Hearts of Oak Podcast

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/DVATWPODCAST          vancedavidatw.podbean.comRecorded 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/1780605966968381789Geo-Engineeringhttps://x.com/DVATW/status/1780566730638532934Ireland 2024https://x.com/DVATW/status/1780584179089986020Paedophiles https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68830796NatCon conferencehttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/16/belgian-mayor-natcon-conference-braverman-farage-brussels?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Otherprayer ban https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68731366Mail Online https://x.com/DVATW/status/1779880464418845032migrants https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1779808882069520555Covid booster https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68789711?s=09Dr Who https://x.com/DVATW/status/1778883835976958046

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 totally in justice in the UK, probably worldwide.
The Postmaster scandal was unbelievable. when the guy was told you're the only one, I remember that's what I was told when I made a great fuss, you're the only one, it transpires there were dozens and dozens of us who made, said the same thing to the government, they ignored, there were hundreds and hundreds of postmasters who said the same thing that they ignored and now, you know we're going we're having the same absolute nonsense over climate control. I mean I went and researched climate control, I didn't have to do much research before I realized that the data is very clear out there that carbon dioxide rises when the world warms.
And it is actually something that's trying to do something good about it. And it does.
It's a heavy gas, falls to the ground, encourages plant growth, tree growth, which produces more oxygen.
It is. It's like a controller. It's like a thermostat. It is not the cause.
And you've got all these morons, and I use the word advisedly, and people like Ed Miliband should springs to mind this guy is a total moron, who thinks that if you stop the co2 from the cars, this, that and the other, you'll save the world from global warming, it won't make one iota difference and if you really succeeded in lowering co2 significant, you would actually start extinguishing life they don't seem to understand any basic biology at all and yet these morons are running our parliament, running our lives and they are impoverishing everybody on this planet. I saw my energy bill even though we tried very hard, it's absolutely ludicrous and it's even worse knowing it is five times higher than if I was in the United States where at least they've got some pragmatism with regards is, we can't do everything in the solar and wind we're going to need our oil and gas and by the way it's beneath us, ours is beneath us but we've basically said we're not going to use it and so we're dependent on China who's polluting the world to death, it's unbelievable.
I think many people have had their eyes open to many of these issues over the last couple of years of COVID tyranny. Professor Dalgleish, I'm honoured really to have you on, it's wonderful to hear your thoughts and your writings, it's good to delve into them, people can get the Conservative Woman, but thank you so much for the stand you've taken and thank you for sharing your thoughts with us today.
Right. Well, thank you very much for having me. But just remember, we've written an enormous amount of this up in The Death of Science, which is available on Kindle, Amazon, and is multi-author.
And it's got contributions from Karol Sikora, Sir Richard Dearlove, Clare Craig, Ros Jones.
I mean, I'm really proud that we've been able to really put the gauntlet down, that this government and the world's governments and the scientists and the institutions and the medical profession have killed science.
We have to do everything we can to rectify that. Thank you.
And the viewers and listeners can get that. The links will be in the description.
So however you're watching, however you're listening, you can just click on that. So, Professor, once again, thank you for your time today.
Cheers. Thank you.

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_NationalWEBSITE             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 phones, get out of here.
They protect civilians to the detriment of their own soldiers.
And when Hamas says 32,000 civilians were killed, first of all, Hamas is a terrorist Nazi-like monster group. Who believes them anyway?
But the fact is 15,000 of the alleged 30,000 or so have been terrorists. These are combatants.
And the other 15,000, a number of distinguished statisticians have studied the data from Hamas and say these are grotesquely exaggerated.
It is only a few thousand that have been killed.
And moreover, they say, look at what they say every day, Hamas' division telling you how many civilians died.
The same number of civilians die every single day according to the data of Hamas. That's not possible.
This showed you how fraudulent the data is.
So we have to really thank Israel for being extraordinarily humane in protecting civilians And let me tell you, in any war, innocent civilians die.
You can't have war without civilians dying. If you say to yourself, I won't go to war unless I can assure no civilians will die, the tyrants will win.
Hitler will win. Hamas will win. Because civilians naturally will die in a war. It's tragic.
And now when Biden went crazy, when Israel mistakenly killed seven aid workers, in wars, these types of tragic mistakes happen all the time.
In America's wars, we have killed many civilians' envoys, mistaking them for terrorists.
In Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, I can list them. I won't.
We've hit wedding parties by mistake, killing 50 people attending a wedding, including the bride.
So this happens in war. So the fact that Biden is making a major deal out of this tragic mistake just shows he is trying to find anything to put enormous pressure on Israel to set up a Palestinian terrorist state.
And remember, Israel gave away all of Gaza.
And what did they get in return? They got a Hamas regime and 30,000 rockets aimed at civilians, 30,000 since 2005 when the regime was established.
Why is it wise to give them even more land, the West Bank and Gaza, headed by who, Hamas, by Abbas, by another terrorist?
It'll give them more power to endanger Israel. And this state would be on Israel's longest border, directly adjacent to 70% of Israel's population.
It would be a tragic mistake to establish a state. That's why the Israeli people, 80% and more say we cannot have it, it's too dangerous.
Biden has become enormously hostile to Israel, despite the fact that overwhelming numbers of Americans support Israel, and we are devastated by this.
We're terribly disappointed by this.
But outside of this regime and Obama's first regime, the American governments have been extraordinarily supportive of Israel throughout the establishment of Israel and throughout America's own establishment in 1776.
You know, well we'll finish it up, there my criticism of Israel is they were for 13 years, they were far too patient with Hamas whenever they pulled out in 2010 to actually going in 2023 and it wasn't of their own accord, they went in actually, it was because of that attack on 7th October, so Israel had been remarkably reserved I think in how how they've dealt with them, and maybe they should have been a heck of a lot stronger. But that's another conversation.
Morton, I really appreciate you coming along. I do thoroughly love and admire the work that ZOA do there.
I know people go on the website, they can find not only your work on campuses, they can find news articles, they can donate, and there's many ways they can support you on ZOA.org.
So thank you so much for your time today.
Peter, thank you for your holy and important work to give a podium to people who are telling the truth of the Arab-Islamic war against Israel and the West. Very holy work you do. Thank you.

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/sebgorkaSUBSTACK            substack.com/@sebastiangorkaX                            x.com/SebGorkaWEBSITE               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 it'll be okay.
And they have to do whatever it takes.
Civilian casualties, yes, we get it, but they just got to crush Hamas. And I say, You can't crush Hamas. The polls say 70% to 80% of Gazans support what Hamas did on October 7th.
When 70% of a population says murdering beautiful young women at a rave in the desert is okay.
Unless the population is removed somewhere else, and Egypt built their wall with God.
You cannot fix that by killing the people who did October 7th because you'll just find more recruits. You can't fix these colleges.
And that's why home-schooling is enormous, why Hillsdale and the like of Grove City, conservative colleges that don't take one cent from the feds. So the feds can't force their CRT and equal rights garbage on them are so thriving.
But, my parents escaped communism.
And it's the idea that we're in that situation where in every communist nation that had a semblance of resistance, the kids would come home from school and then the parents would put the radio up loud and then deprogram their kids at night.
And say, okay, what did that commie teachers tell you about Stalin?
Let me tell you what the truth is about the West and capitalism.
And to think that we might be in a similar situation without a Berlin Wall, without bipolarity, but where we need to deprogram our kids.
That's why I tell people it's cool to work in the White House.
Don't get me wrong. As an immigrant, it's pretty cool.
It's pretty cool to be president. It's pretty cool to be a senator.
But it's mostly irrelevant. I mean, the founding fathers were very clear.
Federal government should be irrelevant. It should deal with two things, war and interstate trade. That's it.
Alex de Tocqueville understood America better than anyone, of course, because he's a foreigner. And he said, where's the locus of power? Where's real America?
It's locally. It's at the county commissioner. It's at the school board.
That's why when you want to take back a country, that's where you take it back.
Why is George Soros funding local school board races and local prosecutors at the county level?
I mean, people like Fani Willis. What the hell is the billionaire who broke the Bank of London doing funding local prosecutor races?
Well, because that's how you steal a country. And we kind of just snoozed past it for 40 years as bit by bit, the real locus of power at county, at a municipality level was taken over.
I mean, Tip O'Neill famously had this phrase in the 90s, the Democrat speaker, he said, politics is local.
And it became this kind of bumper sticker for the Democrats.
Oh, oh, all politics is local.
And we kind of laughed and said, oh, that's cute. Well, they actually meant it.
They understood that you capture a nation not with a presidential election.
You capture a nation. When I arrived to Virginia, I moved from Europe 2008.
And we put our kids into the local schools.
And we looked into the local school district, school board.
There were nine members of the school board. Every single one of them was a raving left-wing loony. And here's the important thing.
None of them had a child in the public schools of the county. And you go, what?
Then why are they running the board?
Because it's about controlling my children, right? This is what we have to wake up to.
Dr Sebastian Gorka it's wonderful having you on, it's an honour and I know you are, what three hours a day is it?
Three hours of live radio every day and then a weekly tv show on Newsmax.
On Salem media group, on Rumble, on Spotify, any place you want to watch it, all the links are on Sebastian's twitter feed at the top, so I appreciate your time thank you so much, Dr. Gorka.
Thank you. And check out my Substack, Sebastian Gorka, one word, sebastiangorka.substack.com
We will put it in the description. Thank you so much.

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_UKSUBSTACK      tradical.substack.comWEBSITE          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 talkedabout 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 governmentis 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 charged under prevents her from agreeing or engaging in disapproval or approval of abortion.So again, it's very, in both instances, it's very vague, ambiguous language and the authorities have deemed in Bournemouth that just by offering to talk.They're here to talk, if you want; that Livia has committed a crime.We're thrilled to be defending or to be supporting Livia's legal defence, because we believe that everybody should have the right to be engaged in these conversations.Nobody should be on trial just for having a belief about abortion or for offering to talk in any circumstance.The UK has public streets.We've always been able to express our views.We have a culture of democracy here and we can't understand why some issues are banned in certain places just because the government might not like what we have to say.So, that's one to watch out for.We're grateful that five politicians last week, as you alluded to, have spoken out for Libya.They've seen what happened in Bournemouth and they're aware that the new legislation coming in will roll this out across the U.K and we could see many more cases like Libya's.We've already seen a few.There was a priest, Father Sean Gough, who was arrested and put on trial, unfortunately vindicated, for holding a sign saying, praying for free speech.There was Isabel von Spruce, of course, most famously, also supported by ADF UK, who was arrested, actually twice, for a viral video for praying silently inside her head.So, this law has a very far-reaching consequence, even into the minds of individuals who are poor life.So something that whatever you think about abortion, we should be concerned about any form of censorship in our country and be able to keep those conversations open.Well, that, I mean, no one would have five years ago have said actually praying silently would be illegal in the UK.But in effect, that buffer zone legislation forced through by my MP, sadly to say, actually is, it means that prayer is now criminalised 150 yards from every abortion centre.That's how it's been acted on by the police.Well, we do have an opportunity to engage here for the better.So, the legislation that has been passed by the government bans influencing, like we talked about, very vague or unclear exactly what this means.Now, because it's so unclear the government are going to provide or the home office are going to provide guidance within the next few weeks to explain to police and prosecutors exactly how they should act outside of buffer zones and we know of course that freedom of thought is protected absolutely in human rights law as incorporated into the U.K law as well.It is wrong that Isabel was arrested for praying inside her head and the government have a chance to clarify here what the line is for being able to at least hold thoughts and conversations in public.Now, let's be clear for a second.We all disagree with harassment or intimidation or violence or anything like that.Nobody should be engaging in harassment of women in any situation.Of course, not here either.So, we're all comfortable with laws, which have already existed for a while, that ban that.But the government must clarify that while this legislation applies to harassment, It must not apply to silent prayer or simply peaceful prayer on the street or conversations like the one that Livia was trying to hold.A consensual conversation between two adults.So, that kindness is going to drop fairly soon.You know, there's still opportunities to engage with that.Again, you write to MP and encourage them to contact the Home Office about this and encourage them to do the right thing and clarify that we need freedom of thought and freedom of conversation.I mean, why not write to the Home Office as well and give your opinion?There is a chance still that we'll be able to preserve this and we'll have something to watch out for in the next few weeks.And just to finish, Lois, let me reiterate your comment about engage with MPs.You mentioned there was five and one of them, the awesome Carla Lockhart, DUP from Northern Ireland.And you realize there are voices, there are MPs who actually do have a belief.They are conviction politicians and they may be fewer of them than there used to be, but actually they are still there.And I think it's vital for us, whether you're watching it as Christians or not,whether you just believe in these fundamental rights that actually do engage with your MP, because you will you will find there are good MPs and you may be blessed by actually having a good MP different to Lois or myself that maybe don't have.Yeah Lois, there is, just want to reiterate that because there are good MPs and they will be fearless on speaking up on these issues.Yeah, yeah, absolutely I mean the the buffer zones debate in parliament before it was passed It was a very fiery debate and we were encouraged, although unfortunately the vote did not go in our favour when it came to the amendment.We were encouraged about the number who did stand up and in fact mentioned Isabel von Spruce by name in their speeches.So, we can see that these stories do have an impact.And hopefully because of the attention that has been shown to Isabel and the unjustifiable arrest that was made for the thoughts that she had inside her head.We hope this information will trickle through to MPs and government officials in places of power and we will be able to protect that freedom to pray silently at least.Lois, thank you so much for your time. It's great to have you on.As I said at the beginning, I followed ADF closely and people can find all the links.If they just go to your Twitter handle, they can find the links for ADF and find the links for your Substack and everything is there and it is in the description.So thank you so much for joining us today.Thank you so much. Thank you for all that you do.

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/davidkurtenTNT RADIO      tntradio.live/presenters/david-kurten
Recorded  5.4.24Connect 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/1775762615093923973Not our flag https://x.com/davidkurten/status/1775199279218373079Conservatives https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-peer-israel-gaza-investigation-duncan-b2523466.htmlPolice Scotland https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-68721208Ukraine 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.htmlreal 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

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.ioX                          x.com/naomirwolf                            x.com/DailyCloutVIDEOS               rumble.com/user/DailyCloutBOOKS               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 at these teas and one of them is anti-cancer.
And I'm like, well, luckily I don't need that. And there was this beat as this guy looked at me like, you're an idiot.
And I kind of have realized on this journey of understanding how these herbs work, that that is a stupid way to think, right?
You take these treatments so that you won't need them, so that you keep your body in an optimal, immune state, so that it's efficiently dealing with getting rid of toxins or threats as you go through your day.
And I guess what I mean to say there is a lot of these herbs have multiple benefits, right? They're good for your circulation.
They're good for your immune system. They're anti-inflammatory.
Well, that's how our systems actually work.
You know, the does, it's not like just because there's like oncology over here and, you know, cardiology over here, it doesn't mean these are separate systems, right?
This was put in place by Rockefeller and the Flexner report and his funding of medical schools to be more about research as it turns out for for industry than healing, but healing is all interconnected.
So if you have an herb that's good for your circulation, it's anti-inflammatory, you know, it's likely to be good for other things as well.
Good for your mood, good for your sleep, et cetera.
So I guess I just want to confess that I was so indoctrinated that I too thought.
We're just a bunch of systems because that's how the West and Western medicine teaches us to think.
And we have to treat our symptoms, whereas many other traditions, including those that use herbs, understand that you're you're keeping the whole system in balance and working effectively. And that is a state of health.
Well, Rockefeller Medicine Man is next on my list after Privacy is Power, which I'm in the middle of reading at the moment.
So, yeah, that is definitely next. When I heard you mention one of your videos, I thought, oh, that's that's next on my list. Hey, I'm wondering, is there going to be a Cooking with Naomi Christmas book coming out? It would do well.
That's so funny. People do like the cooking. I was astonished that people liked my cooking videos because I think of myself as such a bad cook.
But I'm getting a little better.
Absolutely, I'm going to put these into a book. I think people deserve to know.
They deserve to know the science.
I mean, to your point, what is chemistry? And I promise I'll stop.
But the same chemistry that goes into showing a pharmaceutical intervention works, right, with all the nonsense we know go into those trials, that's the same chemistry that peer-reviewed studies show, mauby bark or guava leaves or avocado leaves also work, right?
It's all chemistry. They're not different kinds of things, which is how we're propagandized. They're medicines too.
Oh 100%. Well, Naomi, I always appreciate you coming on and I think every time it's a different subject.
I think that's the mark of you as a journalist, actually, going where the information leads and that can always be a different direction. But I've loved those videos.
So thank you so much for coming on and sharing some of your thoughts on that.
Thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate the conversation. Take care.
 

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.comWebsite               exitthewho.orgX                          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 it's probably the go-to place to understand what exactly is happening with the World Health Organization.
So to our viewers and listeners, make sure, sign up and make that your go-to place for understanding the WHO.
Jim, just as we finish, as the viewers, the listeners go and make use of your Substack and read it.
And I'm amazed at the, always at the time that people put into those articles, I've gotten into doing videos, actually writing, that is a whole other skill.
And the work, the effort, the research that you put in on each individual article is phenomenal.
But what do you want the viewers, the listeners, how do they respond?
What is your point in that? It's educating, and then they take that information.
And what can they do with it? Where do they go with that then?
Well, step number one is to understand what the heck is going on.
And, I think we gave a pretty decent summary.
And so the easy answer for the people watching this video is take the link to this video and share it like you've never shared anything in your life.
OK, what's going on is all of these many documents are getting confused and people are talking about all kinds of different things.
The documents are changing, you know, on an ongoing basis.
They've got amendments and treaties last year and this year.
If you just share this video and I don't mean just post it on Facebook and walk away and think that Facebook is gonna knock on everybody's door and go, Hey did you see this okay, If you have a phone and you have a contact list, take the link and start with a, Ann and Bob and Carol and Doug and Emily and Fred and on down the list, if there's a person that you don't share this video with you're censoring this information.
They're not going to find it on the mainstream news. They're probably not going to find it on most alternative news. They're probably going to get it wrong.
Now, I've put all of this information in exitthewho.org.
I've been working with people in dozens of countries around the world.
So if you want the mother load, right, Go to exitthewho.org.
But what we've just done here is a reasonable summary of what the heck is going on.
For most people, this is enough to alert them, hey, you ought to pay attention.
You got two months from about now to when they're meeting.
Spread the word. Take this video, share it. Take that video, share it. Share it, share it, share it.
I'll leave you with a math problem. Okay. If you tell a hundred people and they do the same and they do the same through five levels of referral, five degrees of separation, a hundred to the fifth power is 10 billion.
So if you share this and other people share this, it could go viral overnight.
And so you could be sharing a TikTok video of your cat doing something funny.
OK, or you could be sharing this with everybody, you know, go from A to Z, send them a text message, then go to your email account and send this video to everybody that, you know, via email.
And then if you have a social media account, you can post it on there, but go to your direct messages and direct messages to everybody that you've got a friend or a follower or whatever it might be.
And then call up everybody you've got a phone number for and go, hey, I texted you, I emailed you, I DM'd you, are you okay?
You know, what do you think about this video that I just sent you?
And if they don't care, that's okay.
You can spend your time trying to convince them, right? Or you can blame me for not being able to convince them.
Take the easy road. And there will be some people who go, oh my God, I had no idea this was going on. Thank you so very much.
Work with the willing, organize your actions.
There's on exitthewho.org. It's an activist toolbox. There's an endless list of things you can do.
And my phone number is in every article. If you have a question, I'm in California.
So you got to use whatever codes you need to use or signal or telegram or WhatsApp, send me a text message, whatever it might be if you have any questions be more than happy to help you but it starts with awareness.
And so you can do your part just by making as many people as you possibly can aware of this discussion that we just had.
Well James once again thank you for giving us your time expanding on that and all those links will be in the description for the viewers and listeners to make use of and to pass on to share and to encourage friends family colleagues to actually delve into the subject and understand what we all face worldwide.
So thank you, James, for your time.
Thank you, Peter.