Hearts of Oak Podcast

Robert Spencer - How Gaza is Used as a Proxy War for Islam vs Judaism

Show Notes and Transcript
The current Israeli-Gaza war has sparked much debate focussing on geo politics and historical land disputes. But few dare ask if Islam is the root cause of the ongoing tension. Robert Spencer has studied Islam for 3 decades. His dozens of books and the Jihad Watch website are all go to sources of background information on Islam and the history behind it. He returns to Hearts of Oak to ask if this is a religious problem and we start by looking at what Islam actually says about the Jews. The aggression and vitriol throughout Islamic text and the history of behaviour towards the Jewish people is an eye opener to all of us. Armed with this deeper understanding Robert then touches on how the term Palestinian was invented. The history, leader, flag and culture had to be invented as it was all non existent before. His short book "The Palestinian Delusion" goes into much more detail and is a recommended read. Enjoy the interview and get ready to see this current conflict in a whole new light.
'The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process' on Amazon https://amzn.eu/d/cPigAab
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is the author of twenty-seven books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, The Truth About Muhammad and the bestsellers The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS and The Critical Qur’an: Explained from Key Islamic Commentaries and Contemporary Historical Research. His new book is Empire of God: How the Byzantines Saved Civilization.Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and the U.S. intelligence community. He has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He is a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy.
Connect with Robert and Jihad Watch...X                                x.com/jihadwatchRS  @jihadwatchRSWEBSITE                   jihadwatch.org/
Interview recorded  26.3.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA   heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
TRANSCRIPT
(Hearts of Oak)
It's wonderful to have Robert Spencer back with us again.Robert, thank you so much for your time today.
(Robert Spencer)
Always good to talk to you, Peter.Thank you.
Great to have you on.Always good to have guests on talking about their books.We'll get into a book that I've been delving into and got a couple of monthsago, but only picked it up recently and have read it.We'll get into that in a moment.But obviously, you can find Robert: that is his Twitter handle, @jihadwatchRS.And obviously jihadwatch.org is the website.You can find everything in the links below.Make sure and use it.Make sure and sign up to it.One of the latest, I think the latest piece on that, and we're doing this just two daysbefore the video goes out, is the U.S. Supreme Court gives Hamas-linked CAIRE a9-0 thumbs up.And CAIR obviously is the Council on American Islamic Relations.I encourage you to delve into that, which gives some of the geopolitics,I guess, that lies behind some of the difficulties that the U.S.Faces as it engages and grapples and understands Islam, which is a massive subject.But the book that I've been delving into and enjoying is The Palestinian Delusion.Short book, 200 pages.And if you want to understand what is happening at the moment in the Middle East, I would encourage you to get a hold of a copy.Available US, UK, wherever you are.The links are in the description.Grab it. And I know you'll want to get it after this interview.But , I do want to get into modern day; what is happening?But right at the beginning, chapter two; chapter one is about the formation of Israel.If we just go on to chapter two, does religion, specifically Islam,lie at the root of the problem?What are your thoughts, Robert?And of course, you delve into this in chapter two.
Yeah, absolutely, Peter.Islam is what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about.If you look at the messages from Hamas, from Palestinian Islamic Jihad,from Fatah, from the Palestinian Authority itself, they are all about Islam all the time.Yet that is the one aspect of this conflict that is universally ignoredby policy analysts and by policymakers in the West.Every attempt at a negotiated settlement initiated by the President of the UnitedStates or any other entity over the last 50 years has completely ignored,100% ignored, Islam as a factor in this conflict.And yet, from the standpoint of the Palestinian Arabs, that's what it is allabout, and we ignore it to our own detriment.
Now, chapter two is entitled The Roots of the hatred of Israel.Hatred is a very strong word, Robert, is it not?Yes, but it's entirely accurate in this case, because what we are dealing withis not only a hatred, but what has been termed the longest hatred,that is the hatred of the Jews, which of course is not solely the province of Muslims or Islam, but, many people in the West don't realize that there even is such a thing as Islamic anti-Semitism.Yet, it is very real and it is at the roots of the problem between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs today.
Now, we all hear the term Islam being one of the great Abrahamic religions,and yet there doesn't seem to be a lot of love for the Jews in Islam in the text and the history.Do you want to just let us know; because that is a different side that manypeople will certainly not hear in the legacy media.Yes. Islam, the Quran teaches that Islam is the third revelation afterthe revelation of the Torah and the Gospel.That is the core scriptures of the Jews and the Christians, and that it confirmsthe message of the Torah and the Gospel.And that Moses and Abraham before him, and Jesus after him, and all the otherprophets in the Bible, in both the Jewish and the Christian scriptures,are people who taught Islam.Islam was the original religion of all the prophets.We can see this particularly in chapter 3, verse 67 of the Quran,which says Abraham was not a Jew or a Christian.He was a Muslim.And you might wonder, well, this doesn't make any sense.How could Abraham be a Muslim when Muhammad is the originator of Islam in the7th century and Abraham is many, many centuries before that?The Islamic answer is that Islam is the original religion of all the prophetsand that it was their followers who twisted their teachings to create Judaism and Christianity.The only legitimate expression of the true teachings of the prophets is Islam.And that being the case, the orthodox mainstream understanding among Muslimsof Judaism and Christianity is that they have no legitimacy at all.Now, this is a very important point because, then the Quran commands Muslimsto fight against and subjugate the Jews and Christians, among others.And it's in part because of their rejecting the true faith and corrupting theirscriptures, although that part comes from Islamic tradition.Now, the difficulty that people have with this arises from the fact that Islamic spokesmen in the West very deceptively, frequently, refer to how much they as Muslims revere and respect figures such as Abraham and Moses and Jesus himself himself.And so Jews and Christians who are uninformed about Islam hear this and theythink, isn't that wonderful?How generous and open-minded and ecumenical they are.And we should do the same.We should reciprocate by acknowledging Muhammad as a prophet.And they don't realize that the Muslims do revere and respect Abraham and Mosesand Jesus and the rest of them, but as Muslims, not as they are portrayed inJudaism and Christianity.
I mean, everything seems to be on the terms of Islam.I knew your book: Did Muhammad Exist?Actually, I think we need to remind ourselves of the world that Muhammad,if he did exist, was born into, which wasn't an Islamic world as we know today.It was a very different world.
Yes. North Africa, the Middle East, what we think of today as the heart of theIslamic world, those were Christian lands.They were 99% Christian from Morocco all the way across North Africa and throughout the Middle East.And so it was the conquest initiated by the Arabs beginning in the 630s thatultimately led to the Islamization of those various nations and the steady diminishment of the Christian population.But, it's important to keep in mind, Peter, that the Christian population didnot decline because the Christians were gradually convinced of the truth and beauty of Islam.Rather, they were subjugated, as the Quran directs, under the hegemony of Islamiclaw and denied basic rights in the societies that had been conquered.And the only thing they had to do to free themselves from the oppression ofliving with this denial of rights was to convert to Islam.And so many people did over the centuries, such that, for example,Egypt was 99% Christian when the Arabs invaded, and now it's about 10% Christian.The Christians didn't all leave. They just converted to Islam over time, becauseof the pressure placed on non-Muslims.
Well, maybe as the world talks about repatriations, especially in the BLM movement,maybe Christians need to get some of that from Egypt.
Yes.If there were real reparations for slavery and for oppression,then yes, the Christian population of the entire Middle East and North Africawould be owed an immense amount of money.But nobody's talking about that.
I guess we hear the term anti-Semitism andwe're told that any feeling of anti-Semitism from Islam is purelymisplaced and doesn't lie at the heart of it and this seems to be thisdistinction between kind of rogue Islamic preachers, but actually key textand that seems, I think commentators seem to want to make a wide gap between that.Yet, as you point out, this term anti-Semitism, it lies right at the basisof Islam from 1300, 1400 years ago.
Yes, absolutely.The Qur'an says in chapter 5, verse 82, that the people whoare most intense in hostility to the believers will be the Jews,as well as the polytheists.Now, what this works out to in practice is that the Jews are the recipientsof the most hostility from the Muslims.This is also because this is not an isolated passage, but the Quran is fullof passages depicting the Jews in a negative light, depicting them as schemers who plot against the plans of Allah himself and tryto foil them.Who crow about the limits on the power of Allah, saying Allah's hand is chained.That's chapter 5, verse 64.They were transformed into apes and pigs by Allah for their disobedience.That's chapter 2, verses 62 to 66, rather.Chapter 5, 59 and 60, and 7, 166. and many, many, other passages all the waythrough the Quran depict the Jews as being rebellious against Allah andessentially enemies of Allah.Then the Islamic tradition is even worse and the Jews are depicted as plottingagainst Muhammad, trying to kill Muhammad, being massacred by Muhammad and punishment for their plots to kill him.Jewish woman poisons Muhammad and this ultimately leads to his death and so on.They're the real villains of the entire tradition.And this carries through to the modern age where Judaism and Jews are so stigmatizedin the Islamic world that several ex-Muslims have spoken about moving to America ormoving to Europe and encountering actual Jews for the first time andbeing shocked that they were not evil, horned creatures, devils in human form, tryingto disrupt human society in every way, but just ordinary people like everybody else,some good, some bad.And they had no frame of reference to understand this, because Islam is so unanimousand monochromatic in depicting them as evil.
I think if someone is watching this as a Christian, they will understand theBible as the text that they live by, which is full of stories, explains things,not really chronological, but actually, you can read it and you can grasp a lot of its meaning.And that stands by itself outside the Christian traditions, really.Islam seems to be quite different.It seems to be not not only is the Qur'an actually impossible to understand,but actually seemingly is only supposedly, understandable.With a wealth of other writings, which seems to confuse things massively foranyone coming from a Christian background or from the West.
That's right, Peter. The Qur'an in the first place is written,in many cases it tells the stories that it tells.In a way that makes it clear that it assumes that the hearers have heard thembefore and are familiar with the general outlines of the story.So, it leaves out important aspects of the stories, and many times it is speakingabout incidents, and events, and not explaining what incident or event is involved.It's as if you were talking to a friend and I walked up and I didn't know either of youvery well and didn't know what you what incidents you were talking about,and you didn't pause to explain it to me.I would have no idea what you're what you're discussing, and that'swhat reading the Quran is like in many ways.So, you have the voluminous hadith literature: hadithmeans report and it's the reports of Mohammed's words and deeds.In the hadith literature you find what is known as the Asbab al-Nuzul which is the circumstances of revelation that tells the stories of what was going on at the time among the early Muslims.And Muhammad that led to the revelation of this or that passage of the Quran.And that's all very well, but this material comes from a couple of hundred yearsafter Muhammad is supposed to have lived.And there's no trace of it existing before that.And so, it's an open question as to whether these things really give the circumstancesof revelation and the Quran passage follows from that,or if these stories were put together in order to explain what is essentiallya gnomic, elliptical, incoherent text.And that seems, the latter seems to be more likely.Some philologists like Christoph Luxemburg have noted that if you strip outthe diacritical marks that distinguish many Arabic letters from each other,because there are 22 letters in the Arabic alphabet, but 16 are exactly the same character, just with different combinations of dots above or below.And so if you take out the dots and repoint it as if it were Aramaic,then suddenly it's a whole different text and a Christian text in many cases.And so, Luxembourg contends that it was actually a Christian text that was repurposed by the early Arab conquerors in order to create the religion of Islam.And they did this because this is actually the fundamental thesis of my ownbook: Did Muhammad Exist?They did this because in those days, religions were what cemented political unity.There were no parliaments or constitutions in this era when Islam arose.And you had two great powers in this region, the Byzantine Empire,which was Christian, and the Persian Empire, which was Zoroastrian.They were held together by those religions.The idea was that to be a Roman citizen at this time, a citizen of theByzantine Empire, meant that one was a Christian and adhered tothe tenets of Orthodox Christianity.Consequently, the non-Christians were not considered to be fully citizens ofthe empire. And this is another story, but it was the Christian identity that was the cement that held the empire together.So, the Arabs amassed a great empire, conquering massive expanses of territory,and then they developed a religion to hold it all together.And because these were warriors who wanted to expand and defend and strengthentheir empire, they made their religion belligerent, aggressive,martial, warlike, expansionist, and so on.
I think in chapter two, you talk about that we all know of Muslims praying toMecca, and only then Allah can really hear the prayers properly.But you talk in the book about initially it was facing towards Jerusalem.So, was this just Muhammad wanting to be accepted?and then later on, of course, or at that time, Muhammad wanting to be a prophet.Kind of, in my thinking, that's sheer arrogance, thinking you can be a prophetto a religion you come across.Those concepts of him wanting to be a Jewish prophet, but also praying towardsJerusalem, those are two facts that seem to be missing in any dialogue today.
Yes, well, it does seem as if, at least according to the canonical traditionalIslamic story; that is of questionable historical value.But there's no doubt that Muslims believe it; that Muhammad taught that he wasa new prophet in the line of the prophets of the Bible.And that consequently he was the new prophet of the Jews and a new prophet of the Christians.And both groups said, you're not.The Jews said, you're not Jewish. You can't be a Jewish prophet.And the Christians said, Jesus said: it is finished on the cross.We're not looking for a new prophet.And so he was rejected by both.And this has led to the kind of cognitive dissonance that the Quran says thatthe Jews and Christians, the Christians in particular in chapter five of theQuran will be rightly guided if they follow the gospel.And yet the Gospel does not confirm the teachings of the Qur'an as the Qur'aninsists, and it insists that it confirms the teachings of the Torah also.And so Islamic spokesmen, Islamic scholars throughout the ages have accountedfor this discrepancy by claiming that the Jews and Christians corrupted their scriptures.And so, they maintain that Muhammad is indeed a prophet in the line of the biblicalprophets, but that it's the Jews and Christians' fault for not recognizing him.They twisted their scriptures to erase the congruence so, that people would notsee that the Quran confirms the Torah and the gospel.A s a result, the Jews and Christians are portrayed as these incrediblerenegades and rebels against God who have dared to tamper with the very wordof God that he gave them, and created false religions of their own making.And so here again, they have no legitimacy.I do want to get on to current day but, I want to there there's anotherconcept that comes out in your book which is a widely misunderstoodword and that's the word jihad, and we are told jihad is inner struggle.It's a spiritual struggle between yourself trying to be right and to be good and live correctly.Yet, jihad is a term that's used in violence all across the world.What is this term, jihad?
The primary understanding of jihad in Islamic theology is warfare against unbelieversin order to bring them under the hegemony of Islamic law.The confusion arises from the fact that jihad means struggle,and there are as many things that are referred to as struggles in Arabic as there are in English.And so you can have great struggles and small struggles. You can struggle tobe on time for appointments when you're chronically late, but you can also havea great struggle between civilizations, such as World War II or something.Now, in the Islamic realm, it's the same thing.The Islamic Republic of Iran has a department of agricultural jihad,which doesn't involve blowing things up on farms.It involves trying to struggle to increase the efficiency of the farms and their fruitfulness.Whereas in Islamic theology, the principal meaning of jihad has to dowith this warfare against unbelievers.So, here again, Islamic spokesmen in the West frequently confuse people.They're trying to confuse them and make them complacent about the jihadthreat by saying jihad just means struggle.And it's about struggling to better yourself.And they don't tell you that Muhammad said the warfare against unbelieversis the highest understanding of jihad, that there's nothing greater than jihadin which one loses one's life and then is rewarded with paradise.
In the book, you use a number of examples of what we would call hit preachers.This is in 45, the Hamas deputy minister of religious endowments on Al-AqsaTV 2010 said: the Jews suffer from a mental disorder because they are thieves and aggressors.A thief or aggressor who took land or property develops a psychological disorderand pangs of conscience because he took someone that wasn't his.And then the next page, you have a from 2018, a program on Palestinian Authoritytelevision saying people could be deluded or think that they have no way out with the Jews.The liberation of this land is a matter of faith, which will happen despite everyone.And then the next page up, the Jews are treacherous and conniving cheaters.But again, the argument, many of the guests I have on would not look at Islamas an issue, as a problem.And they would simply say those are misguided, radical preachers,and they don't understand the true, beautiful nature of Islam.How do you speak against that criticism, I guess, that you're maybe picking things out and you're looking at these preachers that actually don't understand Islam, really?
Well, in the first place, I find it difficult to believe that people who havecommitted their lives to understanding Islam correctly would not understand it correctly.While non-Muslims who've never picked up a Quran or have any ideawhat it says, they understand it perfectly well.Islam is kind of funny in that way that the more you know about it,the less you understand it.And the less you know about it, the more you understand it.We see this with non-Muslim politicians all over the West who assure us withimmense confidence that Islam is a religion of peace that has nothingwhatsoever to do with terrorism.Those are actually the exact words from Hillary Clinton a few years back,but many, many other politicians say exactly the same thing.And I know that Hillary Clinton doesn't have the first foggiest idea of whatthe Koran teaches, whereas I, who have read the Koran dozens and dozens oftimes, committed a great deal of it to memory.Published a translation and commentary of it that's my own, and have studiedIslamic theology for 40 years, now.They would say, well, you don't understand Islam at all.And even more to the point, these Muslim clerics who've attended Al-Azhar orother prestigious Islamic institutions and and spend their whole lives tryingto understand the Quran and the Islam properly, and they don't get it at all.So, in the first place, it's absurd.But in the second place, what these people said that you quoted,like the fellow who said the Jews are treacherous, conniving, cheaters,that's just Quranic theology.If you read what the Quran says about the Jews, just get a Quran,don't even read the whole thing.Get one with a good index and read all the passages about the Jews.And you will see that every last one of them is negative.
Every last one of them portrays the Jews as scheming and connivingand cheating the righteous people.And so this is the prism through which these clerics see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.They understand it through the lens of the Qur'an, because they believe thatthe Qur'an is the perfect word of the perfect being that is valid for all timesand all places in all situations.They see the world today and they see Israel and the Palestinians.And the first place they will go to understand all that is the Quran,because they would trust Allah over any human authority,telling them what the conflict is all about.The Quran tells them over and over that the Jews are evil and enemies of Allah.So, they see Israel and they think, here are the evil Jews who are enemies of Allah.Even, the fact that they refer to Jews and not to Israelis or to Zionists orsome other term of that kind indicates that they're seeing this through theological principles.And those theological principles are deeply anti-Semitic.
Well, bringing us up to the present day, for over 2,000 years,the Jews did not have their homeland there in the land that is Israel.And it was under all different, we'll not go into the history,all different, I guess, occupying forces or other forces.And then 1948 happens and the Jewish homeland, modern day Israel, is founded again.And immediately, and this is chapter three, you talk about the jihad of 1948,which is an interesting term. Why that title?
Well, the whole thing is a jihad from 1948,from before 1948, when the Zionist settlement began in the late 19th century.Even before that, because there there were always Jews in the Holy Land,and they were always subject to sporadic, periodic attacks.Now, after the Zionism began, these attacks intensify because in the first place, the Ottomans were alarmed when they owned the land that the Jews were moving in, because they thought that it would threatentheir hegemony over it.Then when the Ottoman Empire fell, the League of Nations, the precursor to theUnited Nations, gave Britain the mandate for Palestine to establish a Jewish national home.Now, why did the Arabs object to a Jewish national home?There were already large Arab states right there neighboring this territory.And so it should have been and could have been.A relatively peaceful and orderly process once the Jewish national home was actually founded.After World War II, Germany lost massive territories in the East because itfought a war of aggression and lost.And for reasons of national security, the Poles, the Soviets, and the Frenchin the West took various territories from the Germans.The Germans who who lived in those areas, were sent to what remained of Germany. Nobody complained.Nobody raises, nowadays, some right of return or speaks about occupied Germanterritory in Poland and Russia.It would be absurd even to think about.But it's the exact same situation with Israel.The Arabs of Lebanon, of Syria, and of Jordan are identical ethnically,culturally, linguistically, and religiously with the Palestinian Arabs.There has never been a distinct Palestinian nationality.That's a propaganda creation that was designed to be a weapon to use against Israel.So, when you have Arabs who leave, they did not actually get kicked out.They left because the Arab League told them to leave in 1948, because the Arabstates neighboring Israel were going to crush it within weeks.Then they would be out of the line of fire and could return home after Israel was destroyed.It didn't work that way, because Israel actually turned out to win the war.The Arab states, after that happened, could have easily absorbed these populations.And there would be no problem today, just like there's no problem in Europetoday, in regard to the German refugees after World War II.And yet they did not do that because they they wanted to keep the Palestinian refugees as stateless, as refugees, as a weapon to beat Israel with.This is what became the linchpin for what I referred to as the Jihad of 1948.The Jihad, because the Quran says in chapter 2, verse 191: drive them out fromwhere they drove you out.It's a myth, as I just noted, it's a myth that the the Israelis drove the Arabs out.It's not a fact, but it's what the Arabs all over the Middle East and the non-ArabMuslims are taught about what happened.So, that is because it triggers the divine command, drive them out from where they drove you out.They have to have been driven out for that to kick in as being applicable.So, now millions of Muslims, Arab and non-Arab, are taught that they must driveout the Israelis, because the Muslims were driven out.It's a divine command, no less than the Ten Commandments for Christians.Consequently, it is a jihad because if it were not for these religious principlesthat are rooted in Islam and the Quran, the problem would have been solved bynegotiations decades ago.But no negotiated settlement ever succeeds, because you don't negotiate away divine commandments.
Well, that negotiated settlement, two-term, two-state solution is the phrasethat comes up, and you touch on that in that chapter.And we're told this is the way to fix all the problems, if only we can come upwith this mythical two-state solution.Why is that then not the solution to the issue that the world faces in the Middle East?
A two-state solution would require two states.That requires at least ostensibly that the Arabs have to acknowledge thata Jewish state of some size has a right to exist there and they will neveraccept that, because the divine command has driven them out from where theydrove you out.That does not admit of half measures.It might admit of partial fulfilment that they take over half of Israel andthen the other half later.But it doesn't allow for the recognition of the right to exist ofany non-Muslim entity on that land.Consequently, the Jewish state could be the size of my office here.The Jewish state could be the size of a postage stamp, and it would not be acceptable,because they have have to drive them out from where they drove you out without any exceptions.The negotiation, the two-state solution would quickly become, or even eventually,even slowly become, a one-state solution.The Palestinian state would make war against what's left of Israel and ultimately destroy it.There would never be two states in that land on an indefinite basis.
In your book, one of the chapters talks about the naivety of Carter.Seemingly, every U.S. president has accepted this.Even Trump has accepted; has stated that actually he sees that as the best solution.Is that simply an absolute misunderstanding that this is a religious ideologythat lies at the root of all this?
Yeah, absolutely.It's because nobody in Washington knows or wants to know aboutthe power and influence of Islam over political issues.They underestimated and misunderstood Khomeini when it was the time ofthe Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979.And since 1948, they have misunderstood the Israeli-Arab conflict, because theydon't understand Islam.They routinely discount it as having anything to do with this conflict.And yet, it's right there in the Hamas charter.Israel will arise and will remain until Islam obliterates it.Islam obliterates it.And yet, no policymaker, no president, not Carter, not any of the others.Not Trump.None of them have ever pondered.What does that mean until Islam obliterates it?How can Islam obliterate a country?That doesn't even make any sense to the policymakers in Washington, because theythink of Islam solely as a religion, and they think of it because they comefrom Judeo-Christian backgrounds.The way Christianity operates in the West.They assume it's like that, and so, they have no idea of its political,aggressive, expansionist, and supremacist aspects.
In chapter four, you say the Palestinians are invented.That's a very strong statement.Surely, we've had the land of Palestine back in the Roman era.That's surely 2,000 years old.So, there must be all this history and people: the Palestinians.
Well, I'll tell you, Peter, you're right, and yet not.And I know you know.It's true.The Romans renamed the land of Judea, that is, land of the Jews.They renamed Judea Palestine in 134 AD.And they officially expelled the Jews from the area, although many of them stayedall the way through to the modern age.Now, Palestine was a name they had taken from the Bible, from the Philistines,the ancient enemies of the Israelites, in the Jewish scriptures.And they named it Palestine.They named Judea Palestine as a yet another taunt against the Jews as they wereexpelling them from the region.They renamed the region against their extinct enemies.But, there were never any Palestinians.And I would ask you, you know.You can find on YouTube, for example, the men on the street interviews,and people are even Palestinians are asked, name a famous Palestinian from history.And they all say Yasser Arafat.Okay, name another.If they were Palestinian since 134 AD, then, okay, name one.Give us one from the second century or the fifth or the 10thor the 15th or the 19th.There weren't any.It was the name of a region.It's like Los Angeles.Los Angeles is a city in the United States.And there are citizens of Los Angeles, but if we start talking about a distinctLos Angeles nationality that deserves its own state, people would laugh.It's the name of the city.And Palestine was the name of this region, but there were never any Palestinians.It was just the name of a place.The idea that it's a distinct nationality was invented by Arafat and the KGB in 1964.And they did it as a propaganda weapon because the whole world in those dayswas sympathetic to Israel.The Israelis, because they had faced off and defeated massive nations.Arab and non-Arab Muslim nations, and had stood against them even though theywere vastly outnumbered and outgunned.They gained the sympathy of the entire world.And so, the KGB in Arafat in 1964 renamed the Palestine Liberation Organization,the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization.Very small change and nobody even noticed, but it was a momentous change, becauseit indicated for the first time in history that there was a people called Palestinians.And now the whole world accepts it and takes it for granted,but this is an invented nationality that was designed to create an even tinierpeople that was menaced by the massive Israeli war machine.And that would take the wind out of the sails of Israel, the tiny underdog Jewishstate facing off against these massive Arab states.And it's worked very well.Even the Israelis have admitted or accepted the existence of Palestinians asa distinct nationality when there has never been such a people in history.You can go to 1948.Go to the library, read the newspapers from the day.Read the United Nations deliberations when they offered the Arabs half of the area of Israel.We're going to establish yet another Arab state and a Jewish state.And the Arabs said no, because they wouldn't accept a Jewish state of any size.Nobody ever mentions Palestinians.It's funny, because they're the center of the conflict now.And yet, in those days, it was the Israeli-Arab conflict. There was not a single mention anywhere of Palestinians.
I mean, Islam does seem to have a trend of rewriting history.And in the book you talk about a number of statements and articles referringto Jesus as a Palestinian.That would be news to Jesus, because I'm sure I read in my Bible that he was Jewish.
Yeah, well, obviously this is another propaganda point that's designed to curryfavour among non-Muslims with the Palestinians.Even from a historical standpoint, Jesus was not a Palestinian because it wasn't until ahundred years after Jesus that the Romans renamed the area of Judea Palestine.The Gospels are very clear.Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea.That Galilee was right there next to Judea, where he grew up in Nazareth.And he says salvation is from the Jews.A very ignored statement of his.This is very clearly someone who was operating within a Jewish framework,a Jewish culture surrounded by Jews.And even the theology of Christianity is based on the theology of Judaism,that the temple Judaism before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD was basedon animal sacrifices for atonement for sins.And then Jesus is presented as being, as God become man,the eternal sacrifice and the perfect atonement for sins that opens the wayof heaven for the people.This is something that really doesn't even make any sense apart from Judaism.And I think Christians nowadays are getting very carried away in this Christis King controversy that's been going on in regard to Candace Owens and the DailyWire and so on.It risks ignoring or denying the Jewish roots of Christianity and the fundamental kinship that Judaism and Christianity actually have,despite the undeniable antagonism and the Christian anti-Semitism that was certainlyoperative in Europe for centuries.
Well, you're right. Without Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the stories ofthe Old Testament, God's promised there would be no New Testament and Jesuswould not be there.100%, Robert.Just to finish off with, the last chapter is what is to be done.And it seems from this discussion that what the conflict that we see at themoment between the Palestinians in Gaza and the Israelis is just part of thewider issue of Jews and Muslims, of Islam and Judaism.So, when you say what is to be done, how do you see looking ahead?
Well, looking ahead, it doesn't look good, because the American government,which is essentially the principal, if not the sole ally of the Jewish state,is betraying Israel because the Biden regime is very afraid that it's goingto lose the Muslim vote, which could lose it several swing states inthe November election.And end up with Biden being defeated for re-election.So, they've decided to betray Israel as a result.They're pressing for a Palestinian state.If a Palestinian state were founded, that would, as I discussed earlier, become a newjihad base for renewed attacks against what's left of Israel.They don't seem to know or care that if Israel is destroyed,then the jihadis all around the world will be emboldened like never before, andwill step up their attacks in Europe and the United States.This is what we're looking at in the future unless Israel is ableto destroy Hamas despite the international pressure to get it to surrenderand by surrender.I mean accept a ceasefire that would allow Hamas to live and if Israel can dothat then all bets are off and the post-war picture will be radically different.But right now it looks like it's going to be very tough times ahead head,both for Israel and for the West.
Well, I would encourage people to get: The Passing Delusion.It's a great book and will help explain what is happening.And of course, Robert's latest book is: The Empire of God, How the ByzantinesSaved Civilization.A wonderful endorsement by Victor Davis Hanson.So, if you're not sure about Robert, go to Victor David Hanson.Robert, really appreciate you coming along.Love your work over the many decades with Jihad Watch, certainly one of my go-toplaces on the geopolitics and deeper.Thank you so much for your time today.
Thank you. Pleasure.

Karys Rhea - How UNRWA Perpetuates the Palestinian Refugee Myth

Show Notes and Transcript
UNRWA is a term that I had not heard 6 months ago. Their work, methods and purpose has intrigued me ever since. Karys Rhea understands this issue at its core and joins Hearts of Oak to give the other side of the story. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugee, known as UNRWA, was set up in 1948, just 3 years after the UN started. Karys starts by setting out the story of how and why UNRWA started. A fascinating part of this story is how refugee status of 'Palestinians' is defined. It seems as though this is used to create a Palestinian refugee myth that exists out of hatred for Israel. Which country in the world has dozens of refugee camps in their own country? How much money is used and is the UNRWA corrupt or transparent? Karys exposes this group like you have never heard before.
Karys Rhea is a producer of "American Thought Leaders" and "Fallout" at The Epoch Times and a fellow with The Jewish Leadership Project. She also works with the Middle East Forum and Baste Records. She has appeared on Newsmax, OANN, Real America’s Voice, NTD News, and a variety of podcasts, and her articles can be found in Commentary, NY Daily News, Newsweek, The Federalist, Washington Examiner, and more. She has a BA from NYU in broadcast journalism and an MA in counterterrorism and homeland security from Reichman University in Israel. A former life found her touring the world as a drummer and songwriter before becoming disillusioned with the political and cultural arrogance of the music industry. She continues to release music in her spare time, in addition to publishing absurdist flash fiction. 
Connect with Rhea...X                         x.com/RheaKarys?s=20
Interview recorded  23.3.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
TRANSCRIPT
(Hearts of Oak)
It's wonderful to have someone who I met when I was over stateside last time, and that's Karys Rhea. Karys, thank you so much for your time today.
(Karys Rhea)
Thank you so much for having me, Peter.
Not at all.
It was great to meet you there at Epoch Times whenever I came there with Dr. Malone.
And of course, you're there, a producer of American Thought Leaders and Fallout at the Epoch Times, you're a fellow of the Jewish Leadership Project, and people have probably seen you, especially your US audience on Newsmax or OAN or Real America Voice and many other of those networks.
And I know your background, I think your BA is in journalism and then you've got a master's in counterterrorism and security, which is not just fascinating itself, but there are wider things to discuss.
And you've got a strange background, I think, which you said to me was the music industry.
The music industry to doing media and politics that's quite a step.
Yeah well I mean I have competing interests on the one hand I grew up in the Bay Area and it's very progressive and artistic if you will lots of subcultures so I was always very much into the arts and performance and writing music.
And then I spent 18 years in Brooklyn, which has New York City and much of that in Brooklyn, which has an incredible independent music scene.
So after college, I made the decision to put a more lucrative and a safer career on hold and pursue music.
And that's what I did for about seven years.
And then I sort of grew up and got sick of hustling.
And like I said, I had other interests and I started to slowly make my way into the non-profit world, doing Israel advocacy and, and, monitoring, Islamic terrorism and Islamism.
And I went to grad school and then I got tired of doing that.
And I switched into, broadcast journalism because as you mentioned, that is where I had originally received a degree in.
And so that seemed like an appropriate career shift.
Well it certainly is and obviously people can find you there on Epoch Times and also that is your handle on the screen for people to follow you on twitter and all the links are in the description but Karys maybe we can start with this term and I know you've spoken about it quite a bit I've seen a number of interviews you've done and that is this little phrase, which is an acronym, but I thought it was a phrase, UNRWA.
And I heard this phrase from two of my US friends.
And sometimes you let something go past thinking it's going to come up in the conversation, it's going to work out what it is they're talking about. I was never sure.
So I had to ask, UNRWA, what is it? Do you want to just let us know what that stands for?
It's obviously a United Nation agency, what it stands for, and then why this is an organization which you personally have been interested in it following?
Sure. So UNRWA stands for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
Many people do not know about it and did not know about it until October 7th, but there are actually many people throughout the world that have been raising the alarm bells on how corrupt and ineffective this UN agency is.
It is one of the oldest and the costliest and largest agencies of the United Nations.
It started in 1949 in order to help deal with the
Arab Palestinian population that had been displaced as a result of the War of Independence, Israel's 1948 war when it was re-established after World War II.
And it produced about 400 to 750,000 Arab Palestinian refugees.
There's debate about that. And this UN agency was set up to to handle these refugees.
One year later, another UN agency was set up called the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the UNHCR.
That agency deals with all of the refugees in the entire world.
Today, it serves about 20 million refugees in 130 countries.
And its mandate, as it should be, is to resettle these refugees that it's dealing with, right?
You never want to keep refugees in limbo, in a stateless environment where you're in a camp and you rely on social services and healthcare and education, right?
If you have been displaced from a conflict, the goal is not to keep you in a camp.
The goal should always be to repatriate you, get you situated, get you settled in a new country where you can eventually be given citizenship and you're in that country and your children can be given citizenship.
Right? You're repatriated.
Now, UNRWA has a completely different mandate. And this is why, this is precisely why the Palestinian refugee population is still an issue today.
If not for UNRWA, there would likely be no Palestinian refugees.
Because think about it. Let's go back in time. When the War of Independence happened in 1948.
That was after World War II. And after World War II, you had tens of millions of refugees created, right? I think 40 million refugees.
I mean, there were millions of ethnic Germans, right, that were displaced from Eastern European countries.
And you also had around that time the partition of Pakistan and India, right?
And there was, I think, millions of refugees created from that, Muslim and Hindu refugees.
How many of those refugees still exist today?
Zero. There's no ethnic German refugees, no Pakistani refugees created from that conflict, right? Why?
Because UNHCR has resettled them.
And so that number of refugees has decreased. It has gone down and eventually has gotten to zero.
The Palestinian refugees are the only group in the world whose population has increased from, as we said, 400 to 750,000 originally in that war, ballooned to what UNRWA says is 5.9 million refugees.
Now, if UNRWA only claims to serve refugees that were displaced in this 1948 war, as it says, how has this number ballooned?
People don't think about that. People accept, the media, academics, our governments, everybody just accepts this number that UNRWA touts.
There is 5.9 million Palestinian refugees and nobody thinks to themselves, well, how is that possible?
You know, and the reason is, is because UNRWA uses a different definition for what constitutes a refugee and their mandate, unlike the UNHCR, is not to resettle refugees.
Not one Palestinian refugee that UNRWA claims to serve has been resettled into a host country.
Not only that, as I just mentioned, the definition of what constitutes a refugee is different, right?
So, you know, I could even read you. I have the actual definitions right here if you'd like me to, but if not, I can just summarize.
Here, let me just read it to you.
So we have, oh, wait, actually, I don't think I have it pulled up here.
Never mind. It doesn't really matter. The point is, is that the UNHCR, the refugee status that they afford to those displaced from conflicts, it directly relates to those people, those individual people that were displaced.
That's it. It does not carry on to their offspring, right?
And that refugee status ends once they are resettled and especially once they are given citizenship in a new country, right?
But refugee status for UNRWA extends to offspring of refugees regardless of whether they have been resettled or not, okay?
And regardless of if they've gotten citizenship in another country, they're still considered refugees.
So for example, if you were displaced in the 1948 war, you ended up in Jordan, and now you're given citizenship as about 1 million refugees, Palestinians in Jordan have been.
All of those Palestinians are still considered refugees according to UNRWA, even though they are now Jordanian citizens.
Not only that, but their children are now Jordanian citizens.
And their children's children, even though they were born as Jordanian citizens, they are still considered refugees.
This is bonkers, right? And not only that, UNRWA actually extends this refugee status to even adopted children, right?
So, and it's so weird. They extend it.
It's not all offspring. It's offspring of male Palestinian refugees, not females.
And then it's adopted children as well of male Palestinian refugees. It is bizarre.
So it's phenomenal that you have that crazy that the UN set up an organization to deal with refugees, but only one particular group a year before they set up a general.
But you're right, you set up such an organisation to deal with an issue.
So there was a conflict, Israel had reclaimed the land, it was rightly due, but there was a conflict, therefore, in that region, and Israel taking on the land, retaking its borders.
So I can understand it would make sense to set up an organisation to help those who may be displaced by a conflict, conflict by any conflict, but yet that needs to have an end goal.
But you talked about this passing on generation to generation.
It seems as though the UN and other agencies, other bodies, worldwide governments, want to have an issue there, a problem there, because that's how they
continue to apply pressure on Israel.
So it seems to be they want a thorn in Israel's side. Is that a fair enough assessment?
Absolutely. UNRWA was created to perpetuate the refugee, well, not created, but very soon after it was created.
Because actually, I think a year after it was created, the director general or somebody high up in UNRWA recommended resettling about 250,000 refugees.
The Arab countries were up in arms about this.
Absolutely not, right? Not only that, we're not going to take any of these people in, right?
These Arab countries that presumably were so, you know, sympathetic to the Palestinian plight and were so outspoken about, you know, how much these Palestinians needed to be cared for and how, you know, big bad Israel had treated them, right?
And yet, how many Palestinian refugees have these Arab countries taken in?
Only Jordan. Jordan is the only Arab nation that has taken in any Palestinian refugees and given them citizenship.
They are still heavily discriminated against in Lebanon and Syria.
You never hear about that. You only hear about Palestinian Arabs in the context of what Israel is doing to them.
You never hear about how they're treated in Lebanon, where they are banned from dozens of professions, right.
Uh, and kept in horrible, uh, conditions.
So yeah, the UNRWA is, has basically just been hijacked.
They are no longer, they are not a humanitarian, uh, agency as Enoch Wilf, who wrote a book called the war of return, I believe.
And they, she heavily goes into the origins of, of UNRWA.
She says that UNRWA is a war agency. It is not a humanitarian agency and it is meant to keep the Palestinian Arabs as as pawns in this fight against Israel.
Tell us, you talked about corruption, I've heard that with the two friends i've spoken to stateside and they also repeat what you said that this is utterly corrupt organization within the UN and you think wow a corrupt organization is a corrupt organization within the corrupt organization of the UN.
That's saying a lot. But what is specifically, because again, from the outside looking in, its mandate can seem a very positive one to actually help a group.
So tell me why it's, I mean, the finance that goes through, how is that not used correctly?
Is it because they have close relationship with Hamas?
Is it because the money goes elsewhere? I mean, tell us a little bit about that side.
Right, so even apart from Israel, even apart from UNRWA's connections to Jihadist groups, Islamic terrorist groups, even apart from the hate education, the anti-Semitic and jihadist material that they promote in their schools, even apart from their facilities being used by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to store weapons and launch rockets, apart from all of that, they have actually been engaged in scandal after scandal relating to nepotism, sex for money.
The suppression of whistle-blowers, right?
There was a huge scandal, I think, in 2019 where the director general was involved in this horrific sex for money scandal.
And he ended up being fired along with, I think, half a dozen others.
And if you look at what was going on and how the funds were misused for private jets and lavish business trips, it was just horrific.
So that's apart from the, you know, irredeemable nature as an anti-Semitic and violent group, right?
So even just aside from all of that, this group has many problems when it comes to corruption.
But in terms of how its funds are used with relation to, you know, terrorism and perpetuating this war against Israel, there's many different components of this.
So, for example, there's the curriculum component, right?
UNRWA schools serve half a million Palestinian Arabs throughout Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.
I think they serve about 300,000 just in Gaza and the West Bank.
And they have hundreds of schools. And they use the Palestinian authorities curriculum since 2017.
And year after year after year, the textbooks are shown to be absolutely, horrifically rife with material promoting martyrdom, suicide bombing, other forms of violence, not just against Israelis, but against Jews anywhere, glorification of Hitler, teaching children in the context of math and science that there is no better position to aspire to than to be a martyr and to die in service of Allah.
There is no better goal than to be fighting against Jews everywhere and to take up arms against Jews.
I mean, the examples of this have just been documented year after year after year by organizations like UN Watch and Impact SE, they monitor these textbooks, and you'll see just the horrific examples.
Not only that, UNRWA's teachers, their social media accounts have been investigated. And these teachers, hundreds of them have been found to glorify Hamas, to glorify the October 7th massacres.
They've been found to just be outspoken about slaughtering Jews wherever you see them, slaughtering Zionists, slaughtering Israelis.
They use these terms Jews, Zionists, Israelis interchangeably in Arabic, right?
Like you're not going to, you know, when I say they're talking about slaughtering Jews...
I'm not using Jews interchangeably with Israelis or Zionists. They are.
They will use the word Yahud. They will use the word Jew, right?
And in other times, they will use the word Israeli.
In other times, they will use the word Zionist. So they're not just talking about Israelis here, right? Even if they are, that would be horrific.
You don't want to be promoting violence against anybody. But these educational standards are in direct violation of UNESCO's provisions, which demand that all UN educational materials promote peace-making and tolerance.
And, you know, you're not allowed to be othering any sort of group, any sort of religious or national or minority group.
And yet UNRWA does nothing to reform their curriculum.
As far as I know, not one teacher has been fired.
There was a few, there was about six that were placed on administrative leave after a big report came out a few years ago.
That's the most that I have heard, even though year after year after UN watch and it takes their reports to the UN, takes it to, you know, to Gutierrez and to, Philippe Lazzarini, the director of UNRWA and says, here, this is what we found.
You need to to do something about this, nothing gets done. So that's just one element. That's just the education.
Then we could go into, you know, their…
So can I pick up?
So how, I mean, people will be surprised to think the UN are actually running schools in any country.
It's one thing to actually give money or help the program, but I didn't know it was a United Nations rule to actually run whole education establishments in other countries.
Yeah. So UNRWA, well, because UNRWA's mandate, again, it's not to resettle refugees, it's to provide relief for refugees.
So UNRWA, especially in a place like Gaza, has become the de facto government of Gaza.
They provide education, they provide healthcare, they provide loans, they provide social services, right?
And there was a quote that came out after October 7th from a Hamas leader who said.
It's the U.N.'s job to deal with the refugees, the millions of refugees.
It's our job to build the tunnels. So essentially what UNRWA does is it allows Hamas and other terrorist groups to not take on the responsibility of governing their own population and building a state.
UNRWA allows Palestinian leadership, even the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, to just focus on their war against Israel and not actually do the things that they would need to do to create a viable, functioning Palestinian state.
That then they could actually have a chance of, you know, they could then actually have a chance of that state being independent and universally recognized.
Tell us, there's one thing which came out, maybe the first time people did come across this term was earlier this year, or could be the end of last year, which was when a number of countries said they would cut funding or stop funding for UNRWA.
Tell us about that because that seemed to be a possible wake-up call, although I think most countries have now rolled back and said, no, they'll keep giving.
But there was, well, more than three months ago or whatever, a number of countries did say they had concerns.
Right. It's tough to, it's hard to even really follow what's going on because, you know, one country will say we're pausing funds, right?
And then a week later, you'll find out that they just released, you know, tens of millions to UNRWA and they'll say, oh, well, that was just leftover from like a previous contract or something.
And now going forward, we're not, and then, and every few years, the European Union will pause funds because of a report that comes out discussing exactly the things we've been talking about here.
And then they'll resume funding.
You know, I mean, Trump completely pulled out funding of, he stopped all funding of UNRWA.
We were giving, the US was giving about 300 million a year to UNRWA, which is about two thirds of its budget.
They have have over a billion dollars annually from all of the countries.
And just as an aside, the Gulf countries make up only about 7% of that budget.
So the burden falls on the US and the EU and Germany and the UK.
The UK gives about 40 million a year.
And so we are funding UNRWA. And Trump pulled out this funding.
He withdrew all of it in 2018 because he said it was the organization was irredeemably flawed.
And unless they completely reformed, there was no reason to be giving money to an entity that was perpetuating a conflict rather than helping to solve it.
Biden reversed that. Biden gets an office, you know, in 2021, he resumes funding.
I don't think it's, I don't think it's back to 300 million a year.
I think it's back to 150 million a year.
You know, and then recently, like you said, the Biden administration and some other countries said, we're going to pause funding.
You know, it might be paused for a few months here or there, but unless donor countries are prepared to permanently end funding, then I don't see any of these.
I see these more as kind of virtue signalling moves rather than any profound interest in helping solve this problem.
And I think I read that there were something like 60 refugee camps, I guess, run by UNRWA, supported by UNRWA.
Obviously, you've got Lebanon, then Syria, then down to Jordan.
And then half of them are, oh, they're in the West Bank and in Gaza.
So half of the refugee camps are in areas where they are free to live.
How do you have a refugee camp in your own country?
I'm confused. Please explain that to me.
I'm so glad you brought that up.
There's no way to explain this. I mean, this is absolutely absurd.
And it's such a tragedy that nobody has this thought that you just had, that people don't recognize, that people don't think to themselves, wait a second, why are there any refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank?
These are areas that would be part of a future Palestinian state.
These areas are Palestine, right?
And the West Bank areas, Area A and parts of Area B in the West Bank have complete autonomy.
I mean, Israel has no jurisdiction over Area A in the West Bank, and Israel has no jurisdiction over all of Gaza, right? Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005.
There's people who say it's occupied. They don't know what they're talking about. Who occupied?
There's no troops there. There's no Jews there. There's no Israelis there.
How can it be occupied, right?
People are now saying, oh, well, they still control the borders.
Well, okay, we can talk about that, but that's not occupation.
That would be correctly referred to as a blockade, right? But not an occupation.
So, I mean, you know, so if Gaza is completely independent, has their own government, they're not taxed by Israel, right?
Why are there still Palestinians in refugee camps? This makes no sense.
And again, it's because UNRWA keeps them there, stateless, in limbo, right?
And as an aside, let me just say that many of these camps, quote unquote, are not really camps at all.
A few of them are, okay? There are some camps that, and you see pictures of them and they're, they're not in, they're not really in great conditions.
But usually when you think of refugee camps, you think of tents, squatters.
Many of what UNRWA considers refugee camps are actually four or five story concrete buildings that have electricity, running water, kitchens, satellite TV, internet. Okay.
And Palestinians are living in these, in these buildings and they're still considered camps, but regardless.
So, so, you know.
Going back to the definition of a refugee, right, the UNHCR, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which deals with all the other refugees in the world, their definition clearly states that to be considered a refugee, you cannot be in the country that you supposedly were displaced from.
You have to be outside of the region, right?
But these millions of Palestinians that are living in the West Bank and Gaza, that is their home.
It's not like they would leave if they got a Palestinian state.
So they should not be considered refugees to begin with.
And yet they are.
Wow. And you've got, I think it was a beautiful interview clip I saw of Douglas Murray talking about, of course, the interviewer telling him how Israel is occupying Gaza and he was trying to work out what do you mean by occupation and the journalist then wanted to quickly move on but the other point was the Gaza Strip does border another country and that is Egypt.
I don't see any refugee camps in Egypt, obviously the Egyptian border and Gaza is fairly closed I mean there has been a lot of Israel have welcomed many, many of individuals living in Gaza to work in Israel.
And that's been back and forward. And by doing that, Israel shows itself to be a good neighbour, as long as you don't try and kill us.
That's the prerequisite, which we all have.
But it seems Egypt, that border doesn't seem to be very open for work.
And yet no one criticizes Egypt for having that blocked border.
Yep, which just goes to show the double standard when it comes to Israel.
The sole Jewish state in the world is held to a different standard than any other country.
Not only is the border between Egypt and Gaza closed, but since October 7th, Egypt has reinforced this border with tanks, right? Right. I mean, the block.
I mean, they have been adamant about not accepting a single Palestinian from Gaza after October 7th. Now, now think about that.
In any war, Israel is at war, right? There is a full fledged war happening in Gaza. In any other war the civilian population is allowed to leave. There are refugees that are produced.
This war has produced virtually no refugees.
Why?
It's because the Biden administration is not letting people leave.
Why? Because we don't want any Palestinians displaced from this war.
Oh, OK. So you just want to keep them in Gaza, right, at risk of being killed or at risk of, whether it's from Hamas or from Israel, right, at risk of starvation, at risk of losing their homes, right?
You just want to keep them trapped in this war-torn region?
That is cruel and inhumane.
Biden gives, the U.S. provides Egypt with, I want to say, is it one and a half million? It may even be more than that.
Egypt is the second largest recipient after Israel of U.S. aid.
Biden could so easily pressure Egypt to open the border and say, yo, you've got to let some of these Gazans in.
You're not in a very good position right now, okay?
Not a word from Biden, not one word.
And it's because this is all about images, the images that have to be portrayed, right? It's all about pressure on Israel.
Well, if Biden really cared about the Palestinians' casualties, about the growing Palestinian casualties, then you would think that the first thing that he would do is try to get the border with Egypt opened so that Palestinians could actually leave.
Biden doesn't care at all about the Palestinians, neither does Egypt, neither does UNRWA, neither does any other country, not in the Middle East, not in the West.
Since, I mean, 2005 was the last time Israel were in Gaza, and then they pulled out and obviously didn't do the job of finishing off Hamas and removing that external threat they face.
But since 2005 to last year, 7th of October, when the atrocity happened.
Was there no, you've got a better understanding because you're aware of this space, but surely that was the time for such organizations as UNRWA, for the world community.
For the EU, for the US to have conversations about what actually could happen now, supposedly, what could be the narrative, the people are now free of Israeli occupation so they can get on with actually building their country.
That doesn't seem to have happened and I'm wondering how, because in one way on one side I feel sorry for those, I even hesitate to call them Palestinians because I do have a massive issue with that, but we're talking to Robert Spencer about that next week, the Palestinian delusion, but that's a whole other issue but you kind of feel sorry for the people in one way but at the same time, hey you have got a government and if you don't like the government you have to overthrow it, that's what happened under communism all across eastern Europe, that supposedly was what the Arab spring was about, overthrowing government or leadership that you don't want and bringing a new one and yet those who Palestinians living in Gaza they seem to keep this government therefore kind of that does make you responsible for the the crimes the government does upon you and the crimes that the government may do on other countries and bring it on you so I've kind of come to a position where I look at the Palestinian people differently because I think, well.
You've kind of brought some of the misery upon yourself, if that's not being too cold and callous.
I don't mean that, but we're all responsible for what happens in our own countries.
There's a lot to unpack there. I think to a certain extent, you're right.
It's hard to really know how many Gazans or even Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank support Hamas.
There's been a lot of polls on this.
Some people say these polls are not to be trusted. If you call up a Gazan and say, do you support Hamas? Obviously they're going to say yes.
But what we do know is that they do enjoy some measurable, of some measure of of popular support.
There have been some protests over the years against Hamas, that Hamas has heavily cracked down on.
And I salute those Palestinian Arabs. They did that with great risk, you know, but it's nothing like Iran where you know, where you see since 2009 year after year, people rising up.
The mass is really rising up and protesting against their government. It's nothing like that.
And even these Palestinian Arabs in Gaza who are unhappy with Hamas, I think that not a lot of people understand that just because Palestinian Arabs support Hamas, I mean, don't support Hamas, doesn't mean they like Jews.
So there can be Palestinian Arabs who are very upset with Hamas because Hamas keeps them in these horrific economic conditions.
Now, actually, if you look at pictures of Gaza, they're very different than what the general media narrative is. The general media narrative is that this is a region that is the most densely populated region on earth. False.
That is just the whole thing is steeped in poverty and shacks everywhere.
False. there is such an incredible degree of luxury alongside poverty in Gaza because Hamas has created an incredible gap between the poor and the super rich.
So there are actually, there's a whole class of Gazans that really live a life of luxury.
And it really goes against this narrative of Gaza being some, you know, open air prison or what have you.
But I digress. In terms of Palestinian support for Hamas, it's very, very disturbing to have seen the level of complicity in October 7th among ordinary Gazans, right?
We know, like you said, there was about 20,000 Gazans that came to work in southern Israel virtually every single day, before October 7th, so much for it being a prison and blockaded, right?
You have 20,000 people leaving, coming to work every day in Israel.
And they were working in these kibbutzim. And these kibbutzim that were on October 7th were largely, the residents were largely left-wing peaceniks, right?
They really reached out. They sent an olive branch over to Gaza.
They wanted Gazans to come in and work. They thought that, you know, getting, because they would get paid a lot more in Israel, and then they'd be able to have more economic success in Gaza that would help the region grow and flourish.
Well, what we have found after October 7th is that many of these workers provided, they were complicit.
They provided maps to Hamas of where to attack.
Not only that, we saw troves of Palestinian civilians.
Barefoot and on horseback come through, break through the border on October 7th and actually carry out some of these attacks themselves, whether it was murder, whether it was taking them hostage, whether it was just coming and looting.
So these Israeli residents of these kibbutzim, after October 7th, a lot of them, you've heard them discuss how they have completely changed their views.
They thought that it was really just Hamas is the government and the people are different from their government, much like in Iran, where the regime is not supported by the masses and enjoys minority support among the population.
And that's what people thought about Gaza.
And now that has just largely been questioned.
And we see that there is a level of support that maybe people weren't really prepared to admit before.
And polls have shown that if there were to be an election that was held in the West Bank, I mean, one of the reasons why, you know, Mahmoud Abbas is a dictator, he hasn't held elections.
He's the president of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and he hasn't had elections in, what is it, 15 years now since he was elected?
And one of the reasons, even though it was supposed to be a four-year term, and one of the reasons is because poll after poll shows that Hamas would win in the West Bank.
So, yeah, I mean, I think that, look, it's not surprising.
When you have half a million Palestinians that are indoctrinated in their schools, in their mosques, on state TV, right, in higher education, when they are indoctrinated to believe that they are perpetual victims, that Jews are evil, that they are irredeemably impure, filthy sons of apes and pigs.
When you are indoctrinated to believe that Hitler was righteous, when you are indoctrinated, when the protocols of the elders of Zion and Mein Kampf are still in display cases in bookshops throughout this region.
Then why wouldn't you support Hamas? I mean, these kids don't stand a chance and kids have been interviewed.
There have been videos that show kids that are in UNRWA schools being interviewed and they say things like, we are taught to believe that the Jews are bad, right? I mean, it's black and white.
There's no grey area here. It's very clear that there is systemic anti-Semitism, that it really has to do with Jews, not so much Israel, that this is a holy religious war, and that the issue is fundamentally not about two states, but about the Palestinian leadership's refusal to accept a non-Muslim sovereign in the region.
That is what what it comes down to.
Just finishing off it's obviously if any of us were overseeing the UN the first requirement for funding going in would be have a government that actually you can work with and if you have someone like Hamas you can can't give a penny, obviously there'll be massive demands for huge increases of money to go in, probably like we've seen in the crazy amount amount spent in Ukraine, I could imagine demands for that money now to be switched over to Gaza.
But of course, with those refugee camps outside.
If I was Nenyao, personally, I would just say, well, we're going to get buses.
We're going to bring you all to your other refugee camps in Jordan, in Syria, in Lebanon.
And actually, we'll turn Gaza into a nice area that actually may be a national park or something.
And therefore, the people still get to live in the refugee camp in an area.
But you kind of think, well, there has to be a way forward. How do you see?
Because this war will come to an end.
Either by the time Israel achieve its objective of destroying Hamas or by the time the world's PR machine forces Israel to stop. It'll be one or the other.
And at that point, there'll have to be a conversation.
What do you do with this problem that we have next door?
And I don't know how you see, not that you have a crystal ball, but I don't know how you kind of see that conversation going and whether it's going to end up in a better situation than where we currently are.
Right. What you're talking about is the day after, right?
This is a term that a lot of people have used when talking about the Gaza war, which in my opinion is a little premature.
We don't usually talk about the day after a war when we're in the middle of a war, but people seem to be obsessed with this idea that Israel is going to reoccupy Gaza and then everybody's going to be up in arms about this.
But let's be clear about one thing. This is not Ukraine. This is no stalemate.
OK. And if not for the Biden administration, this war would have been over weeks ago.
OK. Israel has won.
They've done a tremendous job. They've been incredibly successful at achieving, largely achieving their goals.
Right. though they haven't retained the hostages. But Hamas is, I think, two-thirds of their military apparatus is just completely reduced to nothing.
And Israel has one last stronghold, basically major stronghold, Rafah, right?
And this is where a lot of the Palestinian Arabs, the Gazans, have been moved, right?
And so if Israel can take out Rafah, and this is also where they believe the hostages are, where Yaha Simwar is, the head of Hamas, the war will pretty much be over.
And then the process of what I call de-Hamasification, just like the de-Nazification of Germany after World War II, then needs to commence.
But Biden has put a red light on Israel and is refusing to let Israel to take out Rafah, right?
He doesn't want more casualties.
So Biden is, with pressure from other countries, but mainly the Biden administration is prolonging this war and not letting it be won, which it could be won very swiftly.
And also, let's just let's just be clear when I say Israel has been largely successful in their goals.
I'm even taking into account the large number of Palestinian refugees, because even though people are going on about the fact that there have been tens of thousands of, sorry, Palestinian casualties. Did I say refugees?
But people are going on about how there's been 30,000 Palestinian casualties. And that's outrageous.
But actually, if you look at the casualty count in any comparable conflict in the history of modern urban warfare, the combatant to civilian ratio is unheard of.
The amount of restraint and precision that Israel has exercised cannot be said of any other army in the history of warfare, okay?
If you average out the general civilian to combatant ratio, it's usually about nine to one when you're dealing with modern urban warfare, meaning for every one combatant or enemy soldier, terrorist that you kill, nine civilians die.
This is how it's been in past conflicts, taking out ISIS or whatever in modern warfare.
Israel has managed to achieve, especially in this war, a two to one or even in some cases a one to one ratio.
Because what that 30,000 casualty number doesn't tell you is that roughly half of them are Hamas fighters, right?
But people, but the media loves to rely on the Palestinian health ministry, the Gaza health ministry for these numbers as if it's not completely 100% in arm of Hamas, right? Right. Like it's so insane.
Like would we trust like Al Qaeda's numbers? Right. Or like ISIS's numbers.
And yet everybody just accepts Hamas's numbers, even though this 30,000, this number of 30,000 does not mention any Hamas fighters.
Not once have they included Hamas fighters in this number.
They just say that the majority are women and children, but there have been incredible analyses done of this number that have shown how bogus and how problematic it is, even from just a statistical standpoint.
But yeah, so I mean, Israel's done a tremendous job of minimizing casualties.
But in terms of the day after, there really can only be one answer to this, and that is is that for some period of time, Israel needs to maintain control, security control of this region, right?
After World War II, after Germany, after Nazi Germany was defeated, we did not just pull out and just like, okay, you're left to your own devices.
No, there was a denazification process to reform the entire society so that the civilian population could be raised on tolerance and peace.
And that is what needs to happen here. That cannot be done by the United Nations.
We've already seen how corrupt UNWRA is. But even just other UN agencies cannot be, despite what everybody is saying, the UN is not equipped to be in control in Gaza.
If you look at the history of UN peacekeeping missions, especially in that region, every single one has been an abysmal failure in Lebanon, in Syria, in Egypt.
It's just, I mean, Eugene Kontorovich, Professor Eugene Kontorovich has documented this extensively and provided massive evidence for why this is just a recipe for disaster and for Hamas regrouping and taking power, if not, another organization that's equally as religiously, extreme and violent.
So it can't be the UN. It can't be the Palestinian Authority because the Palestinian Authority is virtually the same as Hamas.
The only difference is that because Israel has a presence in parts of the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority isn't able to carry out October 7th, you know, October 7th like attack, even though they have said that they would want to, even though members of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority have have praised the attacks.
Members of Fatah actually participated in the attack and they have been very supportive.
So, you know, and we had seen that when in 2005, when Israel pulled out and they thought that the PLO, which was the precursor to the Palestinian Authority, was going to be in charge there.
Well, they didn't do a very good job because Hamas came, Hamas was elected and then they purged the strip of the, of their their Fatah rivals, and the same would happen.
The PA is just, it's just an incompetent apparatus to keep that region secure.
So unfortunately, although Israel doesn't want to be in control of over a million Gazans, Israel needs to maintain a presence there for security purposes and really transform that region so that something like October 7th can never happen again.
Well, I'm still up for a national park there, but that's a different discussion.
Karys, thank you so much for coming on. Fascinating, that whole understanding of UNRWA, of that refugee situation, which is probably an eye-opener to many of our viewers and fits perfectly into the current situation that we find in Israel. So thank you so much for your time today.
Thank you so much for having me. It's been great.

The Week According To . . . Matt Le Tissier

We roll out the red carpet for the return of the freedom fighter and football legend Matt Le Tissier to give his thoughts on some of the headlines and talking points from the news, social media and from across the web.Plenty for Matt and Peter to get their teeth stuck into including...- How many more before you investigate? 3 footballers collapse on live TV in one week.- Vile Irish PM Leo Varadkar jumps off the sinking Irish coalition ship.- Amish Officially Declared ‘World’s Healthiest Children’ After Rejecting Big Pharma Vaccines.- Fury as Nike adds a ultra-woke 'Playful Update' and changes colours of the on St George's cross England shirts.- Chair of Dorset & Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Authority gets quizzed on why she agrees her force is ‘institutionally racist’.- "We need to protect their innocence and childhood" British MP speaks sense on sex education.- Network Rail removes Islamic message on King's Cross display boards after fierce criticism.- Clown World News: Sunbathing for just one day ‘increases your risk of killer heart disease and wrecks your immune system.
Matt Le Tissier is a bona fide football legend, often described as one of the most naturally talented players of his time, the man that south coast residents call ‘Le God’ and one of the most famous soccer stars of the 1990's.Matt joined Southampton FC on the YTS scheme in 1985, signed professional forms with them the following year at 16 years of age and for the next 16 years he put loyalty above riches and remained at the club.A hero to his fans for his creativity, he was the first midfielder to score 100 goals in the Premier League and Matt's penalty taking abilities were renowned, converting 47 out of 48 from the spot.Then for 15 years he was on our TV screens every week on Sky Sports giving his commentary on the Premier League football matches.This all came to a screeching halt when he tweeted his thoughts on the Ukraine/Russia conflict, refused to wear a badge on-air of an organisation he had no interest in being associated with and also retweeting a post that questioned the government line on COVID.These actions were apparently outside the accepted new-speak and for these crimes he was sacked.
Connect with 'Le God'...WEBSITE                    mlt7.com/X                                 mattletiss7?s=20  @mattletiss7
Recorded 22.3.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE                     heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS                 heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA           heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                           heartsofoak.org/shop/
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on X https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
Links to topics...Footballers collapsing https://x.com/mattletiss7/status/1770465809539715349?s=20Leo Varadkarhttps://x.com/ScottyGoesAgain/status/1770434114619154743?s=20Amish Big Pharma https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/amish-officially-declared-worlds-healthiest-children-after-rejecting-big-pharma-vaccinesNike Englandhttps://x.com/Joey7Barton/status/1771099146197270661?s=20https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13223663/England-football-kit-Euro-2024-Nike-St-Georges-Cross.htmlInstitutionally racisthttps://x.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1770408927949185170?s=20Sex educationhttps://x.com/andreajenkyns/status/1769777218828239189?s=20Network Rail Islamic message https://www.gbnews.com/news/network-rail-removes-islamic-message-kings-cross-display-boards-fierce-criticismSunbathing https://www.thesun.co.uk/health/26803492/sunbathing-increases-risk-heart-disease-wrecks-immune-system/

John Waters - Humiliation for the Corrupt Irish Government as the People Say No

Last week the Irish people delivered a blow to the corrupt Irish government. They voted an overwhelming No to a referendum that would have redefined family and women. The proposed referenda altering the nation’s constitution enjoyed the support of Ireland’s elites, but the attempt to embed woke values in it has backfired.The Government asked voters to remove the word 'mother' from the Constitution and they answered with a resounding No. They also rejected by a huge margin the attempt to foist the extremely nebulous term "durable relationships" on the Constitution.The government worked in conjunction with every political party and legacy media outlet to tell and coerce the people into accepting these changes. The people refused. John Waters returns to Hearts of Oak to analyse why this referendum was proposed and what the rejection means, not only for the government but for the people of Ireland.
John Waters is an Irish Thinker, Talker, and Writer. From the life of the spirit of society to the infinite reach of rock ‘n’ roll; from the puzzle of the human ‘I’ to the true nature of money; from the attempted murder of fatherhood to the slow death of the novel, he speaks and writes about the meaning of life in the modern world.He began part-time work as a journalist in 1981, with Hot Press, Ireland’s leading rock ‘n’ roll magazine and went full-time in 1984, when he moved from the Wild West to the capital, Dublin. As a journalist, magazine editor and columnist, he specialised from the start in raising unpopular issues of public importance, including the psychic cost of colonialism and the denial of rights to fathers under what is called family 'law'. He was a columnist with The Irish Times for 24 years when being Ireland's premier newspaper still meant something. He left in 2014 when this had come to mean diddly-squat, and drew the blinds fully on Irish journalism a year later.Since then, his articles have appeared in publications such as First Things, frontpagemag.com, The Spectator, and The Spectator USA. He has published ten books, the latest, Give Us Back the Bad Roads (2018), being a reflection on the cultural disintegration of Ireland since 1990, in the form of a letter to his late father.
Connect with John...SUBSTACK              johnwaters.substack.com/WEBSITE:                anti-corruptionireland.com/
Recorded 18.3.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on X https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
TRANSCRIPT
(Hearts of Oak)
 
And it's wonderful to have John Waters join us once again from Ireland.John, thanks so much for your time today.
(John Waters)
Thank you, Peter. Pleasure to be with you. 
Great to have you on.It was ages ago, goodness, talking about immigration. That was a good 18 months ago.Always good to have you on. And people can follow you, on your Substack, johnwaters.substack.com.That's where they can get all your writings.You've got one of your latest ones, I think, Beware the Ides of March, part one. Do you just want to mention that to give people a flavour of what they can find on your Substack?Yeah, it's a short series. I don't know. I think it's going to be probably two, maybe three articles.I have several other things that are kind of related to it. It's really the story of whathappened, what has been happening since four years ago really, as opposed to whatthey told us, what happened, what we've been talking about.It's essentially, this was not about your health. It was about your wealth, and that's the message so I go through that in terms of itsmeanings. And in the first part which has just gone up last night; it's really about the the way that the the predator class the richest of the rich in the world are essentially.Coming to the end of their three-card trick which has been around now for 50 years.Which is the money systems that emerge after the untethering of currencies from the gold standard.And that's essentially been a balloon that's been expanding, expanding, expanding, and it's about to blow. They're trying to control that explosion.But essentially, their mission is to ensure that, not a drop of their wealth is spilt in whatever happens, right?And that everybody else will lose everything, pretty much. They don't care about that. In fact, that's part of their wish.And so it's that really what I'm kind of talking about and how that started.We now know that the beginnings of what is called COVID were nothing to do with a virus.There was a bulletin issued by Black Rock on the 15th of August 2019, Assumption Day in the Christian calendar, which is the day that the body of our Blessed Virginwas assumed and received into heaven.But, the word assumption has lots of other meanings.I think there was a lot of that at play on that particular day when they were assumingthe right to dictate to the world what its future should be.That was really the start of it. And then the COVID lockdowns and all of that flowed inexorably.There's a lot of stuff we could go into, but we won't. I don't think about vaccines and all the rest of it. They're part of that story.But the central part was that this was completely fabricated and completely engineered and it was a fundamental attack on human freedom in the west particularly.And has been largely successful so far but, now as I think we're goingto talk about it, in Ireland there's beginning to be that little bit of a pushback.I'm hopeful now.Well, obviously I've really enjoyed your your writings on Substack.I don't have the patience for the writing, but you are a writer a journalist and that is your bread and butter.People obviously can support you financially on Substack if they want to do thatafter reading your writings.Let's go into Ireland: we saw this referendum and it's interesting.We'll get into some of the comments on it, but really there were two parts of this referendum and it was focusing on family and the woman's position or the mother's position.Do you want to just let us know how this referendum came about?OK, well, first of all, you've got to see it in its context, which is in a series of attacks on the Irish Constitution going back.Going back, you could say 30 years. It depends in the context of the European Union and the various referendums that we had about that, the Nice Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, in which the Irish people were basically told when they voted ‘no’, that's the wrong answer.You're going to have to think again, and you're going to have to vote again.And they did, and it passed, because they were just bullied into doing it. In the past decade or so, a dozen years, we've had three critical referendums which attacked, the Irish Constitution which has a series of fundamental rights articles right in the centre of it, articles 40 to 44.That's been informally called by judges over the years: the Irish Bill of Rights, which is all the personal fundamental rights, all the rights that derive essentially from natural law in the greater number of them.That, in other words, they're inalienable, imprescriptible, they are antecedent.They're not generated by the Constitution or indeed by the people. Certainly not by the government or anybody else.So, now there was an attack on Article 41 in 2012, which was purportedly to put in children's rights into the Constitution.That was completely bogus because it was a successful attempt attempt to transfer parental rights to the state.That's what it was when you look closely at it. And I was fighting all these referendums.Then in 2015, we had the so-called gay marriage or the marriage referendum.Which essentially, people don't really get this; they talk about Ireland having legalised gay marriage.No, no, we didn't. That's not what we did. We actually destroyed marriage by putting gay marriage as an equivalent concept in our constitution.And then there was the infamous Eighth Amendment referendum in 2018, which was to take out an amendment which had been put in some 40 years before, 30 yearsbefore, in 1983, to guarantee, to, as it were, copper fasten the right to life of the unborn child.And there's a very subtle point that needs to be made about this, not very subtle really, but legally it is, which is that this was an unlawful referendum because this was one of those inalienable, imprescriptible rights.Even though the article in which it was couched on was only introduced in 1983, andall it was, was a kind of a reminder, that these rights exist, because these rights already exist as unenumerated rights.
And as a result of that the referendum was actually unlawful and should never havetaken place, because the Irish people had no right to vote down the rights of a section of its own population.Which was the unborn children waiting to emerge into the world to live their lives in peace and whatever would come their way in that life.But nevertheless, to have a law, to have essentially an illegal, unlawful law, quote unquote, created that prevented them from even entering this world.It seemed to me to be the greatest abomination that has ever happened in our country.So, this was a continuation of this. There are different theories about what it was about.There were two amendments, as you said, Peter.The second one that you mentioned was the mother in the home.And this was a guarantee to women, to mothers, that they would be protected from having to go out, if they wished, to go out into the workplace and work.And if they wanted to mind their children, then the state would take care of them.It's not specific, but nevertheless, it placed on the state a burden of responsibility to give women this choice.Now, of course, the government and its allies, its proxies, try to say that it's really an attack on women, that it says there are places in the home, this kind of caricaturing of the wording and so on.In fact, it's nonsense because there's another article, Article 45, which explicitly mentions the right of women to have occupations in the public domain and to go and work and earn a living for themselves.So, this was a complete caricature. And I think people understood that.The other one then was a redefinition of the family, which is Article 41.Again, all of this is 41, which defines the family, always has, as being based on marriage.That has been the source of some dissension over the years, some controversy, because more and more families were outside marriage, as it were.There were small F families, as it were, rather than a big F family, as arises in the Constitution.And they claimed to be sorting this out. But of course, they weren't sorting it out at all.When you actually catalogued the various categories of family who might theoretically benefit from such a change, none of them were benefiting at all.I went through this microscopically in the course of the campaign several times onvideos and so on. So, really what it was, was to leverage the progressive vote, I think.That was one object, to get people excited again.They were getting nostalgic for 2015 and 2018 because they were becoming more and more popular. That was certainly one aspect.But, there were other aspects, which is that they were introducing into the constitution, or supposedly, that along with marriage, that also would be included something called durable relationships.And they refused or were unable to define what this meant.The result of it is that there were all kinds of proposals and suggestions that it might well mean, for example, polygamy, that it might mean the word appear durable appears in European law in the context of immigration.There was a very strong suspicion, which the government was unable to convincingly deny, that this was a measure that they needed to bring in in order to make way for what they call family reunification, so that if one person gets into Ireland, they can then apply to have their entire families brought in after them.That's already happening, by the way, without this.They say that something like an average of 20 people will follow anybody who gets in and gets citizenship of Ireland.They bring something like an average of 20 people with them afterwards.So this was another aspect of it. There were many, many theories posited about it.But one thing for sure was that the government was lying literally every day about it,trying to present this progressive veneer.And more and more, what was really I think staggering in the end in a certain sense, was that the people not alone saw it in a marginal way, they saw it in an overwhelming way, this was the start, I mean I don't think a single person, myself included predicted that we would have a 70-30 or whatever it was roughly, 3-1 result.For now, I mean, that was really miraculous and I've said to people that it was actually a kind of loaves and fishes that it was greater than the sum of all its parts, greater than anything that we thought was possible.It was like a miracle that all of the votes just keep tumbling out, tumbling out, no, no, no, no, no.And I've been saying that that no actually represents much more than what it might technically read as a response to the wording that was on the ballot paper, that it was really, I think, the expression of something that we hadn't even suspected was there, Because for four years now, the Irish people have labored under this tyranny of, you know, really abuse of power by the government, by the police force, by the courts.And a real tyranny that is really, I think, looks like it's getting its feet under the table for quite a long haul.And accompanied by that, there was what I call this concept, this climate of mutism, whereby people weren't able any longer to discuss certain things in public for fear that they would get into trouble, because this was very frequently happening.I mean, since the marriage referendum of 2015, Before that, for about a year, the LGBTgoons went on the streets and ensured that everybody got the message that we weren't allowed to talk about things that they had an interest in.And anybody who did was absolutely eviscerated, myself included, and was cancelled or demonised or whatever.That has had a huge effect on Irish culture, a culture that used to be very argumentative and garrulous, has now become almost paranoid, and kind of, you have this kind of culture of humming and hawing.If you get involved in a conversation with somebody and you say something that is even maybe two or three steps removed from a controversial issue, they willimmediately know it and clam up.This has been happening now in our culture right across the country.When you think about it, I've been saying in the last week that actually for all its limitations, locations, the polling booth, that corner of the room in which the votesare being cast with the little table and the pencil and a little bit of a curtain in some instances, but even not, there's a kind of a metaphorical curtain.And that became the one place in Ireland that you could overcome your mutism, that you could put your mark on that paper and do it convincingly and in a firm hand.And I think that's really the meaning of it, that it was a no, no, no, no, no to just about everything that this government and its proxies have been trying to push over on Ireland for the last few years, including the mass immigration, essential replacement of the Irish population, including the vaccines, which really have killed now in Ireland something like 20,000 people over the past three years.I would say a conservative enough estimate not to mention the injuries of people; the many people who are ill now as a result of this and then of course we have the utterly corrupt media refusing to discuss any of this and to put out all kinds of misdirection concerning.John, can I just say, there's an interesting line in one of the articles on this.It said the scale of rejection spelled humiliation for the government, but also opposition parties and advocacy groups who had united to support a yes, yes vote. Tell us about that. It's not just the government, well the government is made up obviously of the three parties, the unholy alliance, of Fianna Fáil, Fianna Gael and, sorry, what was the other?
The Green Party. 
Sorry, the Greens. 
The Green Party are a fairly traditional element in Irish politics, not so much in theideology, but in the idea of the small party, because they're They're the tail that wagsthe dog.They have all the ideological ideas. The main parties have virtually no ideology whatsoever.Like they've been just catch-all parties for a century or whatever their existence has been.But yes, that idea, you see, what we've noticed increasingly over the last, say, 10, 15 years, particularly I think since 2011, we had an election that year, which I think was a critical moment in Irish life, when in fact everything seemed to change.We didn't notice it at the time, but moving on from that, it became clear that something radical had happened in the ruins of Irish culture, as it were, both spellings actually.And so, as we moved out from that, it became clear that really there was no opposition anymore.That all the parties were just different shades or different functions within a singular Ideology.Like the so-called left parties were, it's not that they would be stating the thing.They would sort of, they would become almost like the military wing of the mainstream parties, enforcing their diktats on the streets.If people went to protest about something outside the Houses of Parliament, the Leinster House, these people would up and mount a counter protest against them and call them all kinds of names.Like Nazis and white supremacists, all this nonsense, which has no place in Irish culture whatsoever.It is a kind of a uni-party, as they say, is the recent term for it.But, my own belief is that actually this is a somewhat distraction in the sense that we shouldn't anymore be looking at individual parties because, in fact, all of them are captured from outside.And the World Economic Forum is basically dictating pretty much everything that everybody thinks now.I mean, our so-called Taoiseach, God help us, I hate to call him that because it's an honourable title.It's a sacred title to me. And to have this appalling creep going swaggering around claiming that title for himself, it seems it's one of the great obscenities of of modern Ireland.But he, Brad Kerr.He is a member of the World Economic Forum. So is Martin, the leader of Fianna Fáil.They've been switching over the Taoiseach role for the last four years.Yeah, because that's quite strange. I mean, many of our viewers will not be from Ireland and will be surprised at the confusion system you have where they just swap every so often, because the three of them are in cahoots.That's the completely new thing. That's never happened before.But what it's about, you see, those two parties are the Civil War parties. Civil War back in 1922.Those parties grew out of it, and they became almost equivalent in popularity.They represented in some ways the divide of that Civil War.And for the best part of 100 years, they were like the main, they were the yin and yang.They were the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the political system.And gradually, in the last 30, 40 years, the capacity of either of those parties to win an overall majority has dwindled and basically disappeared, evaporated.So now they need smaller parties. And that's been true for about 30 years.And as I say, what actually happens then is that the smaller party, no matter how small, if it's big enough to actually make the difference numerically, then it has the power to take over certain areas of policy in which the big parties have no interest whatsoever.And that's how you get things like migration, because they don't care about that.That's how you get social welfare policies, all that kind of stuff.This is kind of what's happened in the last, particularly since 2020, where there was a complete unanimity.I could name, with the fingers of one hand, the people in the parliament, a total of over200 people in between the two houses, that who actually have stood up and actually in in any way acquitted themselves decently in the last four years.The rest have just been nodding donkeys and going along with this great tyranny against the Irish people and the contempt that Radcliffe and his cronies show for the Irish people.Literally, almost like to the point of handing out straws and saying, suck it up, suck it up, suck it up.And this is where we are now, that our democracy has been taken away, for sure.I mean, that last week was a really a bit of a boost but that was only because they couldn't fix that.It was a referendum and they couldn't possibly predict what the turnout would be in order to ready up the votes in advance but I have no doubt that they would be trying torectify that they're giving votes now to in local elections which we have to every immigrant who comes into Ireland so by the time that the Irish people get to the polls it'll all be over.These are people who don't even know how to spell the name of the country they're in many cases and this This is what's happening.The contempt these people have shown for our country is beyond belief.It is dizzying. It is nauseating.But the Irish people are told to shut up. And of course, the media, without which none of this will be possible, by the way.I mean, if we had decent, honest media, they would be calling the government out every day. But they're not.And so it remains to be seen now what effect this will have.I don't have any confidence that it's going to put any manners on this government because they are beyond arrogant, beyond traitorous, beyond redemption in my view.But at the same time, there is a possibility that in the next elections, we have three elections coming up now in the next year, in the next few months, actually, I would say,almost certainly.Well, we know for sure there's the European elections, European Parliament elections, and the local local elections are happening in June.Then there's a very strong probability that the general election will take place sometime in the autumn because it has to happen before this time next year.And of course, the longer they leave it, the less flexibility and wiggle room they'll have in order because, events, dear boy, events can take over and they don't want to do, they don't like events, you know.I think what will be very interesting then is will something emerge in these elections, which would, if you like, will be a kind of an equivalent to that no box on toilet paper in the form of independence, perhaps, or in the form of some form of new movement, some actual spontaneous voice of the Irish people might well be something that could happen.I hope so. And I feel so as well.I think that this is the moment that it happened before, Peter, back in 2011, when there was the really appalling events that happened in the wake of the economic meltdown, when the troika of the IMF, the World Bank and the European Commission, three entities, arrived as a kind of a coalition or a coalition.A kind of a joint policing visitation, shall we say, to basically take possession of Irish economic sovereignty.And that was a great humiliation, a moment of extraordinary sorrow and grief and rage in the Irish people.And that moment, I think, if you lit a match in Ireland at that time, the whole place would have gone up.But, what happened then was a bogus movement started and pretended that it was going to go and lead an alternative movement against these cretins, these cretinous thugs and traitors who are the mainstream parties.And instead, then at the very last minute, they blocked the hallway, as Bob Dylan said, they stood in the doorway, they blocked up the hall, and nobody could go through until the very last moment when they stepped aside.said they weren't going to run, and ushered in Mr. Enda Kenny, who became possibly the greatest destroyer in Irish history since Oliver Cromwell.Yeah. When I grew up in the 80s with Gareth Fitzgerald and Charles Hawkey back Fianna Gael, Fianna Fáil, there did seem to be a choice.And now it seems to be that there isn't really a choice for the voters and they've come together.Is that a fair assessment of where Ireland are?Yes, 100%, Peter. But, I think it's very important to, whereas we can go into the whole walk thing, as these parties are now, fixated with woke, contaminated with it.They're saturated with this nonsense and really assiduously pushing it.But I always remind people that none of this is spontaneous, that woke is not a spontaneous, naturalistic movement from the people or even any people.Of course, there are people pushing it, but they're just useful idiots.This has been, this is top-down, manipulation of an orchestration of our democracies. And it's happening everywhere now.These massive multibillionaires pumping money into this, into basically destructive political elements, Antifa, the LGBT goons, and so on and so on.Terrorist groups, essentially. Let's not mess around.They're terrorist groups. And using these to batter down the democratic structures of Western countries. That's what's happening.And you see, the people that we are looking at who are the puppets.They're the quokka-wodgers, I call them.That's the name for them, actually, the quokka-wodgers, people who are simply like wooden puppets of the puppet masters.They're filling space, placeholders.They're indistinguishable. It doesn't matter. I mean, rotating the role of Taoiseach is irrelevant because essentially, you could just have a showroom dummy sitting on the chair for the full four years.It doesn't matter who it is, except the only difference it makes is that the quality of the dribble that emerges from the mouths of Martin and Varadkar is somewhat variegated in the sense that, Varadkar is capable of saying the most disgusting things because he has no knowledge of Ireland. He's half Irish.He's an Irish mother and an Indian father. He has no love for Ireland whatsoever.He did a speech there the other day, apparently in America, where he was saying that St. Patrick was a single male immigrant.Nobody, I think, at the meeting where he said it, had the temerity to point out to him that actually St.Patrick was a victim of people traffickers.And that's exactly what's happening now. He's their principal ally in the destruction of Ireland.Well, how does that fit? Because interesting comment about Varadkar's background, his parents Indian. We, of course, here in the UK and England, it's the same with Sunak.And then in Wales, you've just got the new first minister.I think was born in Zambia, I think, Africa.And then, of course, you've got in Scotland and in London, Pakistani heritage.You kind of look around. And I think my issue is not necessarily that you've got that different background.My issue is the lack of integration and understanding of what it means to be this culture and this community and a lack of understanding.I think that's where Varadkar seems to have torn up the rule book and what it means to be Irish and wants to rewrite it.Oh, well, they're actively saying now that really there's no such thing as Irish culture and that, the people who live in Ireland, those people have been here for hundreds or maybe thousands of years.That they have no particular claim on this territory.Trade.This is something that the great Irish patriot, Wulff Tone, mourned about.He said, this country of ours is no sandbag.It's an ancient land honoured into antiquity by its valor, its piety, and its suffering.That's forgotten. People like Varadkar don't know the first thing about this and care less.They're like Trudeau in Canada, a completely vacant space, empty-headed.Narcissists, egomaniacs psychopaths.They are. And they are and traitors like they are really doing things now.I did a stream last week; there was somebody in America in Utah, and I was saying in the headline, I found myself saying this that what is happening cannot possibly be happening.That's really the way all of us feel now that this is like just something surreal real, that is beyond comprehension, because it wasn't possible for us to forget, to predict.That a person could be elected into the office of Taoiseach, who would be automatically a traitor, who would have no love for Ireland.It seemed to be axiomatic that in order to get there, you wanted to care, you had to care and love Ireland.These people have no love for Ireland. They are absolutely the enemies of Ireland now.You mentioned the two other referendums that happened or in effect on same-sex marriage and life or the lack of sanctity of life and those went through this this hasn't.Does that mean there is a growing resentment with the government.Is it a growing opposition and desire for conservative values where kind of is that coming from I know it's probably difficult to analyze it because this just happened a week ago but what are your thoughts on that?It's difficult. It's difficult because there are different explanations going around.I can only tell you what I believe, and it's based on just observation over a long time.I believe that it is.I've been saying,  for the last two years about Ireland in this context.That the Irishman, Paddy, as he's called, and we don't mind him being called that.You can imagine him sitting in the pub, in a beautiful sunny evening.The shadows of the setting sun coming across the bar.Oh, I'm dreaming that. I can have this picture in my mind, John.
And he's got a dazzle, as we say, a dashing of beer, and he's sticking it away.And then there's a couple of young fellas there, and they start messing, pushing around and maybe having a go at some of the women in the bar or whatever.And Paddy will sit there for a long time, and he'll sort of have a disapproving look but he won't say anything, but there will be a moment and I call it: the kick the chair moment.When he will just reef the chair from under him and he will get up and he'll get one of those guys and he'll have him slapped up against the wall and he will tell him the odds.That's the moment I think we've arrived at, that all of the contempt all of the hatred, these people go on about introducing hate speech law there is nobody in Ireland that is more hateful than the government towards its own people.100 percent. The most hateful government, I think, in the world at this point.They are abysmal. They're appalling.So, this is the moment when I think people took that in. They took it in.They took it in. We suck it up. OK.But then one day they said, no, no more.And that's what happened on Friday week, last Friday, Friday week.That's what happened because, you can push people so far.A lot of this has to do with Ireland's kind of inheritance of post-colonial self-hatred, whereby they can convince us that we're white supremacists, even though we have no history of slavery or anything like that, except being slaves ourselves, our ancestors being slaves.But there is, as Franz Fallon wrote about many years ago, back in the 50s, the pathologies that infect a country that's been colonized are such as to weaken them in a terrible way in the face of the possibility of independence, that they cannot stand up for themselves. And you can see this now.I mean, all over Irish culture now on magazines, on hoardings, in television advertisements, there's nothing but black faces.You would swear that Ireland was an African country.This is part of the gaslighting, that attack that has been mounted against the Irish people.And people, Irish people, you see genuinely because they don't.They don't understand what's happening because the word racist is a kind of a spell word, which is used, I call it like a, like it's like a cattle prod, and as soon as you say something, and a big space opens up around you because nobody wants to be near somebody who's a racist.But in fact, we need to begin to understand that these are just words and sticks and stones and so on.If we allow this to happen it means that we will lose our metaphysical home that our children and our grandchildren will be homeless in the world that's what's going to happen, because it's already clear from a lot of these people who are coming in that they're shouting the odds and saying that basically Irish people just better get up and leave their own country, because they're not welcome anymore.These are outsiders who've been here a wet weekend.They're being trained in this you asked me.I forgot to mention this thing Ireland has something like 35,000 NGOs 35,000 Wow 
And and these people, in other words they're non-governmental organization.what's a non-government at mental organization?That's a government which works that's in organization which works for thegovernment, but pretends not to.Ireland has been governed now to non-government mental organizations and these people are bringing in these foreigners and they're training them.They're coaching them how to attack the Irish people, how to make a claim on Ireland.I read an article somebody sent me last week where some guy who came here from Chechnya, and he was saying how great it was that you could come to Ireland and become Irish within hours.Whereas, you could never become Japanese or Chinese, which, of course, is true.I mean, if I went to Japan, I think it would take about 10,000 years before a relation of mine might be Japanese. And rightly so.Rightly so. There's nothing racist about that. That's just the way things are.That's every country, including the African countries, want to uphold their own ethnicity, integrity and nationhood.Why the hell can Ireland not do the same?It seems we can't. And our own government telling us and our own media is telling us that we can't.Some background, there were 160 members in the Dáil of the Irish Parliament and the government is 80.I was quite surprised at that, because you talk about a government wanting extra seats to get a bigger majority, but it seems though you look who's the opposition and you've got Sinn Féin and they are even more captured by the woke agenda than anyone.So you kind of look; it's kind of the government are rubbing it in people's noses, because they don't actually need a majority or a big majority, because everyone else seems to be fitting into this agenda.
Yeah, that's a really important point, Peter. It's really important because, you see, what happened in 2020 is really instructive.We had an election in 2020 in February. I actually ran myself.The only time in my life I've ever run for an election because things were looking so bad.I ran in the worst constituency in Ireland, actually, Dundee, which is the only constituency which voted yes in this referendum.So, that'll just show you how demoralised I was, let's say.But, what happened then was that the government, outgoing government, was basically hammered.Varadkar for government were hammered.There was a standoff for for several months when there was negotiations and then something happened that was totally, not likely but each of the parties Fianna Gael, and Fianna Fáil, in the previous election and for years, and decades, before that has said that they would never ever ever coalesce with the other.Then they did.What we had then was from from from February through until late June of that year:we had Radcliffe running a kind of a caretaker government in the period when the most draconian and radical and unprecedented laws were introduced into Irish society.Nothing like them ever before, the COVID laws. And then in July, Martin, they went into coalition then, and we had Martin, Fianna Fáil and Fianna Gael in coalition doing the same thing, implementing the same policies without question.And anybody who did question, as I did, and others, we got hammered and treated like dirt in the courts, in the media, you name it.That's the thing; those parties, they know that no matter what happens, they can rig up the arithmetic.That there's nothing for further.There's nowhere as things stand unless you get a huge tranche of independents who have the power to nullify whatever power these small parties will have.But you see, one of the factors involved here now, they don't have a this election for the general election where they'll be able to get immigrants and Ukrainians and all these people to vote.But that's probably in a very short order, possibly by the next general election, they will have organised that.And means that increasingly, just as in terms of the birth rate, Ireland is already being overtaken.The population is already beginning to be, you know, you can see that the incoming population is growing at a much faster rate than the Irish population, in the indigenous population because we have European demographics.We had very briefly, some time ago.Surges after John Paul visited in 79 and so on.We had much higher birth rates than the rest of Europe, but not anymore.And so essentially what we're looking at right across Europe is a replacement of population.Intimidation and the way you can really know this is that they've decided that the word replacement is a hate word and and when they say that you're overthe target because, whenever something becomes dead obvious they make it quasi-illegal they make it into a crime.
I've seen that.Can I ask it's it's weird because there's a positive and a negative I see.The negative is that there doesn't seem to be a vocal opposition to what ishappening or a grouping that is standing for family, for the rights of women, a pro-women party.And so there doesn't seem to be that on one side.But yet, on the other side, the people have rejected what they were told to vote for, not only by the politicians, by every political party, but also by the media.Everything was telling them to do one thing and they've done something else and yes, I mean that rebelliousness, I love, but I'm wondering in the middle of that, there a group movement that can appear to begin to stand up, because Ireland doesn't really have a populist movement; like we're seeing in every European country.Except Britain and Ireland.We're left on the sidelines. 
Yeah, yeah.Really there was never be this is ironic given that that Edmund Burke was an Irishman.There's been no real conservative party.I mean, they've been called, Fine Gael and Fine Fáil were called conservative parties, but they had no philosophy whatsoever.When Hardy came to Hardy, they switched to the woke side.There's no intellectual, interesting party that puts forward family-related policies, say like Viktor Orban does in Hungary or anything like that.It's purely a kind of reactive opposition.That's very, very dismaying because, we desperately need.One of the problems I think here, Peter, is ironically, that is a residual effect of the war against the Catholic Church, which has succeeded in, particularly the clerical abuse scandals, have succeeded in making people very wary of speaking about, what you might call Catholic issues, whether that's expressed in family or abortion or whatever.So, those issues tend to be leveraged by the leftist and liberal parties to actually agitate people so as they actually will go against whatever the church is recommending.That's been the pattern going right back in the last, certainly in the last decade or so, that that was very strong in the referendums.You see that this is a real problem because, if you go on the media in Ireland, if you would go on, if you would be let on, on the national broadcaster now, you would be harangued and harassed if you were proposing.Nobody would say: “OK, well, what do you got to say?”And then:”OK, well, I don't agree with that," but here's my position.”And that's gone.You're just harangued and you're sneered at, not necessarily just by the opposition that's in the studio, but by the presenter, probably foremost among them.That's the way that these things have gone now.And you have all these newspapers campaigning, activists.They purport to be, I guess, in the referendum recently, they purported to be covering it. But in fact, they were fighting for the yes side.And this has been the standard approach like that. They tell all these lies.I mean, like there's a very important lie that I want to just call out, which is the Tune Babies Hooks lie, which happened about 10 years ago.Where there was allegations made that 800 babies had been killed by nuns in Tum and buried in a septic tank.There's been a commission of inquiry that has spent 10 years investigating this and they have not found one skeleton, one bone of a child in a septic tank.Yet, the news has not gone around the world anything like to the extent that the first story went round.And people still out there that I meet think it is absolutely gospel truth that nuns killed 800 children and buried their bodies in a septic tank.That is a complete and utter lie.And they have failed after 10 years of trying. And yet that issue was used, was leveraged in the 2018 referendum to defeat the voice of the church, to nullify what the church was saying on the abortion question, because the implication was, well, they don't care about children.This is what goes on in Ireland. It is obscene. It's utterly obscene.And one feels, distraught in the face of it.Grease stricken to see what has become possible in our beautiful country.Yeah, well the media or the virus and we've seen that time and time again.John I really do appreciate coming on.When I saw that result I was so happy, especially seeing the depression on Varadkar's face that even brought more joy.I'd seen them pull back, and of course, they haven't given up, and they will come back I'm sure they will try and mix this type of thing part of their their manifesto moving forward.But, it is a moment to celebrate, I think, in the pushback.Thanks so much for coming on and sharing it, John. Thank you very much, Peter. Nice to talk to you

The Week According To . . . Elizabeth Barker

We are delighted for the return of our good friend Elizabeth Barker as she joins Peter again for a good old chin wag!Beauty, brains and common sense in abundance as Liz talks us through the headlines and happenings from the past seven days.We will be expanding on some of the posts she has made on her X account and articles from across the web including...- Boeing whistle-blower John Barnett found dead in US.- Hate not Hope: Yearly report released by Hope Not Hate... including all your favourite freedom fighters and independent broadcasters! - Come on Sunak. Make up your mind. They are either safe and effective or not. Which one is it?- And he’s back! Dan Wootton returns with a bang.- Finally, some common sense! A win for the kids. Children no longer to be prescribed puberty blockers in the UK.- Based Elon and the meme wars.- Former Flemish parliamentarian sentenced to 1 year in prison because supposedly “racist memes” were shared in a private group chat.- Policing without fear or favour. Remember that?- UK government commits over £117M to boost security for mosques, faith schools and community centres. 
Connect with Elizabeth...X                          @CaliforniaFrizz  x.com/CaliforniaFrizz?s=20
Recorded 15.3.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE             heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS         heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA   heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                   heartsofoak.org/shop/
Links to topics...Boeing whistle-blower https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68534703.ampHate not Hope Reporthttps://x.com/calvinrobinson/status/1768345107525194211?s=20Safe and effective or not? https://x.com/LozzaFox/status/1767910753468592554?s=20Dan Wootton https://x.com/CaliforniaFrizz/status/1767922514238300440?s=20A win for the kids https://x.com/CaliforniaFrizz/status/1767598053974761874?s=20Musk https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1766974165360214400?s=20Flemish MP https://x.com/EvaVlaar/status/1767511226890793228?s=20Policing without fear https://x.com/LozzaFox/status/1767680577652617303?s=20Muslim communities https://x.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1767143452532175118?s=20

Dwight Schultz - Its Alright to be Dwight: #009

Welcome to 'Its Alright to be Dwight'A podcast with the television, film and voice actor Dwight Schultz, exclusive to Hearts of Oak.This episode Dwight discusses threats to Western civilization posed by communism and radical Islamic groups aiming to undermine Judeo-Christian values. He explores the zero-sum mentality of these groups and their manipulative tactics. Schultz raises concerns about COVID-19 as a planned event for global changes and the lack of accountability in pushing agendas. The conversation spans artificial intelligence, biases within AI, manipulation of scientific information, and the importance of critical thinking in society. Controversial figures like Marina Abramovic and John Podesta are also touched upon, emphasizing the need to question authority and avoid political influences in critical areas like criminal justice. Schultz challenges listeners to think critically about societal issues and the pursuit of truth.
A respected performer on Broadway, Dwight Schultz found everlasting fame by playing the certifiable "Howling Mad" Murdock on the action series "The A-Team" (1983-86).A living, breathing cartoon with a seemingly endless selection of voices and accents at his command, Murdock provided the air power for the A-Team's clandestine adventures, provided that his compatriots could break him out of the mental hospital where he resided.One of the show's most popular and memorable figures, Murdock ensured Schultz steady work on television and on the big screen playing Reginald Barclay in "Star Trek: The Next Generation"An accomplished voice actor, Dwight can be heard in numerous hit computer games and in countless animated shows. Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
Please subscribe, like and share!

Steve Bannon - Trump vs Biden: The Rematch and How WarRoom Is Central to Success

Its an election year like no other. Not only are American's going to decide their future but this election goes far beyond the shores of the US like no other Presidential election any of us remember. Its always an honour to have Steve Bannon join us on Hearts of Oak to give his expert analysis. WarRoom broadcasts for 4 hours a day and Steve has his finger on the pulse of what is happening in the US and beyond like no other. So, how will the next year play out? Was it a forgone conclusion that Trump would win the Republican nomination? Has his support for the 'vaccine' harmed his chance of being re-elected? What role does the GOP play in this election especially now that the RINO Rona McDaniel has been replaced by Michael Whatley and Lara Trump? Steve tackles all of this before we finish with a chat about WarRoom. The WarRoom Posse (followers and subscribers) are the most hardcore committed lovers of freedom and have found a kindred soul in Bannon, MAGA and in Trump. What part will WarRoom play in this election and how can the Posse make sure President Trump is returned to the White House?
Stephen K Bannon is a political strategist and host of The WarRoom.He was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years in the late 70s and early 80s, after his military service, Steve worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker and left with the title of vice president.In the 90’s Steve ventured into entertainment and media and became an executive producer in the Hollywood film and media industry which gave him the background to become co-founder and executive chairman of Breitbart News.He was adviser to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and later served as chief strategist in the Trump White House.
Connect with Steve and WarRoom...WEBSITE           warroom.orgGETTR               gettr.com/user/SteveBannon                           gettr.com/user/WarRoomTELEGRAM        t.me/BannonWarRoomPODCAST          warroom.org/podcast/RUMBLE            rumble.com/BannonsWarRoom
Hearts of Oak WarRoom Playlist...RUMBLE             rumble.com/playlists/GeiAaHFzet8
Interview recorded 13.3.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on X https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 

Nick Buckley - Standing as Mayor of Manchester to Rebuild Community

Nick Buckley is a rarity in Britain. He is an independent thinker that wants to bring local political change with common sense policies. He stood as a candidate for Reform in the Mayor of Manchester Election four years ago but now stands as an independent in the upcoming election in May. We start by discussing Nick's background, born and raised in Manchester, which is the 3rd largest urban area in England after London and Birmingham. For well over a decade Nick ran a charity to deal with homelessness and to help offer solutions. He shares why he has entered the world of Politics, how he has seen the police in Manchester become completely ineffective and crime rise and rise. This all falls under the jurisdiction of the Mayor of Manchester and the current Labour offering, Andy Burnham, has simply failed to address this. Nick's story is an example of how anyone can enter politics and try to make a difference as an independent voice. 
Nick was cancelled in June 2020 from the multi award-winning charity he founded when online activists came for him for criticising Black Lives Matter. The trustees panicked, allowing Nick to be removed from his post. Within five weeks, Nick had forced the trustees to resign en-mass, and took back his role as chief executive. Nick spent two decades preventing crime and antisocial behaviour in the toughest neighbourhoods. He promotes early intervention and personal responsibility. He is also a social campaigner on the issues that keep people in poverty and feeling victimised. Nick has experience in many fields, such as youth crime, rough sleeping, knife crime and community engagement.  
WEBSITE             nickbuckley4mayor.co.uk/SUBSTACK         substack.com/@nickbuckleymbeX                          x.com/NickBuckleyMBE?s=20GETTR                 gettr.com/user/nickbuckleymbe
Interview recorded  7.3.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our rather fetching T-Shirts.... SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/