Islamic world as we know today. It was a very different world. Yes. North Africa, the Middle East, what we think of today as the heart of the Islamic world, those were Christian lands. They were 99% Christian from Morocco all the way across North Africa and throughout the Middle East. And so it was the conquest initiated by the Arabs beginning in the 630s that ultimately led to the Islamization of those various nations and the steady diminishment of the Christian population. But, it's important to keep in mind, Peter, that the Christian population did not decline because the Christians were gradually convinced of the truth and beauty of Islam. Rather, they were subjugated, as the Quran directs, under the hegemony of Islamic law and denied basic rights in the societies that had been conquered. And the only thing they had to do to free themselves from the oppression of living with this denial of rights was to convert to Islam. And so many people did over the centuries, such that, for example, Egypt was 99% Christian when the Arabs invaded, and now it's about 10% Christian. The Christians didn't all leave. They just converted to Islam over time, because of the pressure placed on non-Muslims. Well, maybe as the world talks about repatriations, especially in the BLM movement, maybe Christians need to get some of that from Egypt. Yes. If there were real reparations for slavery and for oppression, then yes, the Christian population of the entire Middle East and North Africa would be owed an immense amount of money. But nobody's talking about that. I guess we hear the term anti-Semitism and we're told that any feeling of anti-Semitism from Islam is purely misplaced and doesn't lie at the heart of it and this seems to be this distinction between kind of rogue Islamic preachers, but actually key text and that seems, I think commentators seem to want to make a wide gap between that. Yet, as you point out, this term anti-Semitism, it lies right at the basis of Islam from 1300, 1400 years ago. Yes, absolutely. The Qur'an says in chapter 5, verse 82, that the people who are most intense in hostility to the believers will be the Jews, as well as the polytheists. Now, what this works out to in practice is that the Jews are the recipients of the most hostility from the Muslims. This is also because this is not an isolated passage, but the Quran is full of passages depicting the Jews in a negative light, depicting them as schemers who plot against the plans of Allah himself and try to foil them. Who crow about the limits on the power of Allah, saying Allah's hand is chained. That's chapter 5, verse 64. They were transformed into apes and pigs by Allah for their disobedience. That's chapter 2, verses 62 to 66, rather. Chapter 5, 59 and 60, and 7, 166. and many, many, other passages all the way through the Quran depict the Jews as being rebellious against Allah and essentially enemies of Allah. Then the Islamic tradition is even worse and the Jews are depicted as plotting against Muhammad, trying to kill Muhammad, being massacred by Muhammad and punishment for their plots to kill him. Jewish woman poisons Muhammad and this ultimately leads to his death and so on. They're the real villains of the entire tradition. And this carries through to the modern age where Judaism and Jews are so stigmatized in the Islamic world that several ex-Muslims have spoken about moving to America or moving to Europe and encountering actual Jews for the first time and being shocked that they were not evil, horned creatures, devils in human form, trying to disrupt human society in every way, but just ordinary people like everybody else, some good, some bad. And they had no frame of reference to understand this, because Islam is so unanimous and monochromatic in depicting them as evil. I think if someone is watching this as a Christian, they will understand the Bible as the text that they live by, which is full of stories, explains things, not really chronological, but actually, you can read it and you can grasp a lot of its meaning. And that stands by itself outside the Christian traditions, really. Islam seems to be quite different. It seems to be not not only is the Qur'an actually impossible to understand, but actually seemingly is only supposedly, understandable. With a wealth of other writings, which seems to confuse things massively for anyone coming from a Christian background or from the West. That's right, Peter. The Qur'an in the first place is written, in many cases it tells the stories that it tells. In a way that makes it clear that it assumes that the hearers have heard them before and are familiar with the general outlines of the story. So, it leaves out important aspects of the stories, and many times it is speaking about incidents, and events, and not explaining what incident or event is involved. It's as if you were talking to a friend and I walked up and I didn't know either of you very well and didn't know what you what incidents you were talking about, and you didn't pause to explain it to me. I would have no idea what you're what you're discussing, and that's what reading the Quran is like in many ways. So, you have the voluminous hadith literature: hadith means report and it's the reports of Mohammed's words and deeds. In the hadith literature you find what is known as the Asbab al-Nuzul which is the circumstances of revelation that tells the stories of what was going on at the time among the early Muslims. And Muhammad that led to the revelation of this or that passage of the Quran. And that's all very well, but this material comes from a couple of hundred years after Muhammad is supposed to have lived. And there's no trace of it existing before that. And so, it's an open question as to whether these things really give the circumstances of revelation and the Quran passage follows from that, or if these stories were put together in order to explain what is essentially a gnomic, elliptical, incoherent text. And that seems, the latter seems to be more likely. Some philologists like Christoph Luxemburg have noted that if you strip out the diacritical marks that distinguish many Arabic letters from each other, because there are 22 letters in the Arabic alphabet, but 16 are exactly the same character, just with different combinations of dots above or below. And so if you take out the dots and repoint it as if it were Aramaic, then suddenly it's a whole different text and a Christian text in many cases. And so, Luxembourg contends that it was actually a Christian text that was repurposed by the early Arab conquerors in order to create the religion of Islam. And they did this because this is actually the fundamental thesis of my own book: Did Muhammad Exist? They did this because in those days, religions were what cemented political unity. There were no parliaments or constitutions in this era when Islam arose. And you had two great powers in this region, the Byzantine Empire, which was Christian, and the Persian Empire, which was Zoroastrian. They were held together by those religions. The idea was that to be a Roman citizen at this time, a citizen of the Byzantine Empire, meant that one was a Christian and adhered to the tenets of Orthodox Christianity. Consequently, the non-Christians were not considered to be fully citizens of the empire. And this is another story, but it was the Christian identity that was the cement that held the empire together. So, the Arabs amassed a great empire, conquering massive expanses of territory, and then they developed a religion to hold it all together. And because these were warriors who wanted to expand and defend and strengthen their empire, they made their religion belligerent, aggressive, martial, warlike, expansionist, and so on. I think in chapter two, you talk about that we all know of Muslims praying to Mecca, and only then Allah can really hear the prayers properly. But you talk in the book about initially it was facing towards Jerusalem. So, was this just Muhammad wanting to be accepted? and then later on, of course, or at that time, Muhammad wanting to be a prophet. Kind of, in my thinking, that's sheer arrogance, thinking you can be a prophet to a religion you come across. Those concepts of him wanting to be a Jewish prophet, but also praying towards Jerusalem, those are two facts that seem to be missing in any dialogue today. Yes, well, it does seem as if, at least according to the canonical traditional Islamic story; that is of questionable historical value. But there's no doubt that Muslims believe it; that Muhammad taught that he was a new prophet in the line of the prophets of the Bible. And that consequently he was the new prophet of the Jews and a new prophet of the Christians. And both groups said, you're not. The Jews said, you're not Jewish. You can't be a Jewish prophet. And the Christians said, Jesus said: it is finished on the cross. We're not looking for a new prophet. And so he was rejected by both. And this has led to the kind of cognitive dissonance that the Quran says that the Jews and Christians, the Christians in particular in chapter five of the Quran will be rightly guided if they follow the gospel. And yet the Gospel does not confirm the teachings of the Qur'an as the Qur'an insists, and it insists that it confirms the teachings of the Torah also. And so Islamic spokesmen, Islamic scholars throughout the ages have accounted for this discrepancy by claiming that the Jews and Christians corrupted their scriptures. And so, they maintain that Muhammad is indeed a prophet in the line of the biblical prophets, but that it's the Jews and Christians' fault for not recognizing him. They twisted their scriptures to erase the congruence so, that people would not see that the Quran confirms the Torah and the gospel. A s a result, the Jews and Christians are portrayed as these incredible renegades and rebels against God who have dared to tamper with the very word of God that he gave them, and created false religions of their own making. And so here again, they have no legitimacy. I do want to get on to current day but, I want to there there's another concept that comes out in your book which is a widely misunderstood word and that's the word jihad, and we are told jihad is inner struggle. It's a spiritual struggle between yourself trying to be right and to be good and live correctly. Yet, jihad is a term that's used in violence all across the world. What is this term, jihad? The primary understanding of jihad in Islamic theology is warfare against unbelievers in order to bring them under the hegemony of Islamic law. The confusion arises from the fact that jihad means struggle, and there are as many things that are referred to as struggles in Arabic as there are in English. And so you can have great struggles and small struggles. You can struggle to be on time for appointments when you're chronically late, but you can also have a great struggle between civilizations, such as World War II or something. Now, in the Islamic realm, it's the same thing. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a department of agricultural jihad, which doesn't involve blowing things up on farms. It involves trying to struggle to increase the efficiency of the farms and their fruitfulness. Whereas in Islamic theology, the principal meaning of jihad has to do with this warfare against unbelievers. So, here again, Islamic spokesmen in the West frequently confuse people. They're trying to confuse them and make them complacent about the jihad threat by saying jihad just means struggle. And it's about struggling to better yourself. And they don't tell you that Muhammad said the warfare against unbelievers is the highest understanding of jihad, that there's nothing greater than jihad in which one loses one's life and then is rewarded with paradise. In the book, you use a number of examples of what we would call hit preachers. This is in 45, the Hamas deputy minister of religious endowments on Al-Aqsa TV 2010 said: the Jews suffer from a mental disorder because they are thieves and aggressors. A thief or aggressor who took land or property develops a psychological disorder and pangs of conscience because he took someone that wasn't his. And then the next page, you have a from 2018, a program on Palestinian Authority television saying people could be deluded or think that they have no way out with the Jews. The liberation of this land is a matter of faith, which will happen despite everyone. And then the next page up, the Jews are treacherous and conniving cheaters. But again, the argument, many of the guests I have on would not look at Islam as an issue, as a problem. And they would simply say those are misguided, radical preachers, and they don't understand the true, beautiful nature of Islam. How do you speak against that criticism, I guess, that you're maybe picking things out and you're looking at these preachers that actually don't understand Islam, really? Well, in the first place, I find it difficult to believe that people who have committed their lives to understanding Islam correctly would not understand it correctly. While non-Muslims who've never picked up a Quran or have any idea what it says, they understand it perfectly well. Islam is kind of funny in that way that the more you know about it, the less you understand it. And the less you know about it, the more you understand it. We see this with non-Muslim politicians all over the West who assure us with immense confidence that Islam is a religion of peace that has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. Those are actually the exact words from Hillary Clinton a few years back, but many, many other politicians say exactly the same thing. And I know that Hillary Clinton doesn't have the first foggiest idea of what the Koran teaches, whereas I, who have read the Koran dozens and dozens of times, committed a great deal of it to memory. Published a translation and commentary of it that's my own, and have studied Islamic theology for 40 years, now. They would say, well, you don't understand Islam at all. And even more to the point, these Muslim clerics who've attended Al-Azhar or other prestigious Islamic institutions and and spend their whole lives trying to understand the Quran and the Islam properly, and they don't get it at all. So, in the first place, it's absurd. But in the second place, what these people said that you quoted, like the fellow who said the Jews are treacherous, conniving, cheaters, that's just Quranic theology. If you read what the Quran says about the Jews, just get a Quran, don't even read the whole thing. Get one with a good index and read all the passages about the Jews. And you will see that every last one of them is negative. Every last one of them portrays the Jews as scheming and conniving and cheating the righteous people. And so this is the prism through which these clerics see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They understand it through the lens of the Qur'an, because they believe that the Qur'an is the perfect word of the perfect being that is valid for all times and all places in all situations. They see the world today and they see Israel and the Palestinians. And the first place they will go to understand all that is the Quran, because they would trust Allah over any human authority, telling them what the conflict is all about. The Quran tells them over and over that the Jews are evil and enemies of Allah. So, they see Israel and they think, here are the evil Jews who are enemies of Allah. Even, the fact that they refer to Jews and not to Israelis or to Zionists or some other term of that kind indicates that they're seeing this through theological principles. And those theological principles are deeply anti-Semitic. Well, bringing us up to the present day, for over 2,000 years, the Jews did not have their homeland there in the land that is Israel. And it was under all different, we'll not go into the history, all different, I guess, occupying forces or other forces. And then 1948 happens and the Jewish homeland, modern day Israel, is founded again. And immediately, and this is chapter three, you talk about the jihad of 1948,which is an interesting term. Why that title? Well, the whole thing is a jihad from 1948, from before 1948, when the Zionist settlement began in the late 19th century. Even before that, because there there were always Jews in the Holy Land, and they were always subject to sporadic, periodic attacks. Now, after the Zionism began, these attacks intensify because in the first place, the Ottomans were alarmed when they owned the land that the Jews were moving in, because they thought that it would threaten their hegemony over it. Then when the Ottoman Empire fell, the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations, gave Britain the mandate for Palestine to establish a Jewish national home. Now, why did the Arabs object to a Jewish national home? There were already large Arab states right there neighboring this territory. And so it should have been and could have been. A relatively peaceful and orderly process once the Jewish national home was actually founded. After World War II, Germany lost massive territories in the East because it fought a war of aggression and lost. And for reasons of national security, the Poles, the Soviets, and the French in the West took various territories from the Germans. The Germans who who lived in those areas, were sent to what remained of Germany. Nobody complained. Nobody raises, nowadays, some right of return or speaks about occupied German territory in Poland and Russia. It would be absurd even to think about. But it's the exact same situation with Israel. The Arabs of Lebanon, of Syria, and of Jordan are identical ethnically, culturally, linguistically, and religiously with the Palestinian Arabs. There has never been a distinct Palestinian nationality. That's a propaganda creation that was designed to be a weapon to use against Israel. So, when you have Arabs who leave, they did not actually get kicked out. They left because the Arab League told them to leave in 1948, because the Arab states neighboring Israel were going to crush it within weeks. Then they would be out of the line of fire and could return home after Israel was destroyed. It didn't work that way, because Israel actually turned out to win the war. The Arab states, after that happened, could have easily absorbed these populations. And there would be no problem today, just like there's no problem in Europe today, in regard to the German refugees after World War II. And yet they did not do that because they they wanted to keep the Palestinian refugees as stateless, as refugees, as a weapon to beat Israel with. This is what became the linchpin for what I referred to as the Jihad of 1948. The Jihad, because the Quran says in chapter 2, verse 191: drive them out from where they drove you out. It's a myth, as I just noted, it's a myth that the the Israelis drove the Arabs out. It's not a fact, but it's what the Arabs all over the Middle East and the non-Arab Muslims are taught about what happened. So, that is because it triggers the divine command, drive them out from where they drove you out. They have to have been driven out for that to kick in as being applicable. So, now millions of Muslims, Arab and non-Arab, are taught that they must drive out the Israelis, because the Muslims were driven out. It's a divine command, no less than the Ten Commandments for Christians. Consequently, it is a jihad because if it were not for these religious principles that are rooted in Islam and the Quran, the problem would have been solved by negotiations decades ago. But no negotiated settlement ever succeeds, because you don't negotiate away divine commandments. Well, that negotiated settlement, two-term, two-state solution is the phrase that comes up, and you touch on that in that chapter. And we're told this is the way to fix all the problems, if only we can come up with this mythical two-state solution. Why is that then not the solution to the issue that the world faces in the Middle East? A two-state solution would require two states. That requires at least ostensibly that the Arabs have to acknowledge that a Jewish state of some size has a right to exist there and they will never accept that, because the divine command has driven them out from where they drove you out. That does not admit of half measures. It might admit of partial fulfilment that they take over half of Israel and then the other half later. But it doesn't allow for the recognition of the right to exist of any non-Muslim entity on that land. Consequently, the Jewish state could be the size of my office here. The Jewish state could be the size of a postage stamp, and it would not be acceptable, because they have have to drive them out from where they drove you out without any exceptions. The negotiation, the two-state solution would quickly become, or even eventually, even slowly become, a one-state solution. The Palestinian state would make war against what's left of Israel and ultimately destroy it. There would never be two states in that land on an indefinite basis. In your book, one of the chapters talks about the naivety of Carter. Seemingly, every U.S. president has accepted this. Even Trump has accepted; has stated that actually he sees that as the best solution. Is that simply an absolute misunderstanding that this is a religious ideology that lies at the root of all this? Yeah, absolutely. It's because nobody in Washington knows or wants to know about the power and influence of Islam over political issues. They underestimated and misunderstood Khomeini when it was the time of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. And since 1948, they have misunderstood the Israeli-Arab conflict, because they don't understand Islam. They routinely discount it as having anything to do with this conflict. And yet, it's right there in the Hamas charter. Israel will arise and will remain until Islam obliterates it. Islam obliterates it. And yet, no policymaker, no president, not Carter, not any of the others. Not Trump. None of them have ever pondered. What does that mean until Islam obliterates it? How can Islam obliterate a country? That doesn't even make any sense to the policymakers in Washington, because they think of Islam solely as a religion, and they think of it because they come from Judeo-Christian backgrounds. The way Christianity operates in the West. They assume it's like that, and so, they have no idea of its political, aggressive, expansionist, and supremacist aspects. In chapter four, you say the Palestinians are invented. That's a very strong statement. Surely, we've had the land of Palestine back in the Roman era. That's surely 2,000 years old. So, there must be all this history and people: the Palestinians. Well, I'll tell you, Peter, you're right, and yet not. And I know you know. It's true. The Romans renamed the land of Judea, that is, land of the Jews. They renamed Judea Palestine in 134 AD. And they officially expelled the Jews from the area, although many of them stayed all the way through to the modern age. Now, Palestine was a name they had taken from the Bible, from the Philistines, the ancient enemies of the Israelites, in the Jewish scriptures. And they named it Palestine. They named Judea Palestine as a yet another taunt against the Jews as they were expelling them from the region. They renamed the region against their extinct enemies. But, there were never any Palestinians. And I would ask you, you know. You can find on YouTube, for example, the men on the street interviews, and people are even Palestinians are asked, name a famous Palestinian from history. And they all say Yasser Arafat. Okay, name another. If they were Palestinian since 134 AD, then, okay, name one. Give us one from the second century or the fifth or the 10th or the 15th or the 19th. There weren't any. It was the name of a region. It's like Los Angeles. Los Angeles is a city in the United States. And there are citizens of Los Angeles, but if we start talking about a distinct Los Angeles nationality that deserves its own state, people would laugh. It's the name of the city. And Palestine was the name of this region, but there were never any Palestinians. It was just the name of a place. The idea that it's a distinct nationality was invented by Arafat and the KGB in 1964. And they did it as a propaganda weapon because the whole world in those days was sympathetic to Israel. The Israelis, because they had faced off and defeated massive nations. Arab and non-Arab Muslim nations, and had stood against them even though they were vastly outnumbered and outgunned. They gained the sympathy of the entire world. And so, the KGB in Arafat in 1964 renamed the Palestine Liberation Organization, the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Very small change and nobody even noticed, but it was a momentous change, because it indicated for the first time in history that there was a people called Palestinians. And now the whole world accepts it and takes it for granted, but this is an invented nationality that was designed to create an even tinier people that was menaced by the massive Israeli war machine. And that would take the wind out of the sails of Israel, the tiny underdog Jewish state facing off against these massive Arab states. And it's worked very well. Even the Israelis have admitted or accepted the existence of Palestinians as a distinct nationality when there has never been such a people in history. You can go to 1948. Go to the library, read the newspapers from the day. Read the United Nations deliberations when they offered the Arabs half of the area of Israel. We're going to establish yet another Arab state and a Jewish state. And the Arabs said no, because they wouldn't accept a Jewish state of any size. Nobody ever mentions Palestinians. It's funny, because they're the center of the conflict now. And yet, in those days, it was the Israeli-Arab conflict. There was not a single mention anywhere of Palestinians. I mean, Islam does seem to have a trend of rewriting history. And in the book you talk about a number of statements and articles referring to Jesus as a Palestinian. That would be news to Jesus, because I'm sure I read in my Bible that he was Jewish. Yeah, well, obviously this is another propaganda point that's designed to curry favour among non-Muslims with the Palestinians. Even from a historical standpoint, Jesus was not a Palestinian because it wasn't until a hundred years after Jesus that the Romans renamed the area of Judea Palestine. The Gospels are very clear. Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea. That Galilee was right there next to Judea, where he grew up in Nazareth. And he says salvation is from the Jews. A very ignored statement of his. This is very clearly someone who was operating within a Jewish framework, a Jewish culture surrounded by Jews. And even the theology of Christianity is based on the theology of Judaism, that the temple Judaism before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD was based on animal sacrifices for atonement for sins. And then Jesus is presented as being, as God become man, the eternal sacrifice and the perfect atonement for sins that opens the way of heaven for the people. This is something that really doesn't even make any sense apart from Judaism. And I think Christians nowadays are getting very carried away in this Christ is King controversy that's been going on in regard to Candace Owens and the Daily Wire and so on. It risks ignoring or denying the Jewish roots of Christianity and the fundamental kinship that Judaism and Christianity actually have, despite the undeniable antagonism and the Christian anti-Semitism that was certainly operative in Europe for centuries. Well, you're right. Without Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the stories of the Old Testament, God's promised there would be no New Testament and Jesus would not be there. 100%, Robert. Just to finish off with, the last chapter is what is to be done. And it seems from this discussion that what the conflict that we see at the moment between the Palestinians in Gaza and the Israelis is just part of the wider issue of Jews and Muslims, of Islam and Judaism. So, when you say what is to be done, how do you see looking ahead? Well, looking ahead, it doesn't look good, because the American government, which is essentially the principal, if not the sole ally of the Jewish state, is betraying Israel because the Biden regime is very afraid that it's going to lose the Muslim vote, which could lose it several swing states in the November election. And end up with Biden being defeated for re-election. So, they've decided to betray Israel as a result. They're pressing for a Palestinian state. If a Palestinian state were founded, that would, as I discussed earlier, become a new jihad base for renewed attacks against what's left of Israel. They don't seem to know or care that if Israel is destroyed, then the jihadis all around the world will be emboldened like never before, and will step up their attacks in Europe and the United States. This is what we're looking at in the future unless Israel is able to destroy Hamas despite the international pressure to get it to surrender and by surrender. I mean accept a ceasefire that would allow Hamas to live and if Israel can do that then all bets are off and the post-war picture will be radically different. But right now it looks like it's going to be very tough times ahead head, both for Israel and for the West. Well, I would encourage people to get: The Passing Delusion. It's a great book and will help explain what is happening. And of course, Robert's latest book is: The Empire of God, How the Byzantines Saved Civilization. A wonderful endorsement by Victor Davis Hanson. So, if you're not sure about Robert, go to Victor David Hanson. Robert, really appreciate you coming along. Love your work over the many decades with Jihad Watch, certainly one of my go-to places on the geopolitics and deeper. Thank you so much for your time today. Thank you. Pleasure.
Karys Rhea - How UNRWA Perpetuates the Palestinian Refugee Myth
Mar 26 2024
Karys Rhea - How UNRWA Perpetuates the Palestinian Refugee Myth
Show Notes and Transcript UNRWA is a term that I had not heard 6 months ago. Their work, methods and purpose has intrigued me ever since.  Karys Rhea understands this issue at its core and joins Hearts of Oak to give the other side of the story.  The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugee, known as UNRWA, was set up in 1948, just 3 years after the UN started.  Karys starts by setting out the story of how and why UNRWA started.  A fascinating part of this story is how refugee status of 'Palestinians' is defined. It seems as though this is used to create a Palestinian refugee myth that exists out of hatred for Israel.  Which country in the world has dozens of refugee camps in their own country? How much money is used and is the UNRWA corrupt or transparent?  Karys exposes this group like you have never heard before. Karys Rhea is a producer of "American Thought Leaders" and "Fallout" at The Epoch Times and a fellow with The Jewish Leadership Project. She also works with the Middle East Forum and Baste Records. She has appeared on Newsmax, OANN, Real America’s Voice, NTD News, and a variety of podcasts, and her articles can be found in Commentary, NY Daily News, Newsweek, The Federalist, Washington Examiner, and more. She has a BA from NYU in broadcast journalism and an MA in counterterrorism and homeland security from Reichman University in Israel. A former life found her touring the world as a drummer and songwriter before becoming disillusioned with the political and cultural arrogance of the music industry. She continues to release music in her spare time, in addition to publishing absurdist flash fiction.  Connect with Rhea... X                         x.com/RheaKarys?s=20 Interview recorded  23.3.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ TRANSCRIPT (Hearts of Oak) It's wonderful to have someone who I met when I was over stateside last time, and that's Karys Rhea. Karys, thank you so much for your time today. (Karys Rhea) Thank you so much for having me, Peter. Not at all. It was great to meet you there at Epoch Times whenever I came there with Dr. Malone. And of course, you're there, a producer of American Thought Leaders and Fallout at the Epoch Times, you're a fellow of the Jewish Leadership Project, and people have probably seen you, especially your US audience on Newsmax or OAN or Real America Voice and many other of those networks. And I know your background, I think your BA is in journalism and then you've got a master's in counterterrorism and security, which is not just fascinating itself, but there are wider things to discuss. And you've got a strange background, I think, which you said to me was the music industry. The music industry to doing media and politics that's quite a step. Yeah well I mean I have competing interests on the one hand I grew up in the Bay Area and it's very progressive and artistic if you will lots of subcultures so I was always very much into the arts and performance and writing music. And then I spent 18 years in Brooklyn, which has New York City and much of that in Brooklyn, which has an incredible independent music scene. So after college, I made the decision to put a more lucrative and a safer career on hold and pursue music. And that's what I did for about seven years. And then I sort of grew up and got sick of hustling. And like I said, I had other interests and I started to slowly make my way into the non-profit world, doing Israel advocacy and, and, monitoring, Islamic terrorism and Islamism. And I went to grad school and then I got tired of doing that. And I switched into, broadcast journalism because as you mentioned, that is where I had originally received a degree in. And so that seemed like an appropriate career shift. Well it certainly is and obviously people can find you there on Epoch Times and also that is your handle on the screen for people to follow you on twitter and all the links are in the description but Karys maybe we can start with this term and I know you've spoken about it quite a bit I've seen a number of interviews you've done and that is this little phrase, which is an acronym, but I thought it was a phrase, UNRWA. And I heard this phrase from two of my US friends. And sometimes you let something go past thinking it's going to come up in the conversation, it's going to work out what it is they're talking about. I was never sure. So I had to ask, UNRWA, what is it? Do you want to just let us know what that stands for? It's obviously a United Nation agency, what it stands for, and then why this is an organization which you personally have been interested in it following? Sure. So UNRWA stands for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Many people do not know about it and did not know about it until October 7th, but there are actually many people throughout the world that have been raising the alarm bells on how corrupt and ineffective this UN agency is. It is one of the oldest and the costliest and largest agencies of the United Nations. It started in 1949 in order to help deal with the Arab Palestinian population that had been displaced as a result of the War of Independence, Israel's 1948 war when it was re-established after World War II. And it produced about 400 to 750,000 Arab Palestinian refugees. There's debate about that. And this UN agency was set up to to handle these refugees. One year later, another UN agency was set up called the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the UNHCR. That agency deals with all of the refugees in the entire world. Today, it serves about 20 million refugees in 130 countries. And its mandate, as it should be, is to resettle these refugees that it's dealing with, right? You never want to keep refugees in limbo, in a stateless environment where you're in a camp and you rely on social services and healthcare and education, right? If you have been displaced from a conflict, the goal is not to keep you in a camp. The goal should always be to repatriate you, get you situated, get you settled in a new country where you can eventually be given citizenship and you're in that country and your children can be given citizenship. Right? You're repatriated. Now, UNRWA has a completely different mandate. And this is why, this is precisely why the Palestinian refugee population is still an issue today. If not for UNRWA, there would likely be no Palestinian refugees. Because think about it. Let's go back in time. When the War of Independence happened in 1948. That was after World War II. And after World War II, you had tens of millions of refugees created, right? I think 40 million refugees. I mean, there were millions of ethnic Germans, right, that were displaced from Eastern European countries. And you also had around that time the partition of Pakistan and India, right? And there was, I think, millions of refugees created from that, Muslim and Hindu refugees. How many of those refugees still exist today? Zero. There's no ethnic German refugees, no Pakistani refugees created from that conflict, right? Why? Because UNHCR has resettled them. And so that number of refugees has decreased. It has gone down and eventually has gotten to zero. The Palestinian refugees are the only group in the world whose population has increased from, as we said, 400 to 750,000 originally in that war, ballooned to what UNRWA says is 5.9 million refugees. Now, if UNRWA only claims to serve refugees that were displaced in this 1948 war, as it says, how has this number ballooned? People don't think about that. People accept, the media, academics, our governments, everybody just accepts this number that UNRWA touts. There is 5.9 million Palestinian refugees and nobody thinks to themselves, well, how is that possible? You know, and the reason is, is because UNRWA uses a different definition for what constitutes a refugee and their mandate, unlike the UNHCR, is not to resettle refugees. Not one Palestinian refugee that UNRWA claims to serve has been resettled into a host country. Not only that, as I just mentioned, the definition of what constitutes a refugee is different, right? So, you know, I could even read you. I have the actual definitions right here if you'd like me to, but if not, I can just summarize. Here, let me just read it to you. So we have, oh, wait, actually, I don't think I have it pulled up here. Never mind. It doesn't really matter. The point is, is that the UNHCR, the refugee status that they afford to those displaced from conflicts, it directly relates to those people, those individual people that were displaced. That's it. It does not carry on to their offspring, right? And that refugee status ends once they are resettled and especially once they are given citizenship in a new country, right? But refugee status for UNRWA extends to offspring of refugees regardless of whether they have been resettled or not, okay? And regardless of if they've gotten citizenship in another country, they're still considered refugees. So for example, if you were displaced in the 1948 war, you ended up in Jordan, and now you're given citizenship as about 1 million refugees, Palestinians in Jordan have been. All of those Palestinians are still considered refugees according to UNRWA, even though they are now Jordanian citizens. Not only that, but their children are now Jordanian citizens. And their children's children, even though they were born as Jordanian citizens, they are still considered refugees. This is bonkers, right? And not only that, UNRWA actually extends this refugee status to even adopted children, right? So, and it's so weird. They extend it. It's not all offspring. It's offspring of male Palestinian refugees, not females. And then it's adopted children as well of male Palestinian refugees. It is bizarre. So it's phenomenal that you have that crazy that the UN set up an organization to deal with refugees, but only one particular group a year before they set up a general. But you're right, you set up such an organisation to deal with an issue. So there was a conflict, Israel had reclaimed the land, it was rightly due, but there was a conflict, therefore, in that region, and Israel taking on the land, retaking its borders. So I can understand it would make sense to set up an organisation to help those who may be displaced by a conflict, conflict by any conflict, but yet that needs to have an end goal. But you talked about this passing on generation to generation. It seems as though the UN and other agencies, other bodies, worldwide governments, want to have an issue there, a problem there, because that's how they continue to apply pressure on Israel. So it seems to be they want a thorn in Israel's side. Is that a fair enough assessment? Absolutely. UNRWA was created to perpetuate the refugee, well, not created, but very soon after it was created. Because actually, I think a year after it was created, the director general or somebody high up in UNRWA recommended resettling about 250,000 refugees. The Arab countries were up in arms about this. Absolutely not, right? Not only that, we're not going to take any of these people in, right? These Arab countries that presumably were so, you know, sympathetic to the Palestinian plight and were so outspoken about, you know, how much these Palestinians needed to be cared for and how, you know, big bad Israel had treated them, right? And yet, how many Palestinian refugees have these Arab countries taken in? Only Jordan. Jordan is the only Arab nation that has taken in any Palestinian refugees and given them citizenship. They are still heavily discriminated against in Lebanon and Syria. You never hear about that. You only hear about Palestinian Arabs in the context of what Israel is doing to them. You never hear about how they're treated in Lebanon, where they are banned from dozens of professions, right. Uh, and kept in horrible, uh, conditions. So yeah, the UNRWA is, has basically just been hijacked. They are no longer, they are not a humanitarian, uh, agency as Enoch Wilf, who wrote a book called the war of return, I believe. And they, she heavily goes into the origins of, of UNRWA. She says that UNRWA is a war agency. It is not a humanitarian agency and it is meant to keep the Palestinian Arabs as as pawns in this fight against Israel. Tell us, you talked about corruption, I've heard that with the two friends i've spoken to stateside and they also repeat what you said that this is utterly corrupt organization within the UN and you think wow a corrupt organization is a corrupt organization within the corrupt organization of the UN. That's saying a lot. But what is specifically, because again, from the outside looking in, its mandate can seem a very positive one to actually help a group. So tell me why it's, I mean, the finance that goes through, how is that not used correctly? Is it because they have close relationship with Hamas? Is it because the money goes elsewhere? I mean, tell us a little bit about that side. Right, so even apart from Israel, even apart from UNRWA's connections to Jihadist groups, Islamic terrorist groups, even apart from the hate education, the anti-Semitic and jihadist material that they promote in their schools, even apart from their facilities being used by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to store weapons and launch rockets, apart from all of that, they have actually been engaged in scandal after scandal relating to nepotism, sex for money. The suppression of whistle-blowers, right? There was a huge scandal, I think, in 2019 where the director general was involved in this horrific sex for money scandal. And he ended up being fired along with, I think, half a dozen others. And if you look at what was going on and how the funds were misused for private jets and lavish business trips, it was just horrific. So that's apart from the, you know, irredeemable nature as an anti-Semitic and violent group, right? So even just aside from all of that, this group has many problems when it comes to corruption. But in terms of how its funds are used with relation to, you know, terrorism and perpetuating this war against Israel, there's many different components of this. So, for example, there's the curriculum component, right? UNRWA schools serve half a million Palestinian Arabs throughout Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. I think they serve about 300,000 just in Gaza and the West Bank. And they have hundreds of schools. And they use the Palestinian authorities curriculum since 2017. And year after year after year, the textbooks are shown to be absolutely, horrifically rife with material promoting martyrdom, suicide bombing, other forms of violence, not just against Israelis, but against Jews anywhere, glorification of Hitler, teaching children in the context of math and science that there is no better position to aspire to than to be a martyr and to die in service of Allah. There is no better goal than to be fighting against Jews everywhere and to take up arms against Jews. I mean, the examples of this have just been documented year after year after year by organizations like UN Watch and Impact SE, they monitor these textbooks, and you'll see just the horrific examples. Not only that, UNRWA's teachers, their social media accounts have been investigated. And these teachers, hundreds of them have been found to glorify Hamas, to glorify the October 7th massacres. They've been found to just be outspoken about slaughtering Jews wherever you see them, slaughtering Zionists, slaughtering Israelis. They use these terms Jews, Zionists, Israelis interchangeably in Arabic, right? Like you're not going to, you know, when I say they're talking about slaughtering Jews... I'm not using Jews interchangeably with Israelis or Zionists. They are. They will use the word Yahud. They will use the word Jew, right? And in other times, they will use the word Israeli. In other times, they will use the word Zionist. So they're not just talking about Israelis here, right? Even if they are, that would be horrific. You don't want to be promoting violence against anybody. But these educational standards are in direct violation of UNESCO's provisions, which demand that all UN educational materials promote peace-making and tolerance. And, you know, you're not allowed to be othering any sort of group, any sort of religious or national or minority group. And yet UNRWA does nothing to reform their curriculum. As far as I know, not one teacher has been fired. There was a few, there was about six that were placed on administrative leave after a big report came out a few years ago. That's the most that I have heard, even though year after year after UN watch and it takes their reports to the UN, takes it to, you know, to Gutierrez and to, Philippe Lazzarini, the director of UNRWA and says, here, this is what we found. You need to to do something about this, nothing gets done. So that's just one element. That's just the education. Then we could go into, you know, their… So can I pick up? So how, I mean, people will be surprised to think the UN are actually running schools in any country. It's one thing to actually give money or help the program, but I didn't know it was a United Nations rule to actually run whole education establishments in other countries. Yeah. So UNRWA, well, because UNRWA's mandate, again, it's not to resettle refugees, it's to provide relief for refugees. So UNRWA, especially in a place like Gaza, has become the de facto government of Gaza. They provide education, they provide healthcare, they provide loans, they provide social services, right? And there was a quote that came out after October 7th from a Hamas leader who said. It's the U.N.'s job to deal with the refugees, the millions of refugees. It's our job to build the tunnels. So essentially what UNRWA does is it allows Hamas and other terrorist groups to not take on the responsibility of governing their own population and building a state. UNRWA allows Palestinian leadership, even the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, to just focus on their war against Israel and not actually do the things that they would need to do to create a viable, functioning Palestinian state. That then they could actually have a chance of, you know, they could then actually have a chance of that state being independent and universally recognized. Tell us, there's one thing which came out, maybe the first time people did come across this term was earlier this year, or could be the end of last year, which was when a number of countries said they would cut funding or stop funding for UNRWA. Tell us about that because that seemed to be a possible wake-up call, although I think most countries have now rolled back and said, no, they'll keep giving. But there was, well, more than three months ago or whatever, a number of countries did say they had concerns. Right. It's tough to, it's hard to even really follow what's going on because, you know, one country will say we're pausing funds, right? And then a week later, you'll find out that they just released, you know, tens of millions to UNRWA and they'll say, oh, well, that was just leftover from like a previous contract or something. And now going forward, we're not, and then, and every few years, the European Union will pause funds because of a report that comes out discussing exactly the things we've been talking about here. And then they'll resume funding. You know, I mean, Trump completely pulled out funding of, he stopped all funding of UNRWA. We were giving, the US was giving about 300 million a year to UNRWA, which is about two thirds of its budget. They have have over a billion dollars annually from all of the countries. And just as an aside, the Gulf countries make up only about 7% of that budget. So the burden falls on the US and the EU and Germany and the UK. The UK gives about 40 million a year. And so we are funding UNRWA. And Trump pulled out this funding. He withdrew all of it in 2018 because he said it was the organization was irredeemably flawed. And unless they completely reformed, there was no reason to be giving money to an entity that was perpetuating a conflict rather than helping to solve it. Biden reversed that. Biden gets an office, you know, in 2021, he resumes funding. I don't think it's, I don't think it's back to 300 million a year. I think it's back to 150 million a year. You know, and then recently, like you said, the Biden administration and some other countries said, we're going to pause funding. You know, it might be paused for a few months here or there, but unless donor countries are prepared to permanently end funding, then I don't see any of these. I see these more as kind of virtue signalling moves rather than any profound interest in helping solve this problem. And I think I read that there were something like 60 refugee camps, I guess, run by UNRWA, supported by UNRWA. Obviously, you've got Lebanon, then Syria, then down to Jordan. And then half of them are, oh, they're in the West Bank and in Gaza. So half of the refugee camps are in areas where they are free to live. How do you have a refugee camp in your own country? I'm confused. Please explain that to me. I'm so glad you brought that up. There's no way to explain this. I mean, this is absolutely absurd. And it's such a tragedy that nobody has this thought that you just had, that people don't recognize, that people don't think to themselves, wait a second, why are there any refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank? These are areas that would be part of a future Palestinian state. These areas are Palestine, right? And the West Bank areas, Area A and parts of Area B in the West Bank have complete autonomy. I mean, Israel has no jurisdiction over Area A in the West Bank, and Israel has no jurisdiction over all of Gaza, right? Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005. There's people who say it's occupied. They don't know what they're talking about. Who occupied? There's no troops there. There's no Jews there. There's no Israelis there. How can it be occupied, right? People are now saying, oh, well, they still control the borders. Well, okay, we can talk about that, but that's not occupation. That would be correctly referred to as a blockade, right? But not an occupation. So, I mean, you know, so if Gaza is completely independent, has their own government, they're not taxed by Israel, right? Why are there still Palestinians in refugee camps? This makes no sense. And again, it's because UNRWA keeps them there, stateless, in limbo, right? And as an aside, let me just say that many of these camps, quote unquote, are not really camps at all. A few of them are, okay? There are some camps that, and you see pictures of them and they're, they're not in, they're not really in great conditions. But usually when you think of refugee camps, you think of tents, squatters. Many of what UNRWA considers refugee camps are actually four or five story concrete buildings that have electricity, running water, kitchens, satellite TV, internet. Okay. And Palestinians are living in these, in these buildings and they're still considered camps, but regardless. So, so, you know. Going back to the definition of a refugee, right, the UNHCR, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which deals with all the other refugees in the world, their definition clearly states that to be considered a refugee, you cannot be in the country that you supposedly were displaced from. You have to be outside of the region, right? But these millions of Palestinians that are living in the West Bank and Gaza, that is their home. It's not like they would leave if they got a Palestinian state. So they should not be considered refugees to begin with. And yet they are. Wow. And you've got, I think it was a beautiful interview clip I saw of Douglas Murray talking about, of course, the interviewer telling him how Israel is occupying Gaza and he was trying to work out what do you mean by occupation and the journalist then wanted to quickly move on but the other point was the Gaza Strip does border another country and that is Egypt. I don't see any refugee camps in Egypt, obviously the Egyptian border and Gaza is fairly closed I mean there has been a lot of Israel have welcomed many, many of individuals living in Gaza to work in Israel. And that's been back and forward. And by doing that, Israel shows itself to be a good neighbour, as long as you don't try and kill us. That's the prerequisite, which we all have. But it seems Egypt, that border doesn't seem to be very open for work. And yet no one criticizes Egypt for having that blocked border. Yep, which just goes to show the double standard when it comes to Israel. The sole Jewish state in the world is held to a different standard than any other country. Not only is the border between Egypt and Gaza closed, but since October 7th, Egypt has reinforced this border with tanks, right? Right. I mean, the block. I mean, they have been adamant about not accepting a single Palestinian from Gaza after October 7th. Now, now think about that. In any war, Israel is at war, right? There is a full fledged war happening in Gaza. In any other war the civilian population is allowed to leave. There are refugees that are produced. This war has produced virtually no refugees. Why? It's because the Biden administration is not letting people leave. Why? Because we don't want any Palestinians displaced from this war. Oh, OK. So you just want to keep them in Gaza, right, at risk of being killed or at risk of, whether it's from Hamas or from Israel, right, at risk of starvation, at risk of losing their homes, right? You just want to keep them trapped in this war-torn region? That is cruel and inhumane. Biden gives, the U.S. provides Egypt with, I want to say, is it one and a half million? It may even be more than that. Egypt is the second largest recipient after Israel of U.S. aid. Biden could so easily pressure Egypt to open the border and say, yo, you've got to let some of these Gazans in. You're not in a very good position right now, okay? Not a word from Biden, not one word. And it's because this is all about images, the images that have to be portrayed, right? It's all about pressure on Israel. Well, if Biden really cared about the Palestinians' casualties, about the growing Palestinian casualties, then you would think that the first thing that he would do is try to get the border with Egypt opened so that Palestinians could actually leave. Biden doesn't care at all about the Palestinians, neither does Egypt, neither does UNRWA, neither does any other country, not in the Middle East, not in the West. Since, I mean, 2005 was the last time Israel were in Gaza, and then they pulled out and obviously didn't do the job of finishing off Hamas and removing that external threat they face. But since 2005 to last year, 7th of October, when the atrocity happened. Was there no, you've got a better understanding because you're aware of this space, but surely that was the time for such organizations as UNRWA, for the world community. For the EU, for the US to have conversations about what actually could happen now, supposedly, what could be the narrative, the people are now free of Israeli occupation so they can get on with actually building their country. That doesn't seem to have happened and I'm wondering how, because in one way on one side I feel sorry for those, I even hesitate to call them Palestinians because I do have a massive issue with that, but we're talking to Robert Spencer about that next week, the Palestinian delusion, but that's a whole other issue but you kind of feel sorry for the people in one way but at the same time, hey you have got a government and if you don't like the government you have to overthrow it, that's what happened under communism all across eastern Europe, that supposedly was what the Arab spring was about, overthrowing government or leadership that you don't want and bringing a new one and yet those who Palestinians living in Gaza they seem to keep this government therefore kind of that does make you responsible for the the crimes the government does upon you and the crimes that the government may do on other countries and bring it on you so I've kind of come to a position where I look at the Palestinian people differently because I think, well. You've kind of brought some of the misery upon yourself, if that's not being too cold and callous. I don't mean that, but we're all responsible for what happens in our own countries. There's a lot to unpack there. I think to a certain extent, you're right. It's hard to really know how many Gazans or even Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank support Hamas. There's been a lot of polls on this. Some people say these polls are not to be trusted. If you call up a Gazan and say, do you support Hamas? Obviously they're going to say yes. But what we do know is that they do enjoy some measurable, of some measure of of popular support. There have been some protests over the years against Hamas, that Hamas has heavily cracked down on. And I salute those Palestinian Arabs. They did that with great risk, you know, but it's nothing like Iran where you know, where you see since 2009 year after year, people rising up. The mass is really rising up and protesting against their government. It's nothing like that. And even these Palestinian Arabs in Gaza who are unhappy with Hamas, I think that not a lot of people understand that just because Palestinian Arabs support Hamas, I mean, don't support Hamas, doesn't mean they like Jews. So there can be Palestinian Arabs who are very upset with Hamas because Hamas keeps them in these horrific economic conditions. Now, actually, if you look at pictures of Gaza, they're very different than what the general media narrative is. The general media narrative is that this is a region that is the most densely populated region on earth. False. That is just the whole thing is steeped in poverty and shacks everywhere. False. there is such an incredible degree of luxury alongside poverty in Gaza because Hamas has created an incredible gap between the poor and the super rich. So there are actually, there's a whole class of Gazans that really live a life of luxury. And it really goes against this narrative of Gaza being some, you know, open air prison or what have you. But I digress. In terms of Palestinian support for Hamas, it's very, very disturbing to have seen the level of complicity in October 7th among ordinary Gazans, right? We know, like you said, there was about 20,000 Gazans that came to work in southern Israel virtually every single day, before October 7th, so much for it being a prison and blockaded, right? You have 20,000 people leaving, coming to work every day in Israel. And they were working in these kibbutzim. And these kibbutzim that were on October 7th were largely, the residents were largely left-wing peaceniks, right? They really reached out. They sent an olive branch over to Gaza. They wanted Gazans to come in and work. They thought that, you know, getting, because they would get paid a lot more in Israel, and then they'd be able to have more economic success in Gaza that would help the region grow and flourish. Well, what we have found after October 7th is that many of these workers provided, they were complicit. They provided maps to Hamas of where to attack. Not only that, we saw troves of Palestinian civilians. Barefoot and on horseback come through, break through the border on October 7th and actually carry out some of these attacks themselves, whether it was murder, whether it was taking them hostage, whether it was just coming and looting. So these Israeli residents of these kibbutzim, after October 7th, a lot of them, you've heard them discuss how they have completely changed their views. They thought that it was really just Hamas is the government and the people are different from their government, much like in Iran, where the regime is not supported by the masses and enjoys minority support among the population. And that's what people thought about Gaza. And now that has just largely been questioned. And we see that there is a level of support that maybe people weren't really prepared to admit before. And polls have shown that if there were to be an election that was held in the West Bank, I mean, one of the reasons why, you know, Mahmoud Abbas is a dictator, he hasn't held elections. He's the president of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and he hasn't had elections in, what is it, 15 years now since he was elected? And one of the reasons, even though it was supposed to be a four-year term, and one of the reasons is because poll after poll shows that Hamas would win in the West Bank. So, yeah, I mean, I think that, look, it's not surprising. When you have half a million Palestinians that are indoctrinated in their schools, in their mosques, on state TV, right, in higher education, when they are indoctrinated to believe that they are perpetual victims, that Jews are evil, that they are irredeemably impure, filthy sons of apes and pigs. When you are indoctrinated to believe that Hitler was righteous, when you are indoctrinated, when the protocols of the elders of Zion and Mein Kampf are still in display cases in bookshops throughout this region. Then why wouldn't you support Hamas? I mean, these kids don't stand a chance and kids have been interviewed. There have been videos that show kids that are in UNRWA schools being interviewed and they say things like, we are taught to believe that the Jews are bad, right? I mean, it's black and white. There's no grey area here. It's very clear that there is systemic anti-Semitism, that it really has to do with Jews, not so much Israel, that this is a holy religious war, and that the issue is fundamentally not about two states, but about the Palestinian leadership's refusal to accept a non-Muslim sovereign in the region. That is what what it comes down to. Just finishing off it's obviously if any of us were overseeing the UN the first requirement for funding going in would be have a government that actually you can work with and if you have someone like Hamas you can can't give a penny, obviously there'll be massive demands for huge increases of money to go in, probably like we've seen in the crazy amount amount spent in Ukraine, I could imagine demands for that money now to be switched over to Gaza. But of course, with those refugee camps outside. If I was Nenyao, personally, I would just say, well, we're going to get buses. We're going to bring you all to your other refugee camps in Jordan, in Syria, in Lebanon. And actually, we'll turn Gaza into a nice area that actually may be a national park or something. And therefore, the people still get to live in the refugee camp in an area. But you kind of think, well, there has to be a way forward. How do you see? Because this war will come to an end. Either by the time Israel achieve its objective of destroying Hamas or by the time the world's PR machine forces Israel to stop. It'll be one or the other. And at that point, there'll have to be a conversation. What do you do with this problem that we have next door? And I don't know how you see, not that you have a crystal ball, but I don't know how you kind of see that conversation going and whether it's going to end up in a better situation than where we currently are. Right. What you're talking about is the day after, right? This is a term that a lot of people have used when talking about the Gaza war, which in my opinion is a little premature. We don't usually talk about the day after a war when we're in the middle of a war, but people seem to be obsessed with this idea that Israel is going to reoccupy Gaza and then everybody's going to be up in arms about this. But let's be clear about one thing. This is not Ukraine. This is no stalemate. OK. And if not for the Biden administration, this war would have been over weeks ago. OK. Israel has won. They've done a tremendous job. They've been incredibly successful at achieving, largely achieving their goals. Right. though they haven't retained the hostages. But Hamas is, I think, two-thirds of their military apparatus is just completely reduced to nothing. And Israel has one last stronghold, basically major stronghold, Rafah, right? And this is where a lot of the Palestinian Arabs, the Gazans, have been moved, right? And so if Israel can take out Rafah, and this is also where they believe the hostages are, where Yaha Simwar is, the head of Hamas, the war will pretty much be over. And then the process of what I call de-Hamasification, just like the de-Nazification of Germany after World War II, then needs to commence. But Biden has put a red light on Israel and is refusing to let Israel to take out Rafah, right? He doesn't want more casualties. So Biden is, with pressure from other countries, but mainly the Biden administration is prolonging this war and not letting it be won, which it could be won very swiftly. And also, let's just let's just be clear when I say Israel has been largely successful in their goals. I'm even taking into account the large number of Palestinian refugees, because even though people are going on about the fact that there have been tens of thousands of, sorry, Palestinian casualties. Did I say refugees? But people are going on about how there's been 30,000
The Week According To . . . Matt Le Tissier
Mar 23 2024
The Week According To . . . Matt Le Tissier
We roll out the red carpet for the return of the freedom fighter and football legend Matt Le Tissier to give his thoughts on some of the headlines and talking points from the news, social media and from across the web. Plenty for Matt and Peter to get their teeth stuck into including... - How many more before you investigate? 3 footballers collapse on live TV in one week. - Vile Irish PM Leo Varadkar jumps off the sinking Irish coalition ship. - Amish Officially Declared ‘World’s Healthiest Children’ After Rejecting Big Pharma Vaccines. - Fury as Nike adds a ultra-woke 'Playful Update' and changes colours of the on St George's cross England shirts. - Chair of Dorset & Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Authority gets quizzed on why she agrees her force is ‘institutionally racist’. - "We need to protect their innocence and childhood" British MP speaks sense on sex education. - Network Rail removes Islamic message on King's Cross display boards after fierce criticism. - Clown World News: Sunbathing for just one day ‘increases your risk of killer heart disease and wrecks your immune system. Matt Le Tissier is a bona fide football legend, often described as one of the most naturally talented players of his time, the man that south coast residents call ‘Le God’ and one of the most famous soccer stars of the 1990's. Matt joined Southampton FC on the YTS scheme in 1985, signed professional forms with them the following year at 16 years of age and for the next 16 years he put loyalty above riches and remained at the club. A hero to his fans for his creativity, he was the first midfielder to score 100 goals in the Premier League and Matt's penalty taking abilities were renowned, converting 47 out of 48 from the spot. Then for 15 years he was on our TV screens every week on Sky Sports giving his commentary on the Premier League football matches. This all came to a screeching halt when he tweeted his thoughts on the Ukraine/Russia conflict, refused to wear a badge on-air of an organisation he had no interest in being associated with and also retweeting a post that questioned the government line on COVID. These actions were apparently outside the accepted new-speak and for these crimes he was sacked. Connect with 'Le God'... WEBSITE                    mlt7.com/ X                                 mattletiss7?s=20  @mattletiss7 Recorded 22.3.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... 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 https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on X https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20  Links to topics... Footballers collapsing https://x.com/mattletiss7/status/1770465809539715349?s=20 Leo Varadkarhttps://x.com/ScottyGoesAgain/status/1770434114619154743?s=20 Amish Big Pharma https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/amish-officially-declared-worlds-healthiest-children-after-rejecting-big-pharma-vaccines Nike Englandhttps://x.com/Joey7Barton/status/1771099146197270661?s=20 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13223663/England-football-kit-Euro-2024-Nike-St-Georges-Cross.html Institutionally racisthttps://x.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1770408927949185170?s=20 Sex educationhttps://x.com/andreajenkyns/status/1769777218828239189?s=20 Network Rail Islamic message https://www.gbnews.com/news/network-rail-removes-islamic-message-kings-cross-display-boards-fierce-criticism Sunbathing https://www.thesun.co.uk/health/26803492/sunbathing-increases-risk-heart-disease-wrecks-immune-system/
John Waters - Humiliation for the Corrupt Irish Government as the People Say No
Mar 19 2024
John Waters - Humiliation for the Corrupt Irish Government as the People Say No
Last week the Irish people delivered a blow to the corrupt Irish government.  They voted an overwhelming No to a referendum that would have redefined family and women.  The proposed referenda altering the nation’s constitution enjoyed the support of Ireland’s elites, but the attempt to embed woke values in it has backfired. The Government asked voters to remove the word 'mother' from the Constitution and they answered with a resounding No.  They also rejected by a huge margin the attempt to foist the extremely nebulous term "durable relationships" on the Constitution. The government worked in conjunction with every political party and legacy media outlet to tell and coerce the people into accepting these changes. The people refused.  John Waters returns to Hearts of Oak to analyse why this referendum was proposed and what the rejection means, not only for the government but for the people of Ireland. John Waters is an Irish Thinker, Talker, and Writer. From the life of the spirit of society to the infinite reach of rock ‘n’ roll; from the puzzle of the human ‘I’ to the true nature of money; from the attempted murder of fatherhood to the slow death of the novel, he speaks and writes about the meaning of life in the modern world. He began part-time work as a journalist in 1981, with Hot Press, Ireland’s leading rock ‘n’ roll magazine and went full-time in 1984, when he moved from the Wild West to the capital, Dublin. As a journalist, magazine editor and columnist, he specialised from the start in raising unpopular issues of public importance, including the psychic cost of colonialism and the denial of rights to fathers under what is called family 'law'. He was a columnist with The Irish Times for 24 years when being Ireland's premier newspaper still meant something. He left in 2014 when this had come to mean diddly-squat, and drew the blinds fully on Irish journalism a year later. Since then, his articles have appeared in publications such as First Things, frontpagemag.com, The Spectator, and The Spectator USA. He has published ten books, the latest, Give Us Back the Bad Roads (2018), being a reflection on the cultural disintegration of Ireland since 1990, in the form of a letter to his late father. Connect with John... SUBSTACK              johnwaters.substack.com/ WEBSITE:                anti-corruptionireland.com/ Recorded 18.3.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on X https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20  TRANSCRIPT (Hearts of Oak)   And it's wonderful to have John Waters join us once again from Ireland. John, thanks so much for your time today. (John Waters) Thank you, Peter.  Pleasure to be with you.  Great to have you on. It was ages ago, goodness, talking about immigration.  That was a good 18 months ago. Always good to have you on.  And people can follow you, on your Substack, johnwaters.substack.com. That's where they can get all your writings. You've got one of your latest ones, I think, Beware the Ides of March, part one.  Do you just want to mention that to give people a flavour of what they can find on  your Substack? Yeah, it's a short series.  I don't know.  I think it's going to be probably two, maybe three articles. I have several other things that are kind of related to it. It's really the story of what happened, what has been happening since four years ago really, as opposed to what they told us, what happened, what we've been talking about. It's essentially, this was not about your health.  It was about your wealth, and that's the message so I go through that in terms of its meanings. And in the first part which has just gone up last night; it's really about  the the way that the the predator class the richest of the rich in the world are  essentially. Coming to the end of their three-card trick which has been around now for 50 years. Which is the money systems that emerge after the untethering of currencies from the gold standard. And that's essentially been a balloon that's been expanding, expanding, expanding,  and it's about to blow.  They're trying to control that explosion. But essentially, their mission is to ensure that, not a drop of their wealth is spilt in  whatever happens, right? And that everybody else will lose everything, pretty much. They don't care about that.  In fact, that's part of their wish. And so it's that really what I'm kind of talking about and how that started. We now know that the beginnings of what is called COVID were nothing to do with a virus. There was a bulletin issued by Black Rock on the 15th of August 2019, Assumption  Day in the Christian calendar, which is the day that the body of our Blessed Virgin was assumed and received into heaven. But, the word assumption has lots of other meanings. I think there was a lot of that at play on that particular day when they were assuming the right to dictate to the world what its future should be. That was really the start of it. And then the COVID lockdowns and all of that flowed  inexorably. There's a lot of stuff we could go into, but we won't.  I don't think about vaccines and all the rest of it.  They're part of that story. But the central part was that this was completely fabricated and completely  engineered and it was a fundamental attack on human freedom in the west particularly. And has been largely successful so far but, now as I think we're going to talk about it, in Ireland there's beginning to be that little bit of a pushback. I'm hopeful now. Well, obviously I've really enjoyed your your writings on Substack. I don't have the patience for the writing, but you are a writer a journalist and that is  your bread and butter. People obviously can support you financially on Substack if they want to do that after reading your writings. Let's go into Ireland: we saw this referendum and it's interesting. We'll get into some of the comments on it, but really there were two parts of this  referendum and it was focusing on family and the woman's position or the mother's position. Do you want to just let us know how this referendum came about? OK, well, first of all, you've got to see it in its context, which is in a series of attacks  on the Irish Constitution going back. Going back, you could say 30 years.  It depends in the context of the European Union and the various referendums that we had about that, the Nice Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, in which the Irish people were  basically told when they voted ‘no’, that's the wrong answer. You're going to have to think again, and you're going to have to vote again. And they did, and it passed, because they were just bullied into doing it.  In the past decade or so, a dozen years, we've had three critical referendums  which attacked, the Irish Constitution which has a series of fundamental rights  articles right in the centre of it, articles 40 to 44. That's been informally called by judges over the years: the Irish Bill of Rights, which  is all the personal fundamental rights, all the rights that derive essentially from  natural law in the greater number of them. That, in other words, they're inalienable, imprescriptible, they are antecedent. They're not generated by the Constitution or indeed by the people. Certainly not by the government or anybody else. So, now there was an attack on Article 41 in 2012, which was purportedly to put in  children's rights into the Constitution. That was completely bogus because it was a successful attempt attempt to transfer  parental rights to the state. That's what it was when you look closely at it.  And I was fighting all these referendums. Then in 2015, we had the so-called gay marriage or the marriage referendum. Which essentially, people don't really get this; they talk about Ireland having legalised  gay marriage. No, no, we didn't. That's not what we did.  We actually destroyed marriage by putting gay marriage as an equivalent concept in  our constitution. And then there was the infamous Eighth Amendment referendum in 2018, which was  to take out an amendment which had been put in some 40 years before, 30 years before, in 1983, to guarantee, to, as it were, copper fasten the right to life of the  unborn child. And there's a very subtle point that needs to be made about this, not very subtle really, but legally it is, which is that this was an unlawful referendum because this was one of those inalienable, imprescriptible rights. Even though the article in which it was couched on was only introduced in 1983, and all it was, was a kind of a reminder, that these rights exist, because these rights already exist as unenumerated rights. And as a result of that the referendum was actually unlawful and should never have taken place, because the Irish people had no right to vote down the rights of a section of its own population. Which was the unborn children waiting to emerge into the world to live their lives in  peace and whatever would come their way in that life. But nevertheless, to have a law, to have essentially an illegal, unlawful law, quote unquote, created that prevented them from even entering this world. It seemed to me to be the greatest abomination that has ever happened in our country. So, this was a continuation of this.  There are different theories about what it was about. There were two amendments, as you said, Peter. The second one that you mentioned was the mother in the home. And this was a guarantee to women, to mothers, that they would be protected from  having to go out, if they wished, to go out into the workplace and work. And if they wanted to mind their children, then the state would take care of them. It's not specific, but nevertheless, it placed on the state a burden of responsibility to  give women this choice. Now, of course, the government and its allies, its proxies, try to say that it's really an  attack on women, that it says there are places in the home, this kind of caricaturing of  the wording and so on. In fact, it's nonsense because there's another article, Article 45, which explicitly  mentions the right of women to have occupations in the public domain and to go and work and earn a living for themselves. So, this was a complete caricature. And I think people understood that. The other one then was a redefinition of the family, which is Article 41. Again, all of this is 41, which defines the family, always has, as being based on  marriage. That has been the source of some dissension over the years, some controversy,  because more and more families were outside marriage, as it were. There were small F families, as it were, rather than a big F family, as arises in the  Constitution. And they claimed to be sorting this out.  But of course, they weren't sorting it out at all. When you actually catalogued the various categories of family who might theoretically benefit from such a change, none of them were benefiting at all. I went through this microscopically in the course of the campaign several times on videos and so on.  So, really what it was, was to leverage the progressive vote, I think. That was one object, to get people excited again. They were getting nostalgic for 2015 and 2018 because they were becoming more and more popular.  That was certainly one aspect. But, there were other aspects, which is that they were introducing into the  constitution, or supposedly, that along with marriage, that also would be included  something called durable relationships. And they refused or were unable to define what this meant. The result of it is that there were all kinds of proposals and suggestions that it might  well mean, for example, polygamy, that it might mean the word appear durable  appears in European law in the context of immigration. There was a very strong suspicion, which the government was unable to convincingly deny, that this was a measure that they needed to bring in in order to make way for  what they call family reunification, so that if one person gets into Ireland, they can  then apply to have their entire families brought in after them. That's already happening, by the way, without this. They say that something like an average of 20 people will follow anybody who gets in  and gets citizenship of Ireland. They bring something like an average of 20 people with them afterwards. So this was another aspect of it.  There were many, many theories posited about it. But one thing for sure was that the government was lying literally every day about it, trying to present this progressive veneer. And more and more, what was really I think staggering in the end in a certain sense,  was that the people not alone saw it in a marginal way, they saw it in an overwhelming way, this was the start, I mean I don't think a single person, myself included predicted that we would have a 70-30 or whatever it was roughly, 3-1 result. For now, I mean, that was really miraculous and I've said to people that it was actually a kind of loaves and fishes that it was greater than the sum of all its parts, greater than anything that we thought was possible. It was like a miracle that all of the votes just keep tumbling out, tumbling out, no, no, no, no, no. And I've been saying that that no actually represents much more than what it might  technically read as a response to the wording that was on the ballot paper, that it was  really, I think, the expression of something that we hadn't even suspected was there,  Because for four years now, the Irish people have labored under this tyranny of, you  know, really abuse of power by the government, by the police force, by the courts. And a real tyranny that is really, I think, looks like it's getting its feet under the table  for quite a long haul. And accompanied by that, there was what I call this concept, this climate of mutism,  whereby people weren't able any longer to discuss certain things in public for fear  that they would get into trouble, because this was very frequently happening. I mean, since the marriage referendum of 2015, Before that, for about a year, the LGBTgoons went on the streets and ensured that everybody got the message that we weren't allowed to talk about things that they had an interest in. And anybody who did was absolutely eviscerated, myself included, and was cancelled  or demonised or whatever. That has had a huge effect on Irish culture, a culture that used to be very  argumentative and garrulous, has now become almost paranoid, and kind of, you have this kind of culture of humming and hawing. If you get involved in a conversation with somebody and you say something that is  even maybe two or three steps removed from a controversial issue, they will immediately know it and clam up. This has been happening now in our culture right across the country. When you think about it, I've been saying in the last week that actually for all its  limitations, locations, the polling booth, that corner of the room in which the votes are being cast with the little table and the pencil and a little bit of a curtain in some  instances, but even not, there's a kind of a metaphorical curtain. And that became the one place in Ireland that you could overcome your mutism, that  you could put your mark on that paper and do it convincingly and in a firm hand. And I think that's really the meaning of it, that it was a no, no, no, no, no to just about everything that this government and its proxies have been trying to push over on  Ireland for the last few years, including the mass immigration, essential replacement  of the Irish population, including the vaccines, which really have killed now in Ireland something like 20,000 people over the past three years. I would say a conservative enough estimate not to mention the injuries of people; the many people who are ill now as a result of this and then of course we  have the utterly corrupt media refusing to discuss any of this and to put out all kinds  of misdirection concerning. John, can I just say, there's an interesting line in one of the articles on this. It said the scale of rejection spelled humiliation for the government, but also  opposition parties and advocacy groups who had united to support a yes, yes vote.  Tell us about that.  It's not just the government, well the government is made up obviously of the three  parties, the unholy alliance, of Fianna Fáil, Fianna Gael and, sorry, what was the  other? The Green Party.  Sorry, the Greens.  The Green Party are a fairly traditional element in Irish politics, not so much in the ideology, but in the idea of the small party, because they're They're the tail that wags the dog. They have all the ideological ideas.  The main parties have virtually no ideology whatsoever. Like they've been just catch-all parties for a century or whatever their  existence has been. But yes, that idea, you see, what we've noticed increasingly over the last, say, 10, 15  years, particularly I think since 2011, we had an election that year, which I think was a critical moment in Irish life, when in fact everything seemed to change. We didn't notice it at the time, but moving on from that, it became clear that  something radical had happened in the ruins of Irish culture, as it were, both  spellings actually. And so, as we moved out from that, it became clear that really there was no  opposition anymore. That all the parties were just different shades or different functions within a singular  Ideology. Like the so-called left parties were, it's not that they would be stating the thing. They would sort of, they would become almost like the military wing of the  mainstream parties, enforcing their diktats on the streets. If people went to protest about something outside the Houses of Parliament, the  Leinster House, these people would up and mount a counter protest against them  and call them all kinds of names. Like Nazis and white supremacists, all this nonsense, which has no place in Irish  culture whatsoever. It is a kind of a uni-party, as they say, is the recent term for it. But, my own belief is that actually this is a somewhat distraction in the sense that we  shouldn't anymore be looking at individual parties because, in fact, all of them are  captured from outside. And the World Economic Forum is basically dictating pretty much everything that  everybody thinks now. I mean, our so-called Taoiseach, God help us, I hate to call him that because it's  an honourable title. It's a sacred title to me.  And to have this appalling creep going swaggering around claiming that title for  himself, it seems it's one of the great obscenities of of modern Ireland. But he, Brad Kerr. He is a member of the World Economic Forum.  So is Martin, the leader of Fianna Fáil. They've been switching over the Taoiseach role for the last four years. Yeah, because that's quite strange. I mean, many of our viewers will not be from  Ireland and will be surprised at the confusion system you have where they just swap every so often, because the three of them are in cahoots. That's the completely new thing.  That's never happened before. But what it's about, you see, those two parties are the Civil War parties. Civil War back in 1922. Those parties grew out of it, and they became almost equivalent in popularity. They represented in some ways the divide of that Civil War. And for the best part of 100 years, they were like the main, they were the yin and yang. They were the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the political system. And gradually, in the last 30, 40 years, the capacity of either of those parties to win  an overall majority has dwindled and basically disappeared, evaporated. So now they need smaller parties. And that's been true for about 30 years. And as I say, what actually happens then is that the smaller party, no matter how  small, if it's big enough to actually make the difference numerically, then it has the  power to take over certain areas of policy in which the big parties have no interest  whatsoever. And that's how you get things like migration, because they don't care about that. That's how you get social welfare policies, all that kind of stuff. This is kind of what's happened in the last, particularly since 2020, where there was a  complete unanimity. I could name, with the fingers of one hand, the people in the parliament, a total of over200 people in between the two houses, that who actually have stood up and actually in in any way acquitted themselves decently in the last four years. The rest have just been nodding donkeys and going along with this great tyranny against the Irish people and the contempt that Radcliffe and his cronies show for the Irish  people. Literally, almost like to the point of handing out straws and saying, suck it up, suck it  up, suck it up. And this is where we are now, that our democracy has been taken away, for sure. I mean, that last week was a really a bit of a boost but that was only  because they couldn't fix that. It was a referendum and they couldn't possibly predict what the turnout would be in  order to ready up the votes in advance but I have no doubt that they would be trying to rectify that they're giving votes now to in local elections which we have to every  immigrant who comes into Ireland so by the time that the Irish people get to the polls it'll all be over. These are people who don't even know how to spell the name of the country they're in many cases and this This is what's happening. The contempt these people have shown for our country is beyond belief. It is dizzying. It is nauseating. But the Irish people are told to shut up.  And of course, the media, without which none of this will be possible, by the way. I mean, if we had decent, honest media, they would be calling the government out  every day. But they're not. And so it remains to be seen now what effect this will have. I don't have any confidence that it's going to put any manners on this government  because they are beyond arrogant, beyond traitorous, beyond redemption in my view. But at the same time, there is a possibility that in the next elections, we have three  elections coming up now in the next year, in the next few months, actually, I would say,almost certainly. Well, we know for sure there's the European elections, European Parliament elections, and the local local elections are happening in June. Then there's a very strong probability that the general election will take place  sometime in the autumn because it has to happen before this time next year. And of course, the longer they leave it, the less flexibility and wiggle room they'll have in order because, events, dear boy, events can take over and they don't want to do, they don't like events, you know. I think what will be very interesting then is will something emerge in these elections, which would, if you like, will be a kind of an equivalent to that no box on toilet paper  in the form of independence, perhaps, or in the form of some form of new movement,  some actual spontaneous voice of the Irish people might well be something that could happen. I hope so. And I feel so as well. I think that this is the moment that it happened before, Peter, back in 2011, when  there was the really appalling events that happened in the wake of the economic  meltdown, when the troika of the IMF, the World Bank and the European  Commission, three entities, arrived as a kind of a coalition or a coalition. A kind of a joint policing visitation, shall we say, to basically take possession of Irish  economic sovereignty. And that was a great humiliation, a moment of extraordinary sorrow and grief and  rage in the Irish people. And that moment, I think, if you lit a match in Ireland at that time, the whole place  would have gone up. But, what happened then was a bogus movement started and pretended that it was  going to go and lead an alternative movement against these cretins, these cretinous  thugs and traitors who are the mainstream parties. And instead, then at the very last minute, they blocked the hallway, as Bob Dylan said, they stood in the doorway, they blocked up the hall, and nobody could go  through until the very last moment when they stepped aside. said they weren't going to run, and ushered in Mr. Enda Kenny, who became  possibly the greatest destroyer in Irish history since Oliver Cromwell. Yeah. When I grew up in the 80s with Gareth Fitzgerald and Charles Hawkey back  Fianna Gael, Fianna Fáil, there did seem to be a choice. And now it seems to be that there isn't really a choice for the voters and they've  come together. Is that a fair assessment of where Ireland are? Yes, 100%, Peter.  But, I think it's very important to, whereas we can go into the whole walk thing, as  these parties are now, fixated with woke, contaminated with it. They're saturated with this nonsense and really assiduously pushing it. But I always remind people that none of this is spontaneous, that woke is not a  spontaneous, naturalistic movement from the people or even any people. Of course, there are people pushing it, but they're just useful idiots. This has been, this is top-down, manipulation of an orchestration of our  democracies.  And it's happening everywhere now. These massive multibillionaires pumping money into this, into basically  destructive political elements, Antifa, the LGBT goons, and so on and so on. Terrorist groups, essentially. Let's not mess around. They're terrorist groups. And using these to batter down the democratic structures of Western countries. That's what's happening. And you see, the people that we are looking at who are the puppets. They're the quokka-wodgers, I call them. That's the name for them, actually, the quokka-wodgers, people who are simply like  wooden puppets of the puppet masters. They're filling space, placeholders. They're indistinguishable.  It doesn't matter.  I mean, rotating the role of Taoiseach is irrelevant because essentially, you  could just have a showroom dummy sitting on the chair for the full four years. It doesn't matter who it is, except the only difference it makes is that the quality of the dribble that emerges from the mouths of Martin and Varadkar is somewhat variegated  in the sense that, Varadkar is capable of saying the most disgusting things because  he has no knowledge of Ireland.  He's half Irish. He's an Irish mother and an Indian father. He has no love for Ireland whatsoever. He did a speech there the other day, apparently in America, where he was saying that  St. Patrick was a single male immigrant. Nobody, I think, at the meeting where he said it, had the temerity to point out to him  that actually St.Patrick was a victim of people traffickers. And that's exactly what's happening now.  He's their principal ally in the destruction of Ireland. Well, how does that fit? Because interesting comment about Varadkar's background,  his parents Indian.  We, of course, here in the UK and England, it's the same with Sunak. And then in Wales, you've just got the new first minister. I think was born in Zambia, I think, Africa. And then, of course, you've got in Scotland and in London, Pakistani heritage. You kind of look around.  And I think my issue is not necessarily that you've got that different background. My issue is the lack of integration and understanding of what it means to be this  culture and this community and a lack of understanding. I think that's where Varadkar seems to have torn up the rule book and what it means to be Irish and wants to rewrite it. Oh, well, they're actively saying now that really there's no such thing as Irish culture  and that, the people who live in Ireland, those people have been here for hundreds or maybe thousands of years. That they have no particular claim on this territory. Trade. This is something that the great Irish patriot, Wulff Tone, mourned about. He said, this country of ours is no sandbag. It's an ancient land honoured into antiquity by its valor, its piety, and its suffering. That's forgotten.  People like Varadkar don't know the first thing about this and care less. They're like Trudeau in Canada, a completely vacant space, empty-headed. Narcissists, egomaniacs psychopaths. They are. And they are and traitors like they are really doing things now. I did a stream last week; there was somebody in America in Utah, and I was saying  in the headline, I found myself saying this that what is happening cannot  possibly be happening. That's really the way all of us feel now that this is like just something surreal real, that is beyond comprehension, because it wasn't possible for us to forget, to predict. That a person could be elected into the office of Taoiseach, who would be  automatically a traitor, who would have no love for Ireland. It seemed to be axiomatic that in order to get there, you wanted to care, you had to  care and love Ireland. These people have no love for Ireland.  They are absolutely the enemies of Ireland now. You mentioned the two other referendums that happened or in effect on same-sex marriage and life or the lack of sanctity of life and those went through this this  hasn't. Does that mean there is a growing resentment with the government. Is it a growing opposition and desire for conservative values where kind of is that  coming from I know it's probably difficult to analyze it because this just happened a  week ago but what are your thoughts on that? It's difficult.  It's difficult because there are different explanations going around. I can only tell you what I believe, and it's based on just observation over a long time. I believe that it is. I've been saying,  for the last two years about Ireland in this context. That the Irishman, Paddy, as he's called, and we don't mind him being called that. You can imagine him sitting in the pub, in a beautiful sunny evening. The shadows of the setting sun coming across the bar. Oh, I'm dreaming that. I can have this picture in my mind, John. And he's got a dazzle, as we say, a dashing of beer, and he's sticking it away. And then there's a couple of young fellas there, and they start messing, pushing  around and maybe having a go at some of the women in the bar or whatever. And Paddy will sit there for a long time, and he'll sort of have a disapproving look  but he won't say anything, but there will be a moment and I call it: the kick the chair  moment. When he will just reef the chair from under him and he will get up and he'll get one of those guys and he'll have him slapped up against the wall and he will tell him the odds. That's the moment I think we've arrived at, that all of the contempt all of the hatred,  these people go on about introducing hate speech law there is nobody in Ireland that  is more hateful than the government towards its own people. 100 percent.  The most hateful government, I think, in the world at this point. They are abysmal.  They're appalling. So, this is the moment when I think people took that in. They took it in. They took it in.  We suck it up. OK. But then one day they said, no, no more. And that's what happened on Friday week, last Friday, Friday week. That's what happened because, you can push people so far. A lot of this has to do with Ireland's kind of inheritance of post-colonial self-hatred, whereby they can convince us that we're white supremacists, even though we  have no history of slavery or anything like that, except being slaves ourselves, our  ancestors being slaves. But there is, as Franz Fallon wrote about many years ago, back in the 50s, the  pathologies that infect a country that's been colonized are such as to weaken them in  a terrible way in the face of the possibility of independence, that they cannot stand  up for themselves. And you can see this now. I mean, all over Irish culture now on magazines, on hoardings, in television  advertisements, there's nothing but black faces. You would swear that Ireland was an African country. This is part of the gaslighting, that attack that has been mounted against the Irish  people. And people, Irish people, you see genuinely because they don't. They don't understand what's happening because the word racist is a kind of a spell  word, which is used, I call it like a, like it's like a cattle prod, and as soon as you say something, and a big space opens up around you because nobody wants to  be near somebody who's a racist. But in fact, we need to begin to understand that these are just words and sticks and  stones and so on. If we allow this to happen it means that we will lose our metaphysical home that our  children and our grandchildren will be homeless in the world that's what's going to  happen, because it's already clear from a lot of these people who are coming in that  they're shouting the odds and saying that basically Irish people just better get up and  leave their own country, because they're not welcome anymore. These are outsiders who've been here a wet weekend. They're being trained in this you asked me. I forgot to mention this thing Ireland has something like 35,000 NGOs 35,000  Wow  And and these people, in other words they're non-governmental organization. what's a non-government at mental organization? That's a government which works that's in organization which works for the government,
The Week According To . . . Elizabeth Barker
Mar 16 2024
The Week According To . . . Elizabeth Barker
We are delighted for the return of our good friend Elizabeth Barker as she joins Peter again for a good old chin wag! Beauty, brains and common sense in abundance as Liz talks us through the headlines and happenings from the past seven days. We will be expanding on some of the posts she has made on her X account and articles from across the web including... - Boeing whistle-blower John Barnett found dead in US. - Hate not Hope: Yearly report released by Hope Not Hate... including all your favourite freedom fighters and independent broadcasters!  - Come on Sunak. Make up your mind. They are either safe and effective or not. Which one is it? - And he’s back! Dan Wootton returns with a bang. - Finally, some common sense! A win for the kids. Children no longer to be prescribed puberty blockers in the UK. - Based Elon and the meme wars. - Former Flemish parliamentarian sentenced to 1 year in prison because supposedly “racist memes” were shared in a private group chat. - Policing without fear or favour. Remember that? - UK government commits over £117M to boost security for mosques, faith schools and community centres.  Connect with Elizabeth... X                          @CaliforniaFrizz  x.com/CaliforniaFrizz?s=20 Recorded 15.3.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE             heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS         heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA   heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                   heartsofoak.org/shop/ Links to topics... Boeing whistle-blower https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68534703.amp Hate not Hope Reporthttps://x.com/calvinrobinson/status/1768345107525194211?s=20 Safe and effective or not? https://x.com/LozzaFox/status/1767910753468592554?s=20 Dan Wootton https://x.com/CaliforniaFrizz/status/1767922514238300440?s=20 A win for the kids https://x.com/CaliforniaFrizz/status/1767598053974761874?s=20 Musk https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1766974165360214400?s=20 Flemish MP https://x.com/EvaVlaar/status/1767511226890793228?s=20 Policing without fear https://x.com/LozzaFox/status/1767680577652617303?s=20 Muslim communities https://x.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1767143452532175118?s=20
Dwight Schultz - Its Alright to be Dwight: #009
Mar 15 2024
Dwight Schultz - Its Alright to be Dwight: #009
Welcome to 'Its Alright to be Dwight' A podcast with the television, film and voice actor Dwight Schultz, exclusive to Hearts of Oak. This episode Dwight discusses threats to Western civilization posed by communism and radical Islamic groups aiming to undermine Judeo-Christian values. He explores the zero-sum mentality of these groups and their manipulative tactics. Schultz raises concerns about COVID-19 as a planned event for global changes and the lack of accountability in pushing agendas. The conversation spans artificial intelligence, biases within AI, manipulation of scientific information, and the importance of critical thinking in society. Controversial figures like Marina Abramovic and John Podesta are also touched upon, emphasizing the need to question authority and avoid political influences in critical areas like criminal justice. Schultz challenges listeners to think critically about societal issues and the pursuit of truth. A respected performer on Broadway, Dwight Schultz found everlasting fame by playing the certifiable "Howling Mad" Murdock on the action series "The A-Team" (1983-86). A living, breathing cartoon with a seemingly endless selection of voices and accents at his command, Murdock provided the air power for the A-Team's clandestine adventures, provided that his compatriots could break him out of the mental hospital where he resided. One of the show's most popular and memorable figures, Murdock ensured Schultz steady work on television and on the big screen playing Reginald Barclay in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" An accomplished voice actor, Dwight can be heard in numerous hit computer games and in countless animated shows.   Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/  SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Please subscribe, like and share!
Steve Bannon - Trump vs Biden: The Rematch and How WarRoom Is Central to Success
Mar 15 2024
Steve Bannon - Trump vs Biden: The Rematch and How WarRoom Is Central to Success
Its an election year like no other.  Not only are American's going to decide their future but this election goes far beyond the shores of the US like no other Presidential election any of us remember.  Its always an honour to have Steve Bannon join us on Hearts of Oak to give his expert analysis.  WarRoom broadcasts for 4 hours a day and Steve has his finger on the pulse of what is happening in the US and beyond like no other.  So, how will the next year play out?  Was it a forgone conclusion that Trump would win the Republican nomination?  Has his support for the 'vaccine' harmed his chance of being re-elected?  What role does the GOP play in this election especially now that the RINO Rona McDaniel has been replaced by Michael Whatley and Lara Trump?  Steve tackles all of this before we finish with a chat about WarRoom.  The WarRoom Posse (followers and subscribers) are the most hardcore committed lovers of freedom and have found a kindred soul in Bannon, MAGA and in Trump.  What part will WarRoom play in this election and how can the Posse make sure President Trump is returned to the White House? Stephen K Bannon is a political strategist and host of The WarRoom. He was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years in the late 70s and early 80s, after his military service, Steve worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker and left with the title of vice president. In the 90’s Steve ventured into entertainment and media and became an executive producer in the Hollywood film and media industry which gave him the background to become co-founder and executive chairman of Breitbart News. He was adviser to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and later served as chief strategist in the Trump White House. Connect with Steve and WarRoom... WEBSITE           warroom.org GETTR               gettr.com/user/SteveBannon                            gettr.com/user/WarRoom TELEGRAM        t.me/BannonWarRoom PODCAST          warroom.org/podcast/ RUMBLE            rumble.com/BannonsWarRoom Hearts of Oak WarRoom Playlist... RUMBLE             rumble.com/playlists/GeiAaHFzet8 Interview recorded 13.3.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... 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 https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on X https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20
Nick Buckley - Standing as Mayor of Manchester to Rebuild Community
Mar 14 2024
Nick Buckley - Standing as Mayor of Manchester to Rebuild Community
Nick Buckley is a rarity in Britain. He is an independent thinker that wants to bring local political change with common sense policies.  He stood as a candidate for Reform in the Mayor of Manchester Election four years ago but now stands as an independent in the upcoming election in May.  We start by discussing Nick's background, born and raised in Manchester, which is the 3rd largest urban area in England after London and Birmingham.  For well over a decade Nick ran a charity to deal with homelessness and to help offer solutions.  He shares why he has entered the world of Politics, how he has seen the police in Manchester become completely ineffective and crime rise and rise.  This all falls under the jurisdiction of the Mayor of Manchester and the current Labour offering, Andy Burnham, has simply failed to address this.  Nick's story is an example of how anyone can enter politics and try to make a difference as an independent voice.  Nick was cancelled in June 2020 from the multi award-winning charity he founded when online activists came for him for criticising Black Lives Matter. The trustees panicked, allowing Nick to be removed from his post. Within five weeks, Nick had forced the trustees to resign en-mass, and took back his role as chief executive.  Nick spent two decades preventing crime and antisocial behaviour in the toughest neighbourhoods. He promotes early intervention and personal responsibility. He is also a social campaigner on the issues that keep people in poverty and feeling victimised. Nick has experience in many fields, such as youth crime, rough sleeping, knife crime and community engagement.   WEBSITE             nickbuckley4mayor.co.uk/ SUBSTACK         substack.com/@nickbuckleymbe X                          x.com/NickBuckleyMBE?s=20 GETTR                 gettr.com/user/nickbuckleymbe Interview recorded  7.3.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our rather fetching T-Shirts....  SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/