Hearts of Oak Podcast

Anni Cyrus - Unpacking the Political, Historical and Religious Background of the Iran Israel Clash

Show Notes and Transcript
A warm welcome for the return of Anni Cyrus, host of "Live Up to Freedom" to provide a detailed analysis of Iran's history and its impact on the Middle East. She traces Iran's journey from Zoroastrianism to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, highlighting the societal changes and challenges faced under the Islamic regime. Anni explores Iran's relationships with neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, shedding light on power struggles and religious divisions in the region. She also discusses Iran's media censorship, political landscape, and foreign policy towards Israel, emphasizing the use of proxies for influence. We end with reflections on the possibilities for change in Iran and its implications for regional stability.
Aynaz “Anni” Cyrus is the founder of ‘Live Up To Freedom’, she was born in 1983 into an Islamic family in Iran, after the Islamic Revolution removed the Shah and turned the “mini-America” of the Middle East into an Islamic tyranny. Given no choice, Aynaz was labeled as a Muslim by birth. Under Sharia (Islamic Law) she grew up under total Islamic dominance by her father, a Sheikh, and her mother, a Quran teacher.At age nine, Aynaz rejected Islam completely in her heart and mind. It happened on her 9th birthday when the Islamic state, in a public ceremony, declared the absurdity that she would be, from that day forward by law, an adult woman.Over the next six years, Aynaz suffered terrible, but legal by Islamic Law, abuses and punishments at the hands of many Islamic males of Iran. After being forcibly sold by her own father into an extremely violent marriage, Aynaz desperately sought escape from her hell as a child bride. Even after being visibly battered one last time, the Islamic courts denied her a divorce from the man who was clearly bound to beat her to death.So at age 15, facing death by one way or the other, Aynaz got herself smuggled out of Iran, to save her own life. Knowing nothing of the life of freedom for women and girls outside of Iran or Islam, she ran into what she calls “The Unknown.” But her running was a crime, for which, to this day, she stands condemned to death by stoning under Sharia.Aynaz then gained asylum in Turkey through the United Nations. But, as an unaccompanied minor, she was obligated to wait three more years. Finally, at age 18 her petition to become an American citizen was approved. After a further delay following 9/11, Anyaz was allowed entry into the United States on August 8, 2002. She became a naturalized and proud American citizen in 2010.Since 2011, Aynaz has produced the popular Internet video series, “The Glazov Gang”, hosted by renowned author in the counter-jihad movement, Dr. Jamie Glazov. Aynaz also appears in many of the show’s hundreds of segments. Years of her media appearances are found in public speaking venues, interviews, videos, and articles, published in affiliation with The David Horowitz Freedom Center, Jihad Watch, Breitbart, American Thinker, Worldview Weekend, and American Truth Project, to mention a few.
Connect with Anni…..WEBSITE            liveuptofreedom.comGETTR:               gettr.com/user/AnniCyrusX                          x.com/LiveUpToFreedomINSTAGRAM       instagram.com/aynazcyrusTELEGRAM         t.me/Liveuptofreedom
Interview recorded 19.4.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.orgPODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.comSOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connectSHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com and follow him on X twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin
Transcript 
(Hearts of Oak)
And I'm delighted to have Anni Cyrus back with us again. Anni, thank you so much for your time today.
(Anni Cyrus)
Absolutely. My pleasure. It's been a while.
It has. That's exactly what I was thinking. It has been a while.
And current events bring us together with the madness and chaos over in the Middle East.
And who better, I thought, than asking on is Anni Cyrus.
But first, people can find you @LiveUpToFreedom.
Tell us about your show. Just give people, give the viewers, if they don't follow you, give them a taster of what they can find and what you put out.
Absolutely. So Live Up to Freedom, which is also the name of my show, we produce two shows a week at the moment, hoping to somehow get to five days a week.
But the majority of information that is produced on Live Up to Freedom is related to Middle East, Islamization, Sharia, and the dangers of red-green axis.
90% of the time, this is the type of educational programming.
I mean, I don't force my opinion, but I will give you evidence from the Quran, from the Sira, from the Sura, every single one evidence coming from their own word, proving the fact that the possibility of us coexisting, not really possible.
I'm with you 100%. And I do want your opinion, full force.
So, yeah, I'm looking forward to getting your thoughts. But maybe I can ask you, we have watched what has happened with Israel, obviously, and then watched what has happened with Iran responding.
Most of the viewers, whether they're US-based or UK-based, have zero concept of how Iran fits in the Middle East. They may have an understanding of, if they know history, of the Persian Empire.
So it is a history that stretches back thousands of years.
But today, few people in the West have an idea, I guess, of how Iran fits in.
But obviously, you're Iranian-born.
You live in the States at the moment.
Maybe just touch on that about Iran and how it fits in with that, I guess, illustrious history over the thousands of years?
How does Iran kind of fit in to the Middle East jigsaw?
Sure. So let me start from here. Since you brought up the Persian Empire, let me just set the record straight about Persians versus Persian Empire.
There's this thing going on lately that Persians don't exist because Persia doesn't exist.
I want to make it very clear. Iran, as you know it today, is what was of Persia.
So by nationality, we are Iranians. By race, we are Persians. Why is this important?
Because there's a difference between nationality and race.
And that's where actually we get all confused between racism, if you're criticized Islam, because a lot of nations now carry Islam.
If you say something against Islam, they're racism Islam.
Their race could be Persian, could be Indian, could be Arab.
Now, Arab race has a breakdown. Again, Syrian Arabs have their own DNA.
Saudi Arabian Arabs have their own DNA. However, there's one group of Arabs that don't have DNA, Peter, and that is Palestinians.
The reason it's important to say we're Persians, nationality Iranian, is because we can make the point of there is no such a race as Palestinians.
If you would do a DNA test on anyone in Palestine claiming to be Palestinian, you would find the DNAs of Syrian Arabs.
You would find Iraqi Arabs.
You would find even Egyptian blood.
But you wouldn't find a Palestinian race blood because it doesn't exist.
Now, I'm going to pull a leftist here and say, if you're willing to call them Palestinian by race, well, I identify as a Persian, so you're going to call me a Persian.
That being said, Persian Empire down to a smaller size, down to a smaller size to today, which is a tiny bit of Islamic Republic of Iran, has always been the heart of Middle East.
Literally the heart. Depending on how Iran beats, Middle East operates.
That's why it's the heart. You go back, we're not going to even go 2,700 years ago. Let's not do that. We could.
Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, freed the Jews in Babylon, told them you're free, and there you go. Temple Mount is there.
That's how much Persia or Iran has been the heart. But recent, 45 years ago, 47, 50 years ago, when Iran was under the kingdom of Shah Pahlavi, you look at Middle East, there was peace.
Prosperity, lots and lots of import and export financially, economy of Middle East was in good shape.
Every neighbour country was also in good shape as far as culture, freedom, education goes.
Islamic regime took over in a matter of 45 years.
Not only Iran itself with all the resources Iran has, and I'm just going to name a few.
Iran is number one land of making saffron.
We have the second top quality pistachio.
I'm not going to even go into the oil industry because everybody's aware of that.
And then considering between Afghanistan and Iran, you have the two only countries producing opium.
Well, I know some people misuse it, but it still is important material we need.
So with all the resources, Iranian people, more than 82% are living life under the line of poverty by international standards.
Same thing with the neighbours. You got the Turkey, you got Pakistan, you got Afghanistan, Azerbaijan.
That is how much Iran's operation has affected not only Middle East, but over here with Western countries.
I hope that answered the question.
Oh, it does. I want to go back because we look at Islamic connection with Iran.
But if you go, I mean, long time prior to the Islamic revolution in, it was 79, you've got from different breakups of the kingdom.
And before that, you had from, I think, from the 20s, the Iranian state.
So Islam was not in it. Tell us kind of how Iran kind of fits into that, where it's now known as the Islamic Republic of Iran.
But before that, Islam wasn't in the name. Does that mean Islam was not part of the culture?
Sure.
Yes. So if we go back way back, way back, about 2,700 years ago, all the way to about 1,800 years ago, that period of time, majority of Iranians were known as Zoroastrians.
There were some other atheists, there were Jews, there were Christians, all that.
But then the Battle of Mohammed started 1,400 years ago. Now, what was the Battle of Muhammad?
Muhammad started from Mecca, then went to Medina, then conquered Saudi Arabia.
Now, who was the competition? Who was the biggest challenge? Persian Empire.
Persia was standing up. They even sent messengers to the king of that time saying, have your people convert to Islam and we'll leave you alone.
The king was like, no, we're good.
We're not going to force anybody. So the very first time, the very first attack of Islamic attack, which in history books, you read them as Arab attacks.
Yes, there were Saudi Arabians, but the attack wasn't about race.
It had nothing to do with land versus land or people versus people.
It was Mohammed continuing to conquer of Islamization to basically, you know, the global caliphate, which then global was just that area.
The first attack happened. They couldn't conquer. The second one couldn't conquer on and on and on and on for a long time.
In meantime, some of the Iranians or Persians decided to convert by choice, by choice, until one of the Iranians who by choice converted decided to become a traitor and basically start cooperating with the Arabs.
That was the first time I want to say about probably 800, 700 years ago is when the first time of conquering people of Persia happened. A lot of Zoroastrians escaped.
They went to India. That's why you see somewhat the biggest population of Zoroastrians are found in India. They took refuge in India.
Some converted, some were killed, some became dhimmis and gradually either converted or died and fast forward all the way to almost, I want to say, 90, 92 years ago, when one of the kingdoms of Iran on the Qajar, or you guys pronounce it Qajar dynasty, they actually ruled under Islam.
The king in the kingdom decided we will rule under, the full hijab came to the country.
The full mosque building started.
And then Pahlavi dynasty returned that. They didn't get rid of Islam, but they did return the country into America, freedom of religion.
If you want to be a Muslim, be a Muslim. If you want to be Christian, be a Christian, anything.
Until the first king, Pahlavi, decided to actually ban Sharia in Iran.
Nobody was allowed to wear hijab, mosques were shut down.
And surprise, surprise, England and France got involved and told him that you're going to lose power if you don't give them their freedom back.
So the decision was the father will step down, the son will take over.
And they will allow Sharia to continue.
On top of that, they will allow one representative of Islam or Muslim community of Iran to step into Congress.
The rest is history. Literally 20 years later, Islamic revolution happened and it has never gone back.
But it's not just Iran, I guess, has a history. Think Egypt having a long history.
Lebanon, I know, reading the Bible and you hear about the cedars of Lebanon.
And then you think of Saudi Arabia and you think of the House of Saud.
But a long time before that, there were different emirates in that area.
And some of those countries have been artificially created, maybe like Jordan.
But other countries actually have got a history of thousands of years.
How does that work? Because as a Brit, I think of Europe and the struggle with the nations in Europe for dominance with France, Spain, with the UK.
What is that kind of struggle like in the Middle East with those countries that have a long history?
Well, another country we can name is Afghanistan.
If you look, Afghanistan is a pretty recent conqueror of Islamization.
Right around 1979 when Iran was conquered, very shortly before that, Afghanistan was conquered.
Afghanistan has a long history of battling back and forth and by the way I sometimes feel like people of Afghanistan are not getting the credit they deserve they have such a long and pure history, cultural music involved in art involved they have some of the most unique musical instrument you find out there that is now westernized and used but nobody knows because everybody thinks Afghanistan was, you know, Islamic country from day one, and Afghans were all Muslim. That is not what it is.
Now, that battle, with Saudi Arabia, you need to realize when Mohammed, you know, came up and said, I am the prophet, the majority of people in Saudi Arabia were.
I can't pronounce the English, when you believe in more than one god, polygamous?
Is that the word?
Polytheism?
There you go, polytheism.
So with Saudi Arabia, there is a much deeper root of Islam.
It was literally the first introduced religion that unified the country.
It did, or nation. But the rest of Middle Eastern countries those who are not as you said artificial those that existed they were none of them has any roots, none of them, that's the thing sometimes we have this saying in Middle East is like, oh you're just a Muslim born, meaning you're not really Muslim and I'm like, that doesn't exist, it doesn't because nobody the root, except of Saudi Arabia, there is no other race or nation that was the start.
So that the struggle for every single Middle Eastern country back and forth between this.
Now, again, I even during the Pahlavi kingdom, Peter, nobody minded Muslims.
Nobody did because it wasn't the constitution.
You wanted to be a Muslim, be a Muslim. But then on the other end of the city, you would find, you know, restaurants and bars and concerts.
And women with short skirts. The struggle in Middle East even as recent as two years ago in Afghanistan. It's the matter of literally forcing this Islam into the country rather than allowing it, which is one of my main arguments. if this religion is such a religion of peace, why is it that wherever it goes it's forced, feared, blood involved. If it's so peaceful why can't they get people to convert on their own, but rather have to force them to do it.
So that has been the struggle of last literally 1400 years.
Today, you find people from Saudi Arabia who reject Sharia.
They don't want their constitution to be Sharia anymore. Now, do we have Sharia-based constitution in Western countries?
No. But are many of them already living life under Sharia?
I would say, for example, London is a great city to name.
I have not been to London because they won't let me come to England.
But the last time I left London was January of 2011.
And sometimes when I look at some of the videos or live feeds coming from London, like that's not where I was. That's not what I remember of London.
So not to make it even longer than I did, if Western countries don't realize that there needs to be an absolute cap and limitation, the struggle of Middle East will start coming here, where you constantly have the battle of Islamization, de-Islamization, Islamization, de-Islamization, and gradually the culture will disappear.
I hate to say it, when I look at my fellow Iranians today, there isn't much of Persian culture left anymore. it's something of a confused
Arab versus Persian, versus Sharia, versus Western.
It's a very mixed up where, sadly, you can't really pinpoint anything left of that land or country or culture and behaviour of the people.
Half of the Farsi they speak, I don't even understand. I'm like, what is that?
Any of the leaders, they started talking. I'm like, okay, you're not a speaking Farsi. It's full on Arabic at this point.
Tell me, when I talk, and I want to get up to the current day where we are, but I'm curious because I talk to a lot of my African friends, especially in church, and you realize that African nations are tribal-based and there is more allegiance to the tribe than there is to the nation.
We look at Nigeria and it's completely separated on tribal lines.
What is it like for a country like Iran? Iran is a large country, nearly 90 million, so it has influence in that regard.
How does it work when people call themselves Iranian or me? How has it worked prior to the Islamic Revolution in 1979?
Where is that kind of identity and connection for Iranians who lived there prior to the revolution?
That's actually an interesting question. One of the top things I did a few years ago, one of the things I mentioned about Iran that many people are not aware of is the majority of Iranians are actually bilingual by about age 9 or 10.
Because Iran, as of today still, it has, if you look at the map, the south versus northeast versus west.
They are tribes, not the African style of tribe, but they do have their own tribes where you have the Kurds who are still within their own culture.
Their customs are still the old school, traditional Kurdish.
They speak the Kurdish language at home and then they speak the Farsi language, which is the country's language.
And then you have the Turks in Tabriz and some of those areas.
Again, the food and the music and the language is the Turkish.
And again, this is because you shrunk this huge empire down into the small size of the country.
A lot of tribes are still in there.
You have the Fars, literally, who are the pure Persians, the only non-bilingual people of Iran who only speak Farsi, have the traditional customs of Persia, the way they do their Norse versus the rest of the provinces.
Says it's different however somehow for some reason it has always been united regardless of who's from which side or which background, doesn't matter if you're the Arab of the south or if you're the Kurd or you're the Turk or you're the Fars it has always been united until the Islamic revolution, where the country became divided based on Muslims versus non-Muslims.
And when I say non-Muslim, Peter, I don't mean Christian or Jew.
No, I mean non-Muslims in eyes of the government.
Those like Mahsa Amini, who don't wear the proper hijab. Those who don't do the prayer the right way.
Those who wear the makeup. Those who have boyfriend or girlfriends, which is against Sharia. Those are the secondary group of people.
Tell me about when you think 45 years ago, the revolution, what does that mean for freedom within the country?
I know it's claimed to be 99% Muslim, but not just religious, but general freedom within the country.
What is it like to live in the current, I guess regime or government in Iran?
I'm so glad you asked that I was having a discussion with a friend of mine literally yesterday about this, that it has come to a point where the the lack of freedom isn't, isn't just about your, what you say or what you wear or what you eat anymore.
The lack of freedom has gotten to a point where a majority of Iranians, especially the younger generation have lost absolute motivation, that the answer always is, well, so what?
Like, why don't you go get a job? It's like, then what?
Why don't you go to school? Do what with it?
You literally have Uber drivers it's not Uber, it's called a snap I think in Iran, when they pick you up snap, you sit in the car and by the way for those of you, yes I have not been back to Iran but I do have people who are in Iran or just came back from Iran so the information comes from there, now I'm not smuggling myself back. You start talking to the driver and he will tell you that he holds a darn PhD, Peter, but there's no job for him, either because he doesn't belong to IRGC or SEPA or this group of Islam or that group of Islam, or it's the fact that somewhere somehow when he was younger, got arrested and has some sort of morality police stamp on his resume.
So he won't be hired or it's the matter of, he is not a Muslim.
He's a Baha'i. He can't admit he's a Baha'i. They're going to kill him, so he'd rather drive his own taxi than go get killed.
It's just literally there is zero motivation to do anything with your life because one way or another, you'll be blocked by this regime.
Genuinely, they wake up in the morning, change their mind about the latest law, and there's nothing to stop them.
There is nothing that could stop them from changing the laws every hour.
Every house supreme leader can literally wake up this morning and say colour red is forbidden for women, I dare you wear red, They will arrest you. They will probably put you in detention centre.
They will drag you to Sharia court and then probably, I don't know, lash you a couple of lashes and you home.
Make an example out of you. Nobody else can avoid a wreck.
Now, I'm making this up as an example, but to that, the small detail of life is being controlled.
Tell us how, within the country, what does it mean for the media?
What does it mean for, I mean, some countries like Dubai want to be outward.
Focused but still want to be Islamic where other countries like Saudi it's maybe less, so it's wanting to have that pure Islam and there is a less focus on being outward looking, when you think of Iran you think of something which is a closed box because of the devotion to Islam and that cuts off the West so what does that mean within, for education, for media?
Okay, so we need to explain something before we even answer that question. By we, I mean me.
I identify as... Media in Iran. There is no... private or alternative media. There's just one type of media, which is owned by government, ran by government, approved by government, everything government.
There are, I believe six channels of cable, only six.
One is dedicated to news.
One is dedicated to sports.
And the other three, one is dedicated to religion actually. Most of the time, it's like some Mullah sitting there dissecting and fat buzz and Corona and stuff.
And then there are two, that is a combination movies, TV series, commercial news, a little bit, things like that.
Now, why am I breaking it down is because it is so extremely controlled that it's only six, Only six.
For example, the sport channel, you'll never find any kind of female competition inside or outside of Iran out there.
You just don't. They cover all of the European leagues, right?
The soccer leagues. And you literally see that if they pass by a female audience in a stadium who is wearing makeup or open hair, you literally see them blurred out and then you come back to zoom back in.
To that extent what is being aired inside the country's control You can make a movie in Iran, but before you make a movie you got to take your script and your crew names to this department that's going to read the script, either approve it or tweak it then approve it or reject it, if you get approved on your script then you go make the movie, but before you air the movie Peter they will watch how you make this script.
If they find one scene, just one scene that they don't like, they'll have you go either redo it, edit it, come back again.
A movie can take seven years to be released or two minutes to be rejected.
Doesn't matter how much you spend on your movie.
It's done. Won't never come out.
So that's the internal. Now, they have one, Tenseem is the name of it.
I actually report from it a lot.
They have one, let's say, kind of like an article or text formatting website that is tied to the regime.
And then they have their own Islamic Republic of Iran's broadcasting website.
Those are the ones that are being fed propaganda and lies to be published because we outside have access to that.
We read that where it makes it look like the country is flawless and people are super happy and the elections are going fantastic, that is the one for external use that is mainly filled with propaganda
And how does politics work? How does, are there elections, were there elections before, how does that work in the country?
Yes there are, there are selections. There are selection election however it's in your best interest to show up for this election, because one they can create a lot of propaganda video and put it out, number two, now in Iran when you vote they actually stamp like you use your index on a stamp and they you put it on your birth certificate which Iranian birth certificates are like a lot of booklets, now if you have that a printer means you voted.
And for example, at the end of the year, when they're giving away coupon for chicken or egg or oil or whatever it is, if you have that fingerprint, you get your coupon.
If you don't, well, good luck, go buy it out of your own pocket.
So it's a selection coordinated to look like an election. And if you don't show up, well, there are consequences.
[Hmm tell me how it, is the focus with Iran with the leadership, is it for dominance within the region and then you're clashing with the other Islamic nations or is it with the destruction of Israel because Iran and Israel don't border, think isn't Iraq between them if I my middle eastern geography is bad so feel free to correct me, but how does it fit in, what is the goal?
Is it regional stability and power within the region, or is it focused on hatred towards Israel?
Can I go with all of the above? Is that an option?
Internally, the regime or the mullahs, internally, main focus is to re-establish a stability.
Because literally from 2009 and the Green Movement, on and on and on, they have lost that stability. Every time there's an uprising, it's becoming a stronger, longer, stronger, more planned.
So they're trying to gain that stability they had for the first, I don't know, 27 years of their power.
That's number one internally. Now, how do they gain that is by creating some sort of dilemma or war for the people of Iran to stand down because they're, at the end of the day, if you look at the history of Iran-Iraq war for eight years, eight years, people of Iran fought.
And I can tell you, I have heard directly from the soldiers or from children of those soldiers that they have always said, we didn't fight for the mullahs.
We fought for our country.
Okay. So with that, if there is a war going on, even if it's a small, even if it's not a major, it doesn't have to be an eight years war, but the regime can reestablish that stability inside.
They do have hatred for Israel. I repeat, when Khomeini arrived in Tehran in 1979, he was driven from the plane airport to the biggest and most, I don't know why it's famous, but famous cemetery in Tehran.
They put a chair, he sat on it, and he started talking.
The very first thing that came out of his mouth was, let the plan begin.
We're going to take down the great Satan and wipe Israel off the map.
Now, 47 years ago, they already said what they're planning to do. So that's that.
They want to wipe Israel off the map. Is it mainly religious beliefs?
Yes. But also, it's the fact that they know that as long as Israel exists, Iran will not be able, in any shape or form, or the government of Iran, rest easy knowing they have the land forever.
But you've got a, I mean, you could have countries coming together with a focus on a common enemy, which is Israel for everyone.
But then you've got, you've got obviously Lebanon and Syria basically failed states, but then you've got Turkey and Saudi and Egypt and the Emirate, Dubai wanting to assert themselves.
So is there no coming together against a common enemy?
Because Iran seems to be very much still out in the cold in regards to relations with other nations around it.
That's a good question. I highly doubt that Iran and Saudi Arabia would ever come together.
Again, going back to 1400 years ago, this battle didn't start yesterday and it's not going to end tomorrow. That Saudi Arabia versus Iran, or better yet, Arabs versus Persians war, a battle has been going on for a long time.
And is Saudi Arabia targeting Israel enough to put themselves in this scenario? I doubt it.
As far as Turkey is concerned, right now, Erdogan is doing a lot of talking.
But remember, Erdogan needs to be very careful because they don't want to be kicked out of EU.
This much of the country is in Europe. The rest is in Middle East.
They worked so hard to squeeze themselves into EU.
He's going to have to be very careful because he won't have the allies he has today.
If he's kicked back into full on Middle East, that's when Iran is going to come after him.
Iran and Turkey on paper, it might seem all good, but Iran and Turkey don't get along either.
All the way from the Caliph of Sunnis until today, the Sunni versus Shia scenario has been going on between Turkey and Iran. So I know Erdogan does a lot of talking.
I don't believe unless Russia gets involved, Turkey won't get involved.
That's the only time Turkey will get involved because now Turkey has the approval of Russia to get involved and back Iran.
So let me jump up to the present day.
And if my research serves me correct, I don't think Iran has actually struck at Israel since the revolution.
And this seems to be from what I've understood knowing little about Iranian politics but it seems to be the the first attack on Israel. Is that correct and how does what Iran have done, the attack on Israel, how does that change things in the region?
You are correct. Yes since 79 until today there has never been a direct, a strike or attack from Iran toward Israel.
But I go back to the fact that we need to acknowledge they are playing it this way, but we need to remember this attack directly was by IRGC.
IRGC is Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is not Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Were they put together by Khomeini? Absolutely. Do they belong to the government of Iran?
No, there are their own entity freely guarding all Islamic nations.
That's why you have their children such as Hezbollah and Houthis and Hamas out there.
That being said, I don't, this is not going to be pleasant to a lot of your audience, but I'll say it.
Iran's strike or IRGC's strike or Israel's airstrike. Neither one of them were strikes. This just doesn't look like anybody's planning to do anything major. Both Iran and Israel have the military needs, means, sorry, wrong word. To do real damage if they wanted to, This whole, in Farsi, we laugh and say, you know, they knock at each other's door and run and hide.
Seems like that's what they're doing. They send a couple of missiles, yeah, 300, lots of missiles and drones, but then they call and say, heads up, in about an hour, hour and a half, fix up your iron dome so we're about to arrive.
When was the last time Hamas gave a heads up? Right? October 7th happened, catching everybody off guard.
And they left a mark. You know what I mean?
This Iran Saturday strike and this Israel striking back, which by the way, Iran is absolutely denying the existence of this attack back.
And that's what you need to look at. Iran goes saying, okay, we attack, this is it.
If you attack back, we're going to be in a split second, we're going to destroy Israel.
Israel attack back and Iran denies it. It ignores it, never happened.
Does that look like something is about to change in the Middle East? No.
This is all tied back to Western countries. In America, we're in election year. We're in election year.
Whatever happens over there can definitely help Biden over here.
Europe is in pretty much a lot of chaos.
The tests run up. Are they going to sit back and let us do whatever we want to do?
Or are they going to dare try to rescue and get attacked in their own countries with our sleeper cells?
That's all there is to this I'm not downplaying anything but I know both countries, I've heard and I've seen the capability of both ends, this doesn't look like something that's going to turn into world war three, that's not going to happen
No you're right when I read the reports a day before, 100 rockets are going to be fired over and talking to people and they said seriously who gives their enemy that much notice and then the next day 100 came over to the number.
So you've got that a show of strength and I get that as a show of strength, especially drones taking three to four hours and it shows you what you can do, but with Iran having so many proxies, I mean Hezbollah are a serious threat to the region and seemingly much more dangerous than Hamas are and they're embedded in Lebanon and Syria.
How does that play and does Iran not just use a proxy like Hezbollah to attack Israel instead of firing over what, drones that take four hours?
That's not a serious attack, but Hezbollah do seem to be serious.
Yes, exactly. And that's where I put my thought process.
I'm like, OK, you have Hezbollah and you have Hamas. And again, I go back to October 7.
It shocked all of us.
Not because we weren't expecting Hamas to be so barbaric. No, it was the fact that nobody called anybody to say, okay, so tomorrow at your music festival, we're coming.
That's how you do serious damage. You have Hezbollah, you have Hamas.
And I'll go back to what I've said many times, and I've been accused of many things.
Israel is not going to take on Iran. You know why?
Israel has what it takes to take on Hamas, and they never did. They haven't.
I was looking on my Facebook page, and last year, this week, is exactly when this Hamas-Israeli situation was going on, and Biden was on the phone asking for a ceasefire, which Israel ended up doing the ceasefire.
Every year. It's a pattern. It just happens.
But for anybody to either get excited or get nervous that something's going to come out of this, no.
Hezbollah is regrouping, yes.
Israel is talking about possibly going into Lebanon, yes.
Is any of this going to put an end to this back and forth? I highly doubt it. I do.
In no shape or form is it in benefit of anyone involved with globalist groups or elite or deep state.
None of whom have any interest in ending this conflict in Middle East.
So it's not going to end one way or another, and it's not going to even start.
Again, it's that time of the year where everybody needs to get a little dusty in Middle East, and then everybody's going to go home and next year we'll repeat.
That's just the way things go. Unfortunately, as much as I wish somebody would finally put their foot down and say enough is enough, nobody's going to do that.
They are just giving a break to Hamas for now. While Hezbollah is regrouping IRGC is doing a lot of manoeuvring, And that's it. Now, why is Israel not standing up? Well, that one is a question for Netanyahu.
It's interesting watching because, obviously, Israel didn't deal with Hamas before.
It's now been forced to deal with Hamas.
And Israel are going to do what it takes.
That's how it seems. And whatever force is needed for them to secure their security, they will go for.
But I guess the Islamic nations have been happy for Hamas to be a thorn in the side and for the Palestinians to be a thorn in the side of Israel because that keeps Israel's defence spending high, it keeps their a threat level high, it keeps that fear, it's perfect to kind of keep Israel nervous and not let them kind of relax a constant state of war I guess. What does it mean if Hamas are removed to a degree?
Does it then, do those nations around think, what's next? Does Hezbollah then have to come in and provide that?
What does that mean for stability? Because it does seem the country has been happy to sit back and let Hamas do the, let's piss off Israel role.
Well actually to emphasize on your point, Hamas and Palestinians were put there exactly for that purpose, now I brought this up a couple of times that we call, I don't, but Western countries you call them Palestinians but if you talk to them, talk to Rashida Talib, for example, and listen to their chants on the streets of UK, France,
US, Canada, anywhere, you don't hear Palestine, you hear Philistine. It's Philistine.
The enemies of Jews, Philistine.
They were picked. This name wasn't specifically picked. Their location wasn't specifically picked.
That's one of the reasons when it comes to the argument of Palestinians versus Israel or the Gaza border.
I just opened this up. First of all, you don't find an Arab-speaking person who can say Palestine.
Again, my mother tongue of Farsi was not Farsi. It's Parsi.
Parsi, the language of the Pars people of Persia.
It turned into Farsi because in Arabic language there is no character as P they don't say Pepsi they say Bepsi, how do you expect them to say Palestine, no we have turned that into Palestine so we hide the fact that they are the Philistinians the enemies of Jews, so they are put in place and named specifically for that reason. Now, if Israel for any reason would finally come to realize that let's just take him out once and for all, and yes, taking out Hamas is very much doable.
And that way, they will force the hands of IRGC and Hezbollah of Lebanon to actually take action.
That's when Israel will have what they need legally by international law to actually overthrow the regime of Iran.
But they won't.
Yeah, and with the Palestinian, we've had Robert Spencer on maybe a month or six weeks ago, and I enjoyed his Palestinian myth book.
So 100% with you that it is a made-up terminology.
Can I just finish off on Iran and you've been great at giving us a broad sweep I think to help us understand, because many of us are completely unaware of not only where the countries fit in together but where Iran fits in, but what does it mean for Iran and freedom because you want individuals to be able to choose where they live, how they live and to decide they don't want the constant state of tension with their neighbours.
What does it mean for Iran going forward?
Is there a chance of a revolution in Iran from the people to overthrow the regime and have something which cares about people's rights and freedoms?
Or do you not have any great hope for that happening in the near future?
This might come as a surprise if...
Lord willing, comes November, and we get President Trump back in the office.
Within months, there will be an uprising in Iran.
The last two times people of Iran tried, unfortunately, once was during Hussein Obama, once was Biden, they couldn't get the help they needed.
They couldn't get the Biden regime or Obama regime to put sanctions and pressure on the regime. So they ended up losing a lot of lives, either by being killed or being imprisoned and tortured daily. So they went home.
I know for a fact, if President Trump is back in office, people of Iran will try again. Will they be successful?
That's when the Israeli government comes to picture.
Again, Iran by itself, people of Iran, first of all, remember, they don't have a Second Amendment.
Not only that, there are no illegal guns to be bought either.
The borders are extremely protected in Iran. You can't even smuggle them into the country. So they're always empty handed.
Secondly, the very first thing that happened is the regime cut down, cuts off the internet access to the people, which adds the agony of now what?
How do we get the message out?
How do we get the people to put pressure on the government?
So Israel and America's government play a huge role of what will happen internally in Islamic Republic of Iran next.
We need all these sanctions back. We need a lot of economic pressure back on Iran, and we need Israel to keep pushing back.
Then people of Iran will have what it takes to finally overthrow these people.
Am I hopeful? Always. There's always hope. As Robert Spencer said, it's not over until it's over, and it's not over yet.

Kenneth Rapoza - How Free Trade and Soft Power are making China the #1 World Power

Show Notes and Transcript
Journalist and 'China smartypants' Kenneth Rapoza joins Hearts of Oak to discuss China's impact on Western manufacturing post its WTO entry and the free trade's negative effects on job losses and economic disparities. We look at the challenges in competing with China's low-cost labour and its aggressive trade practices on other nations. Kenneth walks us through evolving views on globalization, power shifts between the US and China, and China's strategic expansion in key industries. We address concerns about social control in China and democracy preservation, emphasizing the need to understand changing power dynamics in today's interconnected world amidst China's global rise
Kenneth Rapoza is a seasoned business and foreign affairs reporter with more than 20 years experience. He was stationed abroad as a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal in Sao Paulo and was a former senior contributor for Forbes from 2011 to 2023 writing about China, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and other developing countries.After leaving Brazil in 2011, Ken started covering the BRIC countries for Forbes as a senior contributor.  He has travelled throughout all of the countries he covered and has seen first-hand China’s impressive growth and its ghost towns as recent as 2017 and 2018.His editorial work has appeared in diverse publications like The Boston Globe and USA Today — where he was given the unflattering task of taking an opposing view in support of China tariffs at the start of the trade war — and more recently can be found in Newsweek and The Daily Caller. He has either written for, or has been written about, in The Nation and Salon in the dot-com years, and almost broke the Argentine internet after publishing a story in Forbes about the return of the International Monetary Fund before the government opened up about it.Today, Ken does the radio and podcast circuit talking about CPA issues.Having grown up near the depressed mill towns of Massachusetts, manufacturing as a bulwark of household income and sustainability is not merely an intellectual pursuit, but a personal one, too. He experienced the life-altering impact government policy has on manufacturing labor in his own family back in the 1990s. He considers himself an American “lao baixing.” He graduated from Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH.Ken lives and works from a small farm and beach town in Southern Massachusetts with his family.  
Connect with Ken...X                         x.com/BRICbreakerSUBSTACK        doubleplus.substack.comWEBSITE            prosperousamerica.org
Interview recorded 15.4.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
TRANSCRIPT 
(Hearts of Oak)
And I'm delighted to have a brand new guest, someone who I've been intrigued watching their Twitter, and that is Kenneth Rapoza.Kenneth, thank you so much for your time today.(Kenneth Rapoza)
Thanks for having me on, Peter. I appreciate it.Oh, great. And people can obviously find you @BRICbreaker is your Twitter handle.Ken is an industry analyst from the Coalition for a Prosperous America, former staff, foreign correspondent for Wall Street Journal and a senior contributor to Forbes covering China since back in 2011.And there's so many issues we could discuss, but it's that issue of China which I wantto start with.And I've seen a number of your posts, I think on Daily Caller.One of the recent ones was on free trade.I think free traders are wrong.It's time to try trade a new way.And you started off simply by a statement on a Daily Mail poll recently showed 54% of voters support Trump's proposal to put 10% tariffs on imports from China and elsewhere, which is obviously opposite to a free trade thinking.Maybe start there.Why do you think free traders are wrong?And why do you think we need a new model for the future? Well, the idea of free trade, right, of course, goes back to the British colonial days, right?But in modern times, from our youth and what we recall, it really kicked off in its heyday, we could say, probably post-World War II, and then after the end of the Cold War.It was the end of history, peace in the world, right?No more Soviet Union.We're all on the same page with trade.Then it really went into high gear in 2001.This is when China enters the World Trade Organization.At that point, I would say, is the beginning of what some people have called hyper-globalization.That was the Western world's manufacturing base being sucked out of their towns and cities and shipped to Asia.It has been totally destructive.Led to the different policies that we have today. You could even say Brexit in some degree was because of it.It was an anti-globalization vote.You know, because really what's happening is the Western leaders are saying, oh, they know the plebs are against globalization for the most part.And they say, oh, you don't like it anymore.You don't like globalization.Fine.We're going to import all those people that you don't want to compete with in the third world.We're going to import them and we're going to pay them your job.And we're going to pay them your wages that That you don't want to accept.We're going to pay them that.And that's the way it's going to go.So, it's been a disaster for many people.Brexit is probably one of the examples of an anti-globalist push among the populace.And, of course, the Trump election was the creme de la creme of the anti-globalist push within the electorate.So, you know, when you go back to the 80s, 90s, and of course, China joined the World Trade Organization, that was the globalization heyday.And when what many people call a reverse globalization or a localization.The language is still being defined on this issue.But clearly, the populace of the Western world is against the old school globalization.When I say that, that's 80s, 90s trade, the model, the way it was.We're going to just import.We're going to make things where it's cheap to make things.And that's how it's going to be.We're a consumer society.We fill our garages not with cars.We fill them with toys and trinkets and all this other stuff instead.And it's going to be made in Mexico and Asia and so on.And if you don't have a job anymore, well, you can learn to code, or you can go drive an Uber, or you can go, maybe if you're lucky, you're good at math, you can go work at Goldman Sachs, or you could become a nurse.I mean, that's it.And people have rejected that.So, again, a lot of the people who are pro-free trade, they're guys who are older than us, and they came from the time when free trade was, globalization was becoming, was a topic, right?Again, the post-Soviet, the post-Cold War era, and they're thinking they still have that mindset.But there's nothing that shows that free trade has worked for the working class.The blue-collar class.There have been numerous studies showing that it hasn't.It's been great for Walmart.It's been great for multinational corporations, but it hasn't been great for workers because why?They have to compete in the West.They have to compete with labour in Mexico, with labour in Vietnam.There is absolutely no way someone in Manchester City; in Newcastle, can make a car, can make a shirt for what they make it in Bangladesh for.There's no way.They can't do it.They'll never, ever do this.So, if you're going to have that kind of world, then you're just going to outsource forever your manufacturing to Asia or over here in this hemisphere to Mexico.And I think that's where the backlash has come.And I think that's where free traders really have their blind spot is, okay, it's great.There's always going to be trade.There's always going to be imports, but to what extent are we going to allow this so that your industry, whether it is in England or whether it is the United States, whether it is in Germany; to what extent are you going to allow it so that you have no blue collar workforce, you have no manufacturing base anymore?That is the question of the day.That is the biggest pushback.In the West, we have globalism versus anti-globalism, for lack of a better word, you know and that's leading to a lot of political stress in the west.I remember being out on the campaign trail for Brexit with UKIP knocking on doors over the years and anytime you'd knock on the door of someone who ran a business that was a multinational business their response would be of: I don't want Brexit.I want cheap labour I want movement of goods and a cheap labour as low as possible.That's all I care about, it's the bottom line, and is this a conversation about maybe globalization has not gone the way we expected.That it's purely about the bottom line then removes the individual from it is that kind of the conversation that's beginning to now boil up.Oh, absolutely it's beginning to boil up.And again I think it started with Brexit and it started with with trump.Look what's happening in the world today.Look at look at Germany, primarily Germany.You see the headlines in The Economist.They're all worried about Chinese EVs coming in.They're all worried in the Netherlands now about Goldwind.Goldwind is the big wind turbine manufacturer that's taking market share away from precious Vestas.Well, that's too bad.But you want to make it all in China.What do you think China is going to do?They're going to say, well, I don't want to make Vestas.I want my own company.I don't want to make Vestas products.I want to be Vestas.Why wouldn't China want that?Why wouldn't they want that?It makes no sense that they wouldn't want that.I mean, the UK is a bad example here, because the UK used to have Land Rover and used to have the Mini, right?And now that's all Tata.That's all Indian now.I don't know who owns Mini, but I mean, certainly Land Rover and Jaguar.These are British iconic brand, auto motor brands.They're owned by Tata Motors in India now.They're probably still made to some degree in the UK, of course, but the brand doesn't belong to the UK anymore.It's Indian.So, they're panicking and they're panicking because they cannot compete.They will never, ever compete with low cost labour.They'll never compete with China because China is not interested in the free market competition of the West.They're interested in full employment.And it's a massive nation run by provincial leaders who have different viewpoints of the world than Xi Jinping.If Xi Jinping says, no, we just talked to Janet Yellen.We just talked to, you know, whatever his name is, the prime minister of the UK.I can't think of it right now.Now, he said that he doesn't want us to overproduce anymore solar panels and wind turbines and EVs.We're going to stop.We got to play by the rules.We can all be friends.Do you think the provincial guy in Nanjing and Guangdong is going to listen to this guy?He's got a million mouths to feed.Millions of people.Millions.More than the UK's entire workforce.He has in one province.He's not worried about what Janet Yellen says what Olaf thinks.To the Chinese, Olaf is a snowman from Frozen.They're not worried about this guy.So, this is something that they can't compete with.And so they're learning now.They're seeing it.And they're worried now.You see them worrying now because their precious renewable energy market is being taken over by China.Well, sometimes China's out innovating them.China just copied what we made here in the West.
But China can do it easier because they get the subsidies.They got workers galore.They got workers galore who aren't worried about, you know, TikTok videos and, you know, trying to rehearse for, you know, they want to be the next EDM DJ or they want to get on Eurovision.That's their biggest dream.And then these guys are just flooding the market with product.You can't compete with that.You'll never, ever compete with that.But that's the free trade.
That's free trade.China's saying, hey, you know, we're trading, we're making products.And the West will say, well, yeah, but you're subsidizing or you're doing this.Well, then the Chinese are going to say, well, you subsidize.You subsidize your farmers.The Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, you're giving huge tax breaks to produce.So, you're doing it.So, you stop.There is no such thing as free trade.
There is no such thing as free trade the way people thought it would be.And that doesn't mean that importing is bad or that you and I, Peter and Ken, can't start a business.And we can't afford to pay $30 an hour.So, we decide on our own volition.We decide to, from the get-go, that we're going to make it in Mexico.We're going to make our widgets in Mexico.That's what we're going to do.That was our plan from the beginning.That's one thing.It's bad when Ken and Peter were making a widget.We wanted to make it in Newcastle.We wanted to make it in Portland, Oregon.And now we go, I can't do this anymore.I'm competing with Mexico.I have to close now.You and I, we got to lay off 100 people that we work with for 10, 20, 30 years.We got to tell them it's over.And these guys are making $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 a year.But that's 10 times what the, you know, the average salary in Mexico, I think is $16,000.In Vietnam it's nine.So, I mean, it's okay.Again, if Ken and Peter decided we're going to make a widget and we were always planning to make it in Mexico because of that wage variable, but then what happens when you and I were making a widget happily here happily, and now we cannot.Maybe we're done.Maybe you and I have finished, maybe we're finished.But maybe all the people that we work with every day, they're done.It's all over them.But that's the free trade world that is being criticized now because you cannot compete with developing nations on wage alone.Not only that, of course, in the US, we have a strong currency.Think about how far my dollar goes in Mexico or China or Vietnam.I could buy a mansion in Vietnam.I could barely buy a trailer in the United States for $300,000.Think about what I could do with that money in Vietnam or Thailand or Mexico, right?So, not only do you have the wage issue, you have a strong currency here because we're such a financial market.All the money from the world comes here.You have higher taxes here than you do in other places.So, you're competing on that level too.So, there really is the argument of free trade was always something that was for the textbooks, something that the faculty lounge could discuss and economists could discuss in a dream world.But in reality, it never came to fruition because it only was good for the big corporations who were transnational.They had no allegiance to a nation.It wasn't Peter and Ken making a widget.It wasn't you and I making bikes in Oregon.It wasn't that.It was Walmart buying and selling a million bikes all across the continental United States.We don't care about where we get the bikes.If I can get it for $100 or $99 and sell it for $110, and I'm selling a million of them.That $1 difference puts a million dollars a year in my pocket.
It's a big deal.So, I mean, those are the guys who really benefited.But the guy who made the bike doesn't benefit.And for them, it's a huge blow.And I think that is where we are seeing in the West today.That's where the tensions are rising from the electorate against the established powers.We can look at even the immigration debate.What is the immigration debate about?It's about why are we giving these guys all this money?
Why these guys are hurting our wages or these guys are hurting, you know, our ability to get jobs.And so it's always it always relates to that sort of what I call the immigration debate in the West.I call it forced globalism upon the people.You know, again, like I said earlier, the conversation saying you don't want us to make a factory in Asia.You don't want us to import goods because you all talk to your elected officials and cry because you want to make steel or whatever here. Good.We're going to import all of them here.You know, they're going to make it for half your pay or we're going to totally stunt your wage growth forever.You know, so that's always the stem of the issue in the West.It's always this rush to globalization, creating this, you know, where planet Earth is the nation state rather than the UK as a nation and Germany as a nation or the EU is a block.No, there's districts, like Hunger Games.This is the district that makes this widget.This is the district that makes that widget.And then free capital moves throughout the world.And that's a dream of the free trader, but that's not a dream of the person, again, Ken and Pete, who were making a widget, and now we cannot.We cannot do that anymore, because we cannot compete with Mexico.There is no way in hell we're going to do it.We're not going to make it for the same price you can make it in Albania, for crying out loud.It's all over.And so that has something's got to give.And there's a lot of politicians that realize that.And there's a lot who are pushing back, obviously.Well, in that order, you talk about some of the old understanding of the views on globalization are changing.So, you talk about trade deficits don't matter or imports don't take American jobs.I mean, those are two issues which will come home to roost for individuals because the U.S.Massive trade gap, that has a cost.And of course, if you're all getting your stuff from temu then actually uh no one needs to actually work in America to produce anything so, where are the jobs?And is it a waking up to the damage that unrestricted, uncontrolled, mass-globalization causes in those two simple things of trade deficit and simple jobs.Well yeah there is there is a waking up.Look, I look back; In fact, I'm not an old guy.So, I remember in the 90s, I was young, I was probably just starting to vote, when a man named Ross Perot was talking about this, what it would be like when the United States created the free trade area of North America, NAFTA.And he said it would be a huge sucking sound of American jobs going to Mexico.And at the time, remember, Mexico was a country that was in and out of default.It survived on the IMF.It was like Argentina.It was basically Argentina of North America.And of course, NAFTA saved it.NAFTA saved it, but it became essentially the United States, the 51st state.And what's happening now?Let's talk about the free trade agreement of North America.Let's talk about NAFTA for a second.That idea was always to Mexico is our neighbor.They're always in and out of a financial crisis or an economic crisis.Let's help them with trade.Let's help them do this.And it was a success to a large extent, right?I mean, it's still way poorer than we are here in the U.S. and Canada.Way poorer.You can't compare the wages between the two countries; it's just at least three times more here.But countries, companies from around the world are going to Mexico now.So, Germany is setting up shop to make electric vehicles there.Of course, Korea and Hyundai make cars there.But a lot of those cars are for sale in Mexico.Those are big sellers in Mexico.But I highly doubt that the BMW electric vehicle is a high powered vehicle, a selling vehicle in Mexico.I don't think that's the market that is going to come here.The Japanese have been making steel in Mexico.That is coming here.That's coming here duty free.So, now NAFTA has become a trade zone for any multinational that wants to set up shop in Mexico.It's helping the Mexicans and the locals and the Mexican workers, but it's really a multinational free trade zone.If you can set up shop in Mexico and, of course, employ Mexicans and so on and pay Mexican taxes, you can sell your goods where?Well, to the biggest consumer economy in the world, right?You've got to sell them here.
You're not setting up to sell there, I mean, Mexico, tiny.Your next door neighbour is right here.So, this is a problem, but that's free trade.That's the free trade topic.That's the free trade model.And people do not like it.Clearly, they do not like it.It doesn't mean they don't like free trade. Obviously, we want to trade.Again, you and I have a factory.We make a widget.We want to trade with the world.We do want to trade with the world.And that's not a bad thing.That's a good thing.There's nothing wrong with that.But again, if people perceive from the UK, from Germany, the United States; they perceive that their leaders were obsessed, that's changing, with this globalization model of one world kumbaya.Everything's going to be made in Asia.Everything's going to be made in Mexico.And they cannot survive.They cannot survive on that.And so either you're going to have a city and town where you have marijuana shops and treatment centers, and that's going to be your new industry and casinos, or you're going to have a place where people can survive making things like kitchen cabinets or furniture.And if you don't want that, if you don't want that, then okay, then admit you don't want that.And what are you going to do to replace it?Okay, then what do they say?Well, we're going to have universal basic income.So they know.They do come up with solutions, but that's their solution.That's their solution.And I'm not convinced that people are on board with that for the most part.I don't know.Maybe there are some lazy people who are fine with universal basic income.I'm sure there are people who would be fine with that.But people are against this globalization model, and it's being turned on its head in the West, and it is a source of a lot of political problems.And of course, China is the 10,000 pound gorilla, whatever that saying goes in the room.And everybody, everybody sees that now.It was Trump really that made people see that, but Europe seeing it now as well.So, where that leads in the years ahead, I don't know.People clearly do not like the setup the way it was pre Trump, let's say pre Brexit, where the goal was: hey, we're just going to make everything in China.We're gonna make everything in Asia.And that's it.You can learn to become a new EDM DJ and you now train for Eurovision and maybe you'll get lucky and that's that's the extent of it.Well, we've got UBI coming in Wales as a test bed but that's a whole other conversation with Wales; have found how you get free money which is a change in how humanity works.I want to ask, you did another post looking at, I think the title was, U.S.Risks Losing Its Status as an Exemplar of a Free Country with Laws.And you talked about China's soft power slowly winning hearts and minds, see it in developing countries, in other countries it's not.But there does seem to be that move from that kind of American dream, everyone wants to come to America to see the sights, the sounds, to see the miracle that's America.That seems to now be moving towards China with a huge focus on it.So, what are your thoughts?Tell us more about that, about the US losing that position, having its soft power of influence worldwide.Well, for starters, America is still seen as a place in Europe as well, as a place where people from developing countries want to go.If we were seen as a failing society and failing countries, I would assume people from other failing countries wouldn't want to come here.But, I don't know how informed these people are about what it looks like today in the streets of San Francisco.How much it costs to live in New York City?They might still believe that, you know, California is paved with gold and they can become, you know, Hollywood actors in a year or two, you know, singing and dancing on the streets of Hollywood and Vine.Maybe they believe that.They'll learn from Rude Awakening.But that sort of vision of the United States may still exist in Latin in parts of Latin America.I believe that is eroding.OK, now on the China side with soft power, of course.You know so soft power is defined as, you know, diplomacy but it's also defined as culture.And it's also defined as corporate branding.So, culture United States wins hands down.Everybody knows Hollywood right: American music.We got Taylor Swift.China doesn't have the Chinese salesman, you know.So, we have you know the rock and so on.We have all these movies that's an immeasurable positive for the United States, culturally.But in terms of diplomacy and just soft power in general.Let's look at what happened recently.So, you have Russia's war with Ukraine.So, obviously Russia is part of the big four emerging markets.It's part of the BRIC collective.And these guys have been, these leaders of these countries have been talking and developing relationships for at least, I would say 20 years now.When the West asked all these countries to support them in their view on Russia, to a man, none of them went along with it.None of them.This is completely different than what it was like in the 80s.If you tell Brazil: hey, we need you to send some weapons to Ukraine.Brazil couldn't say no.Because the United States said, well, we're going to hold back that IMF loan.We're going to hold back that development loan for that bridge you're trying to build, that dam you want.Either you give, either you start putting out, make it look like you're on our side and start churning out some ammo for the Ukrainians or the money for that hydroelectric dam is off the table.That's not a thing anymore.That's not a thing anymore.The United States has lost that.So, when you see countries in the developing world that can say no to the West, say no to Europe and the United States, right, and ignore them.That is a sign that the soft power of the West is eroding.I'm not saying that's eroding in favour of China.But it's eroding in sense of there is imbalance in the world, right?There's a sense of that people in developing world, the leaders in developing world is saying, we don't want the unipolar view anymore, right?Let's, let's, let's go more of a multi-polar view, Right.Maybe that doesn't mean China's in the lead.We don't know who the multipolar is going to be.We don't know.But there is a pushback against the United States way.And I don't know.I think there was a real severing of that with with COVID, honestly, because, everybody in the world saw how the West treated its people during COVID.I mean, we saw what China did, right?Locking people in apartments in Wuhan and so on.We saw those things.Saw that.And who knows?That could have, for all we know here in the West, that could have been just orchestrated to make it look to us in the West that this disease is so bad.Look what the Chinese are doing.They have to literally lock people in their homes or they'll die.This is how bad it is.So, that could have been a psy-op in a way for all I know.But you had people in Canada losing their bank accounts.You had people in the United States being arrested for protesting lockdowns.You had people vilified for it, and so on.While Black Lives Matter and Antifa were able to parade around.Of course, they had their science-y masks on.So, I guess that was all good.And breaking things and knocking statues down and whatever.And they were fine.So that six feet distance didn't matter to them.And people around the world see that.I remember even the president of Mexico said, Obrador, He said, you know, COVID showed the Western world authoritarianism.He showed that the Western world can be authoritarian, just like, what they always criticize us as a being, you know.I mean, this is fascinating.This is not a language that you would hear Mexico ever say about the United States.You'd be instantly punished.What does Mexico do to the United States to help us police the border?What does Mexico do for the United States to help us stop fentanyl?Do you ever hear about them beating up on Sinaloa or Jalisco?I mean, unless like the DEA is involved, those guys just run around free like you and I, you know, going to get a sandwich in a local shop.I mean, there's nothing happening there to fight it, right?So, you know, and I think I look at that as being a sign.That is a sign that the West really is no longer the exemplar on a lot of the issues that it was.On issues like democracy, where all this talk about misinformation and control.That there is sort of a severing of ties, if you will, from the developing world with the West.And I'm not saying that China is going to replace it.We don't want that.But I'm also of the mind that there are many people in the West who really like the China model, and they wouldn't even complain if the China model replaced ours, because they love the top-down societal government control aspects of the CCP.And many of them think in the West that they can just wrap it in the pretty bows of diversity, inclusion and environmental justice.And all the urban educated classes will say: oh, that that sounds reasonable.That sounds like a good way to go.Within the eyes of the developing world.
It's very difficult for me to say that they are all going to agree with the U.S. on certain things.That wasn't the case when we were kids.It was not.
America was always the right, always in the right, always.Now it's like, you know, they might not agree.They're not going to go along with it.No, you've seen in Africa, especially China using their financial muscle to go in to start massive infrastructure projects for the Belt and Braces.And America seems to be very much hands off.And it seems to be as the West is maybe moved away from parts of Africa, China has gone into to that vacuum and imposed itself.And now is building infrastructure across the continent.The west then scratch your heads and wonder why they have less power.Well, it's because you've handed that industrial, that financial power, over to China and they are now the ones that rule, because of those tight contracts.And they're the ones that get people from A to B by building a road or building a railway.So, they're the ones that Africa need, and no longer the west.Yeah.And you know, where did they come up with this idea?This was what the West did.This was the United States did in the post-World War II, right?The United States went to the world and said, we're going to help rebuild.We're going to get you modernized.That was soft power.We're going to get you on our side.We're going to get you to see things our way.We're going to get you to be our political and economic partner.And so we don't really see that as much anymore.We don't really see that as much anymore.I don't really know why.Maybe it is like a late empire pirate type situation, right?Where we're worried more about silly things, cultural issues.That the other part of the world doesn't worry about.I mean, I think that was something famously said by someone in Africa.They said, look, China comes here giving us money to build roads and bridges.And when you guys come here, you give us lectures on gender, or climate
change, right?But that's not to say the Africans don't want American business.I'm sure they do.But that's not, in a lot of ways, that's not what the United States is in there for.And I think only recently the United States has realized, oh, they've seen the error of their ways.Because where I work, I get to sit in on a lot of these hearings in Congress.And I know that they want to counter China in that way.But it's a knee-jerk react to China.It's a knee-jerk react to China.It's not necessarily a long-term planning thing.So, okay, well, how do we go to this country and propose this?What else can we do?Everything is a knee jerk.And that is a problem, but at least they see that they've been caught on the back foot over the last few years.Whereas China has in terms of soft power, diplomacy, getting their corporate brands all over the world that they see now, wow, we're losing.We're losing a lot of that.Think about it.I remember my first time going to Latin America in the 90s.I'm sure this was the case in the 80s and the 70s.Ford, McDonald's, Hollywood, those were symbols.Those are like the unpaid American ambassadors.And so look today; you can probably count on one hand, unless you drive a German car, how many German item products you have in your, in your house.You know, I have a Miele vacuum cleaner.I think that's German, you know, but for the most part, your kid has TikTok on their phone.You might have a Lenovo computer or a Lexmark printer in your office.There's a lot of Chinese corporate brands that are very well known.You probably, your kid probably buys clothes on Shein or, or you probably shop on Temu, right?What's the European equivalent to that?I don't know of any.I can't name one big European app, honestly.I just can't.And even e-commerce, I can't think of a single one.So, this is China.So, this is the soft power.These are very important issues for the United States that used to dominate that, for example, in Latin America.And now they do not.They do not dominate that at all.It's China that is moving in; China is moving in the auto industry.China is moving in big retail and in some areas even finance.So, you know, I think that's an interesting look to see.What's it going to be like in another generation?China may be seen as a better partner.And as I mentioned in Daily Caller, there was a survey by the Singaporean think tank run by the government that showed a small amount, I think it was 50.4%, so it's almost 50-50, of government leaders.Not just men on the street, who said, strategically they felt it was better the dial was moving a little bit more towards China than the United States.Even the fact that it's 50-50 should be worrying to the U.S., right?I'm speaking as an American here, right?It should be worrying that it's even 50-50, but it is.And so that goes to show the power of China.Not just militarily and all this stuff, but just doing business with China and then seeing things China's way in many degrees.Well, it's true.Then that report, Singapore report of the Southeast, it makes you realize that China doesn't actually need to use its military power, because obviously it is ramping up its military spending, wanting to actually impose itself on the South China Sea, make sure America is not there.In one way, it needs to do that because I guess you've got Taiwan and Japan maybe as entities that are not pro-China.But everywhere else, in one way, trade is actually building bridges with those countries.There's actually less reason for China to spend all that huge amount of money on military power whenever soft power through trade and commerce.That's actually winning over Southeast Asia.Oh, absolutely.They're more connected to Asia, more connected to China because of commerce.A lot of Chinese multinationals, especially, have been setting up shop in Southeast Asia to make everything from LED light bulbs to furniture and so on, solar panels are huge in Vietnam and Malaysia.Chinese multinationals are all there and they're selling it all over the world.Most of the United States and Europe.But again, China does want to build up its military because they see, and this is one thing I think the military worries about, is they see this.They think the military is a good place for me to have an industrial base.The military is a good place for me to make big products, big expensive items, maybe like a drone.Drones are a big thing now.Autonomous ships.Autonomous aircraft.China's big on that.I don't know if Russia makes those.So, who is the United States competing with a lot of times for like military contracts in Asia?Russia?So, India might buy, or Saudi Arabia.So India might buy an F-15, but it might also buy a Sukhoi.Might buy both.Might buy a MiG.Might buy an F-15.But now China's saying, hey, wait a minute.Why don't I also; so let them buy.I don't know anything about China.A China fighting tiger.Now, all of a sudden the Vietnamese don't just have F-15s.They got a Chinese fighting tiger too.So it's very important for China to move into the military, not because they want to protect the South China Sea or get the U.S.Military out of there, get that U.S. military protectorate agreement out of Asia because China sees this is my backyard, not yours.And they're going to muscle in and give options. But also, in thinking of the military as a product, I have autonomous boats.Hey, Vietnam, you want to have a coast guard? You want to police illegal fishing?You want whatever? You want to place drugs in the Malibu Straits without getting your soldiers injured? I got autonomous boats.America makes autonomous boats, but we're even better at it.And that's a big deal. That's a huge deal. People don't realize.All of a sudden, who's competing with the United States? Who's competing with Lockheed Martin to make an autonomous boat? The Chinese.Look, when you think of flying internationally,  there's only two planes you've ever been on. You've been on a Boeing and you've been on an Airbus.But now China, I only know the abbreviation of the company, it's called Comac, has the C, I think it's called the C919. Yeah.And that's an international wide-body jet that's going to take you from Shanghai to Paris.
Well, guess what?So one day when that plane is seen as doing, in terms of safety record is solid and whatever, the airlines are going to buy that; going to buy a Comac instead of an Airbus, instead of a Boeing.And guess what else is even more interesting?Do you think that the Chinese are going to subsidize a Boeing jet or an Airbus plane?No, they're going to subsidize Comac, so Comac can become the Vietnamese airline of choice carrier.Maybe not Japan, because the United States would muscle in there, I'm sure.Maybe even France would, too.Maybe even Vietnam in the case of France and Vietnam.No.But other areas like Kazakhstan, Russia, for example, Aeroflot would probably be alright.I don't even I don't even envision a future of Aeroflot in Russia using Airbus and Boeing.I don't. I don't even see why they would want to if that Comac jet is safe.Well, you know, Boeing planes, their doors fall off in mid-flight lately.So, if the Comac is safe, why would Russia want to buy an American or a French plane?The Americans and the French hate him.I agree. I'm a plane buff, and I think I would rather fly on a Chinese aircraft than a Boeing at the moment.The aircraft could be better.I just want to finish on another issue.I think one of your tweets was that the established powers of the West love the CCP model of social control and governance.And you made the wrap it up in this diversity.But this whole thing on the control that China have on their citizens, and obviously during COVID, the West suddenly thought, oh, we can now use this to actually control our citizens.And then in the UK, you realize that a lot of our CCTV systems on the streets; and a lot of the CCTV systems used in shops are actually Chinese systems.So, who knows where the data goes?But it's interesting how the West looking at China, once again, it's China that will provide the infrastructure and the setup for the West.The West kind of look at that.They would like some of that control.And China, again, are the world leaders. And once again, they provide what the West wants to control the citizens.Yeah, they're sort of like a petri dish in a way, right?The Chinese people of what the West would like.Now, the Western world, because you live in democracies where people still have a say, people still have a say.But that's changing.Yeah, because they can vilify in the West and use the media and say that people like Peter who think that this way, they're conspiracy theorists, they're right wingers, they're fascists, whatever it is, they're transphobic, they don't believe in science.The whole nine yards, the usual things, right? Right.That's how they get the other half of society to sort of bludgeon you.They shut. So the government doesn't have to do anything. Right.The other half, the other half of polite society could say, oh, that Peter guy has a weird views of things.What's wrong with surveillance?He's not we're not doing anything bad.So what?Look, I'm of the mind that in the West, because we are a democracy and people still have a say, they have to divide the people in a way that when you are opposed to the regime, when you're opposed to the government, you're going to be a person who's spreading misinformation.You're going to be someone who needs to be censored.You're going to be someone who needs to be punished.That is the way that they're able to corral people who don't want to be punished, don't want to be censored, don't want to be vilified.And they can be on this team regime.They can be on the side of the power.So if you were looking at China, you'd be on the side of the CCP.Why would China, why would an average Chinese person want to go against the CCP?You see what happens.So, in the US and in Europe, you're doing that with different laws, like misinformation, you're trying to shut down that debate, trying to shut down people, allowing people to talk about certain things.So, you can vilify them or you can just end it at all.But at least, at the very least, vilify these people so that the other half of society, whether it's a third or whether it's a half, I don't know, can say, yeah, you know, those people deserve to be punished.Those people deserve to be ostracized from society.[40:20] And that gives, of course, the government more control.Because they can't control.They can't just come out and say, we're going to do this.We're going to give you digital currency and program what you can buy or whatever.That's not going to happen.That can, to some extent, happen in China.It'd be very hard to do, do that in the West, but you know, I'm of the mind that they won't, they won't succeed at this.I hope, I hope, I hope not.I could, I could be wrong.We can, we can tell what you can talk about this for hours.You almost need a theologian to talk about some of these issues because, I think that people, because of all these alternative media people like yourself, Peter, right?They've come out and they're, they're almost ahead.That we're one step ahead of how the powers that be think, or at least we understand how they think.We can analyze it and we can come out and say, this is what they could do.Maybe we're wrong.But if we're right, then it's almost like these guys can't do it.You know what I mean?Because now it's like, well, I know we said we weren't going to do it.We did it.But it is a good idea because.And then when you keep having to do that, what happens?What's happening in the West?You delegitimize the system.You delegitimize the institution because of that gaslighting.Because you said you weren't going to do this.The guys you said were spreading misinformation said you were going to do it.You did do it.And then you said, yeah, but it's good that we did it.You can't keep doing that in society.But that's the way that the West moves to a China control like model because they just can't do it.We don't live in a dictatorship.You can't just do it.But that's the way that they move you in that direction.But as long as people like yourself and others in media, and of course, you have a big star in the UK, Russell Brand, he's huge, he's big here in the United States.As long as they're up ahead of that, then I think it becomes harder, because more people are aware, more people are curious about how the powers are trying to control things in their life.And then it's less likely that they will succeed, you know.It is less likely they succeed when more people are aware of what's at stake and more people are aware of what the planning is or how their thinking is.As long as we want to be free people and don't live like the CCP runs China, then we know that the guys who perfectly fine with us living like the CCP.We can be out ahead of them, then we can stop it, because they don't want to, they don't want to be embarrassed.They don't want to look like fools.In the worst case scenario, they will get more aggressive, more vicious and just keep pushing and pushing and pushing.And I think that's, unfortunately, that's the, this, this, the place we find ourselves now in Europe, the UK, the United States and Canada.And it's going to be very interesting to see what happens in the next few years.It will be and we'll see how November changes things because we've little pushback in Europe so I think the U.S have a chance of some pushback in November.You did have a big pushback with that farmer protest that was pretty serious.I think that the farmer protest was really eye-opening for a lot of people.I think, didn't it didn't disrupt some government in the Netherlands or Denmark?I forget, but some somebody was overthrown or a political party that was in...It overthrew the government of the Netherlands, in effect.The issue is actually when you protest, you have media you highlighted, then you're looking for a political solution to come in on the back of that, and Europe haven't yet got that.Now, the European Union elections will be interesting coming up in only months, and that could change things.But yeah, whether the EU are able to remove themselves from China's pocket is a big question, just like it is from the state side, whether you guys can remove yourself from that and China have done well on, I guess, embedding themselves into all our institutions.Look.In Europe, I think the issue with the renewable energy side that they're talking about now and China really dominating that market, that might see them split a little bit with China.So, that'll be interesting to watch to see how the Europeans, which promote climate change, want renewable, want a post-fossil fuel economy, and then go, oh, wait a minute now.We want a post-fossil fuel economy, but we literally have nothing to make a post-fossil fuel economy.Yeah, we have EVs, but we don't have an EV battery maker.Yeah, we have wind, but we have no solar to speak of.If we do, it's small little companies.They're all dominated by the Chinese.It's like Peter and Ken's solar manufacturing plant.We employ a thousand people and we have a few rooftops in southern Spain have our product.But we're not big players.No one's afraid of us.Maybe we're happily employing a few people and making some money until the Chinese come in and buy us out, whatever.They don't have the infrastructure for that.I think I'd be curious to see how Europe reacts to China within the renewable energy space.And I see that as being where China really becomes, well, Europe really splinters off from China because they're not going to be able to compete with China in that market.And they consider that to be, obviously, what Europe always talks about is climate change.They consider that to be probably their most important market in the future.Yeah, 100%. More solar panels from China will solve everything.Yeah, the temperature will fall at least at one degree over the next 20 yearsKenneth, I really appreciate you coming on.I've loved following your twitter and obviously your many articles on daily caller.People can get in the description if they're watching.
If they're listening it's there as well now the podcast platform so thank you so much for joining us and giving us your thoughts on China.Thanks for having me on Peter, appreciate it.

The Week According To . . . David Vance

David Vance returns to help Peter go through some of the news stories that have caught our eye this week and we take a closer look at some of the posts David has made on his Twitter/X including...- But it's a conspiracy! When geo engineering goes wrong. Dubai submerged.- The New Irish: Fine Gael. Ireland 2024.- Paedophiles could be stripped of parental rights under new law.- Rishi Sunak and Belgian PM criticise mayor’s halting of NatCon conference.- Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challenge.- Gutter Press: The Mail Online showing us once again how despicable it really is.- Here comes summer: 534 migrants crossed the channel yesterday.- Unbelievable! NHS spring Covid booster jab booking service to open.- Diverse: Dr Who and his new assistant. Unwatchable woke garbage.
Pureblood David Vance will not submit, and he will not comply.He used to be disgusted but now he tries to be amused!In the battle for truth and liberty, David chooses the front line, he has been writing and talking politics for a long time and is a published author, political commentator and podcaster extraordinaire!If the Covid 19 plandemic taught him one lesson it is that critical reasoning and a healthy contempt for the mainstream media are desirable armoury in the fight against tyranny.
Connect with David...WEBSITE           davidvance.net/X                        twitter.com/DVATWPODCAST          vancedavidatw.podbean.comRecorded 18.4.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
Links to topics...Dubai submergedhttps://x.com/DVATW/status/1780605966968381789Geo-Engineeringhttps://x.com/DVATW/status/1780566730638532934Ireland 2024https://x.com/DVATW/status/1780584179089986020Paedophiles https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68830796NatCon conferencehttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/16/belgian-mayor-natcon-conference-braverman-farage-brussels?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Otherprayer ban https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68731366Mail Online https://x.com/DVATW/status/1779880464418845032migrants https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1779808882069520555Covid booster https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68789711?s=09Dr Who https://x.com/DVATW/status/1778883835976958046

Prof Angus Dalgleish - The COVID Booster Cancer Time Bomb and Why the Experiment Needs To Stop

Show Notes and Transcript
Professor Dalgleish has spoken out about his concerns of the mRNA jab for years. And for the last 2 he has written about the rise of cancers he believes are linked to the jab. We start by looking back at Professor Dalgleish's career and ask why he chose to speak up and what was the response from his colleagues? He then delves into this rise of turbo cancers and why he had to sound the alarm despite the struggle to get full transparency from the authorities and "Move on, nothing to see here" is the reply to most requests for data. His fellow cancer specialists agree with his concerns, but the authorities simply will not listen.
Angus Dalgleish is an expert in immunology and Professor of Oncology at St George's Hospital Medical School, London.
Article in The Conservative Woman: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/massive-cancer-deaths-study-vindicates-my-warnings-over-covid-boosters/
Japan Data: https://www.cureus.com/articles/196275-increased-age-adjusted-cancer-mortality-after-the-third-mrna-lipid-nanoparticle-vaccine-dose-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-japan#!/
The Death of Science:      https://amzn.eu/d/2w1wxk4
Interview recorded 15.4.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
TRANSCRIPT
(Hearts Of Oak)
I'm delighted to have Professor Angus Dalgleish with us today.
Professor, thank you so much for your time.
(Prof Angus Dalgleish)
You're welcome.
Great to have you.
And of course, people will have read, I'm sure, many of your articles, more recently in The Conservative Woman, back before that, I think in certainly The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail.
And since 1991, I know you've been the Professor of Oncology at St.
George's University, London.
And during this time, you focused on the immunology of cancer and conducted numerous clinical trials involving a variety of vaccines and immune therapy.
I know you're well known for your contributions on HIV AIDS research.
And of course, you stood for UKIP, which is another part of your story back in 2015.
There's so many areas, Professor, I want to talk to you, but maybe you have got a background in understanding vaccines.
We'll get on to, I think, the first article you wrote, certainly I read, was back two years ago, actually, on the madness of vaccinating children against COVID, and they started discussing cancer and what you were seeing back in December 2022.
I certainly saw it in the Conservative Woman but maybe I can ask you just for a little bit of your background and then we can get on to what you have seen with your patients and the data.
Okay well with regards to my background I mean it's, I've been reminded of something I'd forgotten and that is that I'm probably one of the only people in the country who's been an NHS consultant in virology, immunology, general medicine, and oncology.
So when I had my chair in oncology, I had a great background in immunology and virology, which is what led me to go into tumour immunology.
And I continued working on HIV pathogenesis for several years and worked with colleagues in Norway with designing a very good HIV vaccine, which is the only one that works.
But I was staggered that nobody was interested or would support it.
And yet the big medical industrial complex, such as the NIH and Big Pharma, kept plowing ahead with vaccines that had the whole envelope in different technologies, and none of them worked.
In fact, it was worse than working. They had to stop all these worldwide trials costing billions because the vaccine was worse than the placebo, now so that's a very good entrée as to where I came from with the COVID virus.
When that became a pandemic and the sequence became available.
I was called up by my colleagues in Norway saying, would I be happy to do the same process?
I help identify the major immunological components and avoid all the unnecessary ones, which is the most important thing.
And I said yes, obviously.
And we started to plan a MAPA plan when they came back and said, this is not an actual virus, this has been released from the lab in Wuhan or escaped then as we put it and the reasons for this was absolutely plain, is that there were charged inserts around the receptor binding site not one or two but six as well as the fusion site, fusion domain and I looked at that you know, and I had a background because I've done so much work on the HIV receptor, even as a clinician I was you know, had a scientific understanding of interactions and what is required etc and it occurred to me that these inserts some of them had been previously published and, you know, by the Wuhan group, they'd said, aren't we clever?
We put this insert in and we made this virus more infectious to human cells. This is very good.
They went on with two or three. But here we had one with six inserts.
Now, my molecular biology, virology friends all told me, oh, don't get excited.
All these things happen at random. And here I then realized what a problem was with science, people are only in their boxes, they don't get out of the boxes. Changes in sequence only matter when they translate into the amino acids which translate into proteins and that's what does the interaction, once the amino acids were translated by these inserts they broke all the rules of the game, they were far too too positively charged, which meant that the virus had been altered so it would act like a fridge magnet.
So it would zap onto human cells over and above its natural ACE receptor.
And when I realized this, it was 100% I was convinced it could not have come from anywhere else because it had broken the rules of biology. And the rules of biology would have edited out those changes because, put it in a simple way, the charge was around pH 8.
The charge of any normal virus is around 6 or less. So it was just a supernatural leap.
And that's what convinced me. But the big problem was that having written papers in Nature Science, Lancet on HIV and its receptor and how it causes disease and the epidemiology and got them all in the leading papers.
When I pointed this out with my colleagues, Nature, Science, all these papers, Lancet, they all turned us down and said, this data is not in the public interest.
Seriously, I've got the copies. It is unbelievable. So I realized then that a discussion about the science was being banned.
This led to me, and I'm flagrantly admit that, you know, this ended up in us writing a book called The Death of Science, which is actually available, and I've probably got it somewhere.
But this was unbelievable that we suddenly realized everything was being censored.
I was told by my own university we were not allowed to discuss or research the origin of the virus.
Well, I mean, that was really quite draconian. But then where do so many universities get their funding from these days? They're far too reliant on China.
So it clearly comes from that source, the way China stopped the WHA doing their work.
Now, I'm just going to mention, this is relevant to what you've asked me to talk about, because when we had that spike protein, we realized it was very fully charged.
We also looked at it for a homology with now an epitopes.
And 80% of it was similar to the human epitopes, some of them unbelievably identical, platelet factor IV myelin.
So we said, do not use this as a vaccine, because it will cause all sorts of terrible side effects.
This is how you do it. We've learned from HIV, a vaccine is not how much you can put in it, but how little you can put in it.
So you go for the Achilles heels of the structure.
So if those structures no longer exist, the virus doesn't exist in any variant.
So we actually had a blueprint.
And we told everybody about this.
We had access to the cabinet, the SAGE, Chief Medical Officer of Science.
Who basically deemed it all interesting but not relevant. Can you believe that?
But they had a point that there was 150 groups reviewed by a Nature paper, all of them so stupid, I use the word advisedly, that they all said, this is our vaccine. They all used the whole spike protein.
Well, it was obvious that you must not use the whole spike protein, in the same way we'd spent 30 years saying don't use the whole HIV envelope.
And they still haven't got the process. I mean, it is unbelievable stupidity group thing.
And anyhow, so we knew there was going to be a big problem if they use the spike protein with autoimmunity, etc.
However, that had nothing to do with my interest with cancer at all.
What got my interest in cancer in this was when they brought out the booster program.
Now, I've done lots of model work on vaccines, you know, basic research funded by charity, done for industry too.
And a basic adage is, if a vaccine needs a booster, it doesn't work.
So here we are being forced by the government and all the authorities to have a booster when it was all based on the grounds that people who monitor the effects of people who've been vaccinated, their antibody titer falls off.
Well, of course it does. I mean, that's what you want. And that was the basis for doing boosters, to stop it falling off.
Well, I knew enough then about the booster is that by the time they were talking about rolling out the booster, we were already in Omicron territory.
They were boosting a virus that didn't exist on the grounds that there was crossover. And there was all these species, the booster will give you extra protection from crossover.
Well, apart from the fact that we'd widely published and it had been downloaded over a quarter of a million times, our objection to using the spike protein and what you should use for a vaccine, with another group of colleagues, I wrote a review of a virus.
Coxsackie viruses and the attempts to vaccinate against them and why they had all failed.
And actually, the need for them is greater in animal work than it is in humans.
But they all fail because the vaccines against coronavirus lead to antigenic sin or immunological imprinting.
Once you are vaccinated against a component of that and you challenge with a different variant, it will only see the first component.
And it will not see the variants.
But it will make antibodies that will bind to them.
And then that enhances infection and this explains why people have just woken up scratched their heads and say why does everybody who gets a booster get infected again with COVID in fact three and a half times more likely according to the big Cleveland study and more than twice as likely according to one published after the second vaccine in BMJ, so this was not a surprise.
I couldn't believe why nobody heeded and listened to these warnings.
And the people that made the decision.
It must have made them in ignorance because they certainly didn't read any of this stuff. Otherwise, they'd have been much more cautious.
Now, instead, they were being pushed by Big Pharma, who selected the data.
It's now obvious that Pfizer, if they had revealed the data, the VAERS data, nobody in their right mind would ever have approved it.
And you've had Clare Craig and Norman Fenton on board.
So all I can just point out was I was unaware of this carry on at the time, but they brilliantly pointed out that they did it all on relative risk as opposed to absolute risk and the number needed to vaccinate to prevent.
If that data had been presented properly, nobody in their right mind would have approved a vaccine.
It's just meaningless to have to vaccinate 120 people to prevent one infection.
And when the VAERS data came out, it was clear that if you had a serious adverse event, you had a 3% chance of dying.
Whereas if you got COVID, you had less than 1% chance of dying.
In fact, a lot, lot less than 1% at the very most.
So there was no way anybody should have done it.
So I would argue that the Pfizer, and I'm not alone in having said that they went into shenanigans and all sorts of smoke and mirror to hide the truth and get everything approved.
But, you know, others, such as the state of Texas, are actually suing them for fraud.
So, I mean, it's not exactly, it's an open secret.
So get back to the booster and the cap....
Could I just ask you just one little sidestep, I remember reading your numerous articles, I think it's probably in the Daily Mail and I remember thinking Professor Angus is saying, speaking his concerns in a great way to stay within certain restrictions and yet get the message out.
And I was reading, thinking, this is exactly what I am hearing as a lay person.
And you're explaining from your medical professional background.
And those articles in the mainstream media, the newspapers, I think were vital in helping people understand what was happening.
And you wrote them in such an intelligent, smart way.
Well, thank you very much. With regards to the Daily Mail and the articles, I was staggered by the letter.
Sometimes they would print a page of letters in the printed edition, and they were all from people saying, thank you so much for helping us understand just what the hell has been going on.
You know that was the great thing, the big problem I had with the Daily Mail as soon as I pointed out that there was a problem with the vaccine, I would get to the draft I'd submit it, it'd be accepted and then it wouldn't appear and it had been censored by the chief editor, as soon as it was a vaccine, we now know why, it's because the mainstream media were paid a fortune to push the narrative by the government.
A fortune so big that none of them were prepared to challenge it.
The Mail did a fantastic job, and I helped as much as I could on the grounds that the lockdowns were madness, and there's no scientific justification for it.
It was absolute madness, even to think of a second one.
And many others, Carl Heneghan, et cetera, came up, and I was saying that natural immunity, and I was one of the few clinicians to sign the Great Barrington Declaration because that's what I said we should have done straight from day one.
In fact, now in retrospect, my gut feeling we didn't need a vaccine program has been proven to be absolutely true because had we done the vitamin D properly and had one or two other drugs out there, we would not, and I include there, without beating around the bush ivermectin, I think Peter Curry's book is absolutely damning how Fauci and others went out of their way to damp that down.
And the only reason they did was because you cannot introduce a vaccine if you've got an effective therapy.
I mean, I really do believe it was that bad that they were doing this.
And so many people suffered. I think it was criminal. I make no bones about that.
But the media wouldn't touch my concerns about the vaccine, which is why I ended up publishing them in the Daily Skeptic and the Conservative Women, who, I must say, they challenge anything that they find they cannot collaborate.
Corroborate they they check they do their own referencing and everything so they are very very hot and quite a lot of stuff I've had toned down because of challenges to the refereeing for instance etc, but the stuff that they do put out there they're all very happy about it, now what I did and why you were talking is that when the booster came in, I've said it's a complete waste of time.
Not only will it induce antibodies to a virus that doesn't exist, but they will lead to more infection.
What I wasn't prepared for was that my patients who I was monitoring carefully, who'd been stable melanoma for years, I had half a dozen of them go down within six to eight weeks of the booster program being wheeled out.
And they had relapsed. And some of these had been stable for over 15 years.
The average was five to seven. And I knew then something was going on because melanoma patients, once they're induced to be stable with immunotherapy like they all had, because I was using immunotherapy 20, 25 years ago, long before it became popular, I knew there had to be a tremendous immune suppression event going on, life event.
It's usually bereavement, severe depression, divorce, bankruptcy.
Something that goes over three months to cause this. Yet I was seeing it clear.
I reported it. I was told by my own people to shut up and stop frightening the patients. There is no evidence. Get the evidence.
So I said, you know, I am a canary in a mine and a man with a red flag.
It's up to everybody else to react to this. Now, I was told no.
I've subsequently seen a dozen and I've continued to shout.
And I saw eight cases within my social and family circle of people who developed leukaemia lymphoma after the booster and so we started to say how is it doing that? When it became evident there was a very good, I mean my own group have done work on this, but to me what really convinced it when other people found that t-cell responses were suppressed after the booster not the first and second but after the booster and the t-cell suppression was so bad they called it exhaustion in cancer patients, well we know that the people who've got cancer under good control, it is t-cells nothing to do with antibodies. So the booster was doing more harm than good, it's suppressing the t-cell response, and then I found papers that was even worse on the grounds that the booster switched the IgG1, immunoglobulin class structure antibodies, from ones that would normally be intent on fighting viruses to one that were tolerizing them, tolerizing the IgG.
The sort you induce in transplant patients.
So not only had you switched the T cell response off, but you'd sent all the antibodies on to be tolerizing so they didn't reject the transplant.
Of course the transplant in this case is the cancer so there's no doubt that it popped up, that was a major reason why it popped up, now why it's important to discuss this now is, having been told to shut up and be quiet, I did get by the way, people from all over the world saying thank you for pointing this out, we've seen exactly the same thing. I mean from America, Canada, South America, Europe, South Africa, Australia, all around the world people said we're seeing exactly the same thing. Well now we have this paper that's come from Japan, it's pure statistical analysis of events over COVID, including all causes of death and this is important, not incidents death, and they noticed there was no increase in death of any cause or cancer during the first one and two waves of COVID.
But it started in late 21 and continued to rise, hardly doubling in 22.
And so the all-cause in 21 went from a few percentage, three or four, to over 9% in 22.
Death from cancer went from 1.1 to 2.2 + in 22 these are small figures but it's a very strong trend because it was in all the cancers, it wasn't just in any one and I got particularly interested because there was no great increase in colorectal cancer, which is what we've seen in the UK in fact the colorectal surgeons were the first to phone me and say we're seeing unbelievable colon cancer in young people, and they've all had the booster vaccine.
You know, we think there is something related.
So I reacted that there was no signal in Japan. And then remember, they have an incredibly different diet.
It's a completely anti-inflammatory diet.
So they haven't been primed for colon cancer to take off.
But all the ones that were killing them were those that killed them before, but much quicker.
But I mentioned mortality.
I predicted there would be a massive increase in cancer problems just on lockdown alone because we weren't screening.
People weren't coming to with their symptoms. We weren't doing the scanning.
We weren't getting them on treatment early. So that alone, I predicted more people would die of that lockdown on cancer than would die from any benefit of lockdown on COVID deaths, which we now know there were zero.
I mean I think most people will now agree with that, it was introduced far too late on both occasions, it was introduced just as the hot, the waves were dying out, completely utterly pointless, so I was very aware and actually preached a bit that you know, the problem with this issue is cancer incidence is massive, cancer deaths not nearly as much because we've got very good at treating it and the incidence to death can take several years, so here in Japan you've actually got the death rate clearly rising, it's all very statistical this, in one year two year now, That was finished in 2023, submitted in 2023.
If we had the 23 data, I would bet that that would be a doubling again, probably, on the 22 data, because they have shown in the data they've got, it's worse with each booster, not just the first.
If you have a fourth and a fifth, it gets worse. And what is great about this paper is it goes into explaining how it's actually induced the cancer early as opposed to just waiting for it to develop which is what I would have expected had it just been suppression of the immune system and one thing they have suggested, which I totally go along with and I hadn't thought of it first-hand myself but I'm fully aware and support it, is that the clotting tendency, these micro-clots that the spike protein causes.
Actually would lead to enhancing the cancers to spread and metastasize.
And we know that this clotting abnormality occurs in some cancers, prostate and pancreas, and all sorts of unusual things occur, like disseminated intravascular coagulation, etc. Now, this is the sort of thing, that it was being reported in people who died of cancer who'd been vaccinated.
Really abnormal clots. If you look at the literature, there's a lot of people pointing out that the autopsy is highly unusual clotting going on.
So the fact that that process was actually driving cancer is a very interesting suggestion.
It's not proof, but it's yet another reason that might be driving it.
In the literature are reports that the spike protein binds to p53 and msh3.
These are suppressor genes.
If you have mutations in these genes you're much more likely to develop cancer because they normally switch the cancer that has arisen by accident off.
They're suppressor genes, they switch it off.
So if you compromise your suppressor genes you're much more likely to develop cancer quickly.
And I think that this is part of what the Japanese data is showing.
I just point out that I don't think there is any ulterior motive in just pointing out what we've seen, whereas I am very concerned that the Office of National Statistics keep changing the rules with data.
They stopped reporting the COVID deaths in May 22, and they've been doing adjustments and all sorts of things, which I think, what are they trying to hide?
And Carl Heneghan has made a very, and Norman Fenton, made a very big issue of this.
Why don't they just release all the data?
And I'm convinced that data shows something very similar, just because of what I see. I look around my friends, the number who've gone down with cancer since they had the booster.
Which they only had so they could travel in lockdown, and they wanted to have a decent holiday.
And he said, you can't get on this plane or this boat unless you have the booster.
And so they had the booster.
And in two cases, they never, ever going to get on the boat and do the traveling.
One of them died very quickly, and I was horrified by it because he'd had perfect treatment, absolute perfect treatment, but still progressed, suggesting there were other mechanisms going on.
And another one had a lymphoma that he had years ago it resurfaced rapidly and killed him and his oncologist, I was quite surprised told him, I really can't ignore the fact that this has been stable for years but it's come back as soon as you had the booster and there's a chap in England who's pointing this out, I was a friend of this guy, he's in America. And then I've had other cases which have popped up completely unexpected.
In my family, I've had cases of leukaemia uncovered after the boosters and brother-in-laws, etc.
So it's really real. And friends who developed aggressive prostate, pancreatic, ovarian cancer since the booster program has been wheeled out.
And my main reason for shouting about this is that I am still being told I can have a spring booster to protect myself.
I spoke to a friend today and they were talking about their father who was told he had prostate cancer and I think he went for a psa testing, that's to look at how far the cancer is and it was very low it was six or eight, then after the boosters he went for another test and they'd gone up to 170 and was told it spread throughout out the body and that was it and I get those are similar stories you have heard and I'm looking at these studies which are coming out and obviously you, this has just come out, you've just published this in the conservative woman as of when we're recording actually on the 15th, but you need studies I guess to analyse the data and put it together it's one thing having the individual stories, but these studies seem to be telling you what you already had heard in your individual patients.
Yes, indeed. I mean, we've been really waiting for proper studies like this, and there seemed to be a real hesitation.
I mean, I told everybody who criticized me, well, go away and look at it.
You're sitting on the data. You're head of trusts.
You're head of of MRC, CRUK, all these things.
That's your job. It's not my job. My job is to be the whistle-blower.
But as we know, whistle-blowers in the health service are persecuted, and it would have seemed to be the same in science and everything as well.
It's been going on a long time. I was reminded yesterday that Semmelweis, who was the first person to point out that the dreadful sepsis deaths in the maternity ward were due to the fact nobody washed their hands, and if you washed their hands, you didn't get it.
All his colleagues turned around and said, you're a lunatic, and had him locked up.
I mean, I don't think things have changed with this pandemic at all.
That's exactly what's going on.
It's the death of science. nobody wants to discuss the data whether it be the origin of the virus whether it be with a pandemic it's a good or bad thing whether it be that masks are a good or bad things or that whether we should have been able to early treat as you would any respiratory virus with a good boost of vitamin D, soluble aspirin, intranasal interferon, beclamide, if it goes to the chest all these things I believe, and ivermectin which having looked at all the data, I can understand now why nobody in the establishment wanted it anywhere near a COVID patient because it worked and it saved them and there would be no need for any vaccine whatsoever and Fauci demonized it as a horse de-wormer when it is probably one of the most effective drugs in humans ever in the history of medicine, because it It prevents all sorts of things, river blindness and the liver, all the flukes, et cetera, in Africa and Asia.
And may well be a major reason why the incidence of COVID deaths in these places was so low, because they were all on ivermectin and getting good vitamin D, of course.
I've just spoken out as these studies are coming out, and we'll put the link to the Japanese study in the description.
Of course, it's in that article. As more and more people have spoken out, are you seeing more of your colleagues going public on it?
Because surely when the studies are coming out, the data is released, then that's proving what has happened.
And therefore, you will get more and more people from the medical community who actually are speaking up and saying, yeah, this is correct.
Do you think that will happen?
Well, I hope so.
I hope so. So the ones that spoke up and said, you're correct, all said, by the way, we've been told to shut up too and not upset the patients.
This is like it was a central script written somewhere because they told me the same in America, Canada, Australia, Europe and Britain, that to be quiet.
I got carpeted for pointing all these things out and said I was breaking NHS guidelines. And this would go down on my thing as breaking rules.
I said, I don't give a damn. All I'm doing is making sure I do no harm.
I suggest you do the same. NHS is causing more harm.
I think the NHS, one of the reasons it's crippling, it's spending so much time treating the side effects of the vaccine program.
And they won't admit it, of course. And I've been doing some medical legal instances where people have clearly been damaged by the vaccine and none of the people concerned will admit it. They just say coincidence.
It's just like a tape.
And I've spoken to lots of people who had very bad vaccine and had just been really badly treated.
They go out of the way to make sure it's not enough for compensation.
And I hadn't realized how many people had lost their jobs in the UK because they refused to get vaccinated or they refused to get the booster because they had had such bad bad side effects from the first two. How can you possibly justify that?
If you have a bad reaction to a drug, you don't take it again.
You don't take another dose and hope it's not as bad this time, which seems to be the NHS and the government's attitude to it.
Yeah. Another part is the cancer issue, and obviously seems to be speeding up cancer much faster.
That's certainly the people I've talked to.
But the other side, and a lot of the media reports have been a shocking cancer amongst younger people.
And the journalists, right, they have no idea why….
Yes, they do.
this has been happening recently but I mean tell because, it's that concern you think cancer is something you get maybe later on in life but this is happening younger, this changes the very nature of what that is the impact on society.
Yes I mean we have seen and there there is a paper showing that there is a real increase in patients under 44. I think it's 19 to 44 a massive increase in cancers and particularly abdominal cancers.
So colorectal. We were seeing this before, by the way, in young people in this country, obviously not in Japan.
And so I've always said it must be something to do with the diet is driving this, and so do most people.
But it seems to have accelerated since the vaccine program came on.
But we're seeing all the others. I mean, I was really surprised.
We're seeing oesophageal cancer, biliary, liver, pancreatic, upper and lower bowel, weird ones like appendix cancers.
You know, incredibly rare. I was contacted by a fellow who said that he'd seen about one of these.
He runs a colorectal surgery and he's seen about one in the last five years.
And he said, I've seen 13 recently, and they'd all had the vaccine.
They were all in young people.
So, I mean, so when people get cancers, unusually unexpected.
The first thing you should do is say, why? Do they have something in common?
Well, they do. The vast majority, again, not all of them, because there's a background incidence, have all had the vaccine or a booster.
And that to me is stop the bloody program now, you know instead I'm being told to go and get my spring booster what planet are these people on?
This is, since you've spoken up nearly or 18 months or 21 months ago I've seen more and more people write about it, is this the end then of this worldwide experiment of this new type of technology, this mRNA which is massively backfired or is it just how Big Pharma work and then they come up with the mRNA now to fix cancer which is the the latest thing we've heard.
Yeah, well, they were always working on that.
And I actually, you know, when people tell me I'm a clinician and I don't know what I'm talking about and to shut up, I tell them I know a darn sight more than they do.
And especially about the dangers of messenger RNA vaccine, because I was on a scientific advisory board for a company whose subtitle was the messenger RNA vaccine company for five years and I left about seven years ago and they were targeting cancer and they didn't get through, BioNTech had the same thing. Big Pharma and whatever's behind them at far more sinister, has used this pandemic and I mean, when it started I wouldn't even have thought along these lanes. I honestly think it was planned, it's like it was planned to get the messenger rna out, when you go back and you look at the Manhattan project for vaccines and world health, their big issue was why do we make all these vaccines? If we don't have a pandemic we won't make any money, we'll lose money so this really looks like it was all planned, why did Moderna have a patent on sars-2 in February 2019? Why did the German government go ahead and fund an an enormous big vaccine facility in Marburg to produce messenger RNA, long before they were anywhere near being approved.
It sounds like the whole thing was part of some sinister plan.
And that's what I find really, really concerning.
And I've spoken up and on the record. I think the messenger RNA vaccines are an absolute disaster, should be banned.
They should be completely, utterly banned.
And they are what they say on the till in the early BN Biotech preparations for Pfizer, they have COVID vaccine-gene therapy.
Well, that was honest. You don't use gene therapy on a pandemic that kills less than 1% of people.
And then you go ahead with the plan, when you know that the people who did die had an average age in the UK of 82, whereas average age of anybody else dying of anything else was 81.
So the logical thing for a statistician was to go around and prepare COVID and spray it all around the population and tell them they'll live an extra year longer, because you've got I mean, being very cynical about it.
But why would you? You shouldn't do it.
Chris Whitty occasionally said some sensible things, but then went on to being beheaded or whatever it is and go along with this madness.
He said, you can't use a vaccine unless you've got a death rate of 30% in the main population.
You can't justify it if you haven't got the safety data.
Why did he not stand up when it was 1% and stop it?
Could it be something to do with shut up and you'll get your rewards in the honours list which they all did these people all of them, Vallance, Whitty and all these, I was going to say goons from SAGE, I'll say that again I do, I disagreed with them totally and utterly and even the people working with the vaccines from Oxford, the Astra Zeneca, they all got knighthoods, damehoods everything long before there was any evidence it was of any any benefit.
It's unbelievable.
When these studies come out, a lay person like myself will think this then starts a catalyst of looking at other countries and wanting the data.
But then the flip side is you realize the difficulty of data, and you touched on that.
I think you had mentioned that whenever I saw you speak at Andrew Bridgen's event the end of last year in Parliament, the lack of data.
It seems like there is British data. there is Israeli data and there does seem some Japanese data.
Many other countries seem to have a complete void, but the UK government don't even want to release any of the data.
Will this force them to release it?
Will this mean there are possible financial penalties? I mean, these companies getting sued?
Where does this go whenever one country brings out a study like this, which is so comprehensive?
Well, I think you'll get other countries that will do it. I really do.
I mean, Australia, who behaved appallingly during the pandemic, I mean, they were run by a bunch of, not just clowns, but really ghoulish clowns who seem to relish in power and locking down and God knows what else, have mandatory vaccines.
Well, at least they have. They've had a lot of revolt over this, and they finally had a formal Australian Commission on Excess Deaths.
And I've been asked to give evidence for it as have some other people who've raised their voice and we'll make it very very clear what's going on, some of the senators now in Australia know exactly what was going on and they're baying for blood as it were and the thing that I'm baying for, why were the people like me in Australia and I worked in Australia for seven years by the way, I did flying doctor for a year and I did internal medicine and oncology.
I know it very very well, why did these doctors who thought like me, I'm going to look after the patients, this, that and the other, they got struck off if they they wouldn't go along with this madness.
I mean, it's unbelievable. It was inhumane. And at least that commission is going to uncover it.
I think our COVID inquiry is a whitewash to kick the can down the road for so long.
By the time it comes to the conclusions, nothing to see here, nobody, no one person was guilty.
There'll be lessons to learn. No, there won't be any lessons to learn unless they hold people to account, unless we withdraw from the WHO, this madness, this treaty they want us to sign up to, once they're all signed up, they release the next pandemic and they will have another round of vaccines for you.
I mean, I thought this was absolute madness to even think like that.
But George Orwell saw it all 70 years ago, 70 years plus.
And I mean, it's just unbelievable.
I re-read 1984 and Animal Farm when I went on holiday recently. They had a package, and I'd read them 40, 50 years ago, a long time.
If I hadn't have read them, I'd have thought, oh, somebody's seen through the lockdown and written these in lockdown as to where it could lead once you give the power to the governments to bully the thing.
Yeah, it's incredible. They could have been written in the lockdown, but he wrote them 50 years ago. He saw what was coming.
Obviously, it was about the communist model coming out of Russia and the implications.
But I never thought I would live long enough to see democracy being destroyed by the same tentacles of control that emerged due to the COVID.
And it's given them a power to interfere in everything else.
I mean, a power to block all kinds.
I've lost my faith totally in justice in the UK, probably worldwide.
The Postmaster scandal was unbelievable. when the guy was told you're the only one, I remember that's what I was told when I made a great fuss, you're the only one, it transpires there were dozens and dozens of us who made, said the same thing to the government, they ignored, there were hundreds and hundreds of postmasters who said the same thing that they ignored and now, you know we're going we're having the same absolute nonsense over climate control. I mean I went and researched climate control, I didn't have to do much research before I realized that the data is very clear out there that carbon dioxide rises when the world warms.
And it is actually something that's trying to do something good about it. And it does.
It's a heavy gas, falls to the ground, encourages plant growth, tree growth, which produces more oxygen.
It is. It's like a controller. It's like a thermostat. It is not the cause.
And you've got all these morons, and I use the word advisedly, and people like Ed Miliband should springs to mind this guy is a total moron, who thinks that if you stop the co2 from the cars, this, that and the other, you'll save the world from global warming, it won't make one iota difference and if you really succeeded in lowering co2 significant, you would actually start extinguishing life they don't seem to understand any basic biology at all and yet these morons are running our parliament, running our lives and they are impoverishing everybody on this planet. I saw my energy bill even though we tried very hard, it's absolutely ludicrous and it's even worse knowing it is five times higher than if I was in the United States where at least they've got some pragmatism with regards is, we can't do everything in the solar and wind we're going to need our oil and gas and by the way it's beneath us, ours is beneath us but we've basically said we're not going to use it and so we're dependent on China who's polluting the world to death, it's unbelievable.
I think many people have had their eyes open to many of these issues over the last couple of years of COVID tyranny. Professor Dalgleish, I'm honoured really to have you on, it's wonderful to hear your thoughts and your writings, it's good to delve into them, people can get the Conservative Woman, but thank you so much for the stand you've taken and thank you for sharing your thoughts with us today.
Right. Well, thank you very much for having me. But just remember, we've written an enormous amount of this up in The Death of Science, which is available on Kindle, Amazon, and is multi-author.
And it's got contributions from Karol Sikora, Sir Richard Dearlove, Clare Craig, Ros Jones.
I mean, I'm really proud that we've been able to really put the gauntlet down, that this government and the world's governments and the scientists and the institutions and the medical profession have killed science.
We have to do everything we can to rectify that. Thank you.
And the viewers and listeners can get that. The links will be in the description.
So however you're watching, however you're listening, you can just click on that. So, Professor, once again, thank you for your time today.
Cheers. Thank you.

Morton Klein - The Role of the Zionist Organisation of America and Why a Pro Israel Voice is Needed More Than Ever

Show Notes and Transcript
Morton Klein, President of the Zionist Organization of America joins Hearts of Oak to emphasize the significance of Zionism and what the term really means. He delivers the case for the Jewish people's right to their ancestral homeland, discussing historical, legal, and biblical support for Israel, dispelling misconceptions about the region, and addresses ongoing struggles faced by them. The discussion covers ZOA's role in promoting U.S-Israel relations, combating anti-Semitism, and supporting security through education and advocacy efforts. Morton delves into the religious and political aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, critiquing media bias and highlighting support for Israel. He criticizes the current U.S. administration's stance on Israel and emphasizes Israel's efforts to minimize civilian casualties during conflicts. The conversation concludes with reflections on Israel's challenges in international relations and combating terrorism, acknowledging the importance of advocating for truth amid anti-Israel narratives.
Morton A. Klein is National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the oldest pro-Israel group in the U.S., founded in 1897. He is a member of the National Council of AIPAC. Mr. Klein is widely regarded as one of the leading Jewish activists in the United States. The US Department of State has awarded Klein a “Certificate of Appreciation” “in recognition of outstanding contributions to national and international affairs,” after he delivered a major address there. He is a member of the International Board of Governors of the College of Judea and Samaria in Ariel, Israel.He is an economist who served in the Nixon, Ford, and Carter Administrations. He has served as a biostatistician at UCLA School of Public Health and the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine in Palo Alto, California. He has been a lecturer in mathematics and statistics at Temple University.His successful campaigns against anti-Israel bias in leading textbooks, travel guides, universities, churches, and the media, as well as his work on Capitol Hill, were the subject of 30 feature stories both here and in Israel. His scientific research on nutrition and heart disease was cited by Discover Magazine as one of the Top 50 Scientific Studies of 1992. He has been invited to testify before the US Congress, Including the US House International Relations Committee, and the Israeli Knesset.He travelled to Germany and persuaded the publishers of Baedeker’s, the world’s leading travel guide, to correct the many anti-Israel errors in its guides to Israel and Jerusalem. He launched a campaign to correct dozens of anti-Israel errors in D.C. Heath’s “The Enduring Vision,” the most widely used American high school and college history textbook. More than 300 of his articles and letters have been published in newspapers, magazines, and scientific journals around the world. Klein has appeared on TV and radio. Lines from his speeches appear in the respected volume entitled “Great Jewish Quotations,” He is on the speaker’s bureau of UJC, and Israel Bonds.
Connect with Morton and ZOA...X                         x.com/MortonAKlein7                           x.com/ZOA_NationalWEBSITE             zoa.org 
Interview recorded 11.4.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE              heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS          heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA    heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                   heartsofoak.org/shop/
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on X twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin 
TRANSCRIPT
(Hearts of Oak)
And it is wonderful to have Morton Klein with us from the Zionist Organization of America. Morton, thank you so much for your time today.
(Morton Klein)
It's great to be here during these very extraordinary and important times.
They are, and that's probably what makes this conversation even more interesting with what is happening currently over in Israel.
People can obviously follow you @MortonAKlein7.
That is your Twitter handle. And ZOA, not Z-O-A, like the Americans like to say, ZOA.org, ZionistOrganisationOfAmerica.org.
I'd encourage our viewers and listeners to use both of those resources and understand what is happening in the Middle East at the moment.
Now, there's lots to talk about. You're obviously president of the Zionist Organization of America.
You've got a number of other accolades into your name, but it is this specifically which I'm intrigued and want to have a conversation about.
And actually, I saw your name on the back of Robert Spencer's book.
We had him on a few weeks ago on the Palestinian delusion.
And you were there as an individual promoting the book and endorsing it.
So I thought, I need to reach out to Morton. So it's great to have you on.
Lots to discuss. And I think probably if we can step back and ask about the term Zionism before we jump into what is happening in the current day Israel.
And I certainly call myself a Christian Zionist. And that's from a biblical understanding 3,000 years since Jerusalem was founded as a capital of Israel under King David.
And then much further back, the promise given to Abraham. But maybe that's a spiritual understanding of the term, and the term Zionism is not necessarily a spiritual concept.
Maybe you can unpack a little bit the term Zionism before we delve into some of the other issues.
It's really a very simple term. All it means is that the Jews have a right to their ancient homeland that was given to them, for those who believe in the Bible, and a couple of billion people do, by God.
In fact, he gave the Jews the land that Israel controls now, and much more.
So this is a fraction of what the Jewish homeland consists of, according to the Bible and what God has promised in the Bible.
It is called the promised land because God promised it to the Jewish people.
We are the people who God promised the land to. That's why it's called the promised land.
But it's not only a biblical right to have a Jewish state, but numerous international legal resolutions also give that right.
The League of Nations Covenant, Article 22, the British Mandate for Palestine, the UN Charter, Article 80, the San Remo Resolution, the Lodge-Fist Resolution, the Anglo-American Resolution, and more.
Legally, under international law, gave this land to the Jews when it was essentially a wasteland, just a desert.
When the Balfour Declaration said this land is going to be given as a mandate in trust for the Jewish people in 1917.
And historically, the Jews have lived in this land for thousands of years. This has been the place where Jewish people lived and occupied and lived in for all this time.
And so all Zionism means is the Jews have a right to a country, just like the French have a country, the Italians have a country, even the Irish have a country, and the British have a country, and the Jews.
There are 56 Muslim countries in the world, 56 or 57, why can't there be one small, little, tiny Jewish country, which is one-eighth of 1% of the landmass of the Middle East?
There are 22 Arab countries in the Middle East.
Israel is one-eighth of 1% of that land. So Zionism is not a complicated term.
It simply means the Jews have a right to a homeland, just like so many other people have it.
And this is a homeland, unlike most other countries in the world, where the Jews have lived in for thousands and thousands of years.
That's what Zionism means. Nothing more, nothing less.
Over the weekend, I actually went to the Churchill war rooms in London.
And part of the story on Churchill, obviously, is involvement in the Belfort Declaration.
And you see those maps and the discussion of British politicians and their relationship with Israel and whether they were pro-Israel or not.
And you realize Israel is tiny.
And you expand it out. Now, the Middle East is large and Israel is tiny.
And it makes you realize that most people, I think, have forgotten the size of Israel in comparison to the Middle East.
And it is really quite small.
The Arab countries are 800 times the size of Israel.
As I said, it's one-eighth of 1% of the land mass of the Middle East.
It is smaller than New Jersey.
It is smaller than Rhode Island. It is a tiny, tiny land.
With 7 million Jews and 2 million Arabs.
It's remarkable. The Arabs have a right to live in Israel, the Muslim Arabs and the Arab Christians as well.
They have a right to vote. They're in the parliament, Israel's parliament.
They're in the Supreme Court. They're in judges and courts throughout Israel.
Their doctors, almost half of the doctors in Hadassah, Israel's major hospital, are Arabs.
And yet the world, the Arab world, says the Jews have no right to be there.
And it's really a racist, anti-Semitic, hateful disgrace to say that the Jews can't have this little tiny homeland.
We talked about the term Zionism, but I want to ask you about the Zionist Organization of America, their role, why it's needed.
You've headed up the ZOA away for, what, 28 years now, I think?
31.
31, sorry. I've got my three years. I blame COVID for that.
So that three years have disappeared.
Do you want to just let us know why it exists and why it's needed?
The Zionist Organization of America is the oldest and one of the largest pro-Israel groups in the United States, founded in 1897 for a sole purpose, to reestablish the Jewish state of Israel.
That's why it was re-established. Past presidents include Louis Brandeis, a famous Supreme Court justice, Abahel Silver, Stephen Wise.
These are famous Jewish leaders.
And that's its original purpose. Once Israel was re-established in 1948, ZOA's role has been to fight for strong U.S.-Israel relations and for the safety and security and prosperity of the Jewish state of Israel.
And also, by the way, in recent years, fight against the scourge, the ugly scourge of irrational, mindless, anti-Semitism, Jew hatred and Israel bashing.
So that's really been our purpose. We have a legal division.
We have people on Capitol Hill who are educating members of Congress about these issues.
We take young kids to Israel twice a year.
We take adults to Israel. We have a trip coming up in June for adults where we go all over Israel, including Judea and Samaria, Hebron, Afrat, Ariel, Maladumim, Eli, those smaller areas in Israel.
And we also have a campus department. We're on 80 different campuses bringing in speakers, disseminating literature, telling the truth of the Arab-Islamic war against Israel and the West because that's what it is.
It is an Arab-Islamic war against Israel and the West.
We now see it in all the rallies on campuses and around the world.
They say from the river to the sea, meaning Israel should not exist.
They don't say there should be a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, the West Bank and Gaza and half of Jerusalem.
They say no Israel. So these are despicable, vicious, ugly human beings that want to destroy this tiny little Jewish state of Israel within any borders.
They're not looking for a Palestinian state solution.
They're looking for an end of Israel solution.
And we're fighting against this with all of our heart and soul.
Tell us about, because you mentioned it's the political fight, it's the media fight, you mentioned about on campuses with students.
I mean, kind of break those down, because it is about winning hearts and souls and minds over to the position that Israel do have a right to exist like any other nation.
And yet there seems to be a lot of pushback, certainly in our media and massively in our universities and educational establishments.
It's incredible. After 80 years of re-establishing the state of Israel, remember 2,000 years ago, there was a Jewish state that was destroyed really by the Romans 2,000 years ago. This was the first Holocaust.
The Romans murdered 600,000 Jews.
And then they renamed this area Judea and Samaria, the Jewish state, Philistinia, translated to Palestine.
So this is a Roman word. If this really was an Arab country, which it never was, why would they use a Roman name to name it?
Palestine is a Roman name.
Moreover, Arabs can't pronounce the letter P.
They say Palestine with a B. They can't pronounce it. Would they name their own country with a letter that they can't even pronounce?
There was never a Palestine. There were never any Palestinian kings and queens.
The only state that ever existed in this area has been a Jewish state.
In fact, 99% of the Palestinian Arabs live under their own control.
Israel has given away Gaza and 40% of Judea and Samaria, the West Bank.
99% of the Arabs live in those areas under Abbas's rule, the dictator, terrorist, Abbas's rule.
They have their own parliament, their own schools, their own textbooks, their own newspapers, their own radio and TV businesses, police force.
They run their own lives totally in Gaza under Hamas, the Nazi-like dictatorship, and in Judea and Samaria under Abbas, another terrorist dictator.
By the way, I don't know how many of your listeners know this, an ugly fact.
Mahmoud Abbas pays Arabs a lifetime pension to murder Jews.
If an Arab kills a Jew, They get a lifetime pension at five times the average rate of a salary of a Palestinian.
It is very lucrative to murder Jews. They spend $400 million a year to murder Jews. How many people know this?
Why would our college kids are defending a regime that pays people to murder Jews?
By the way, and Americans, they've murdered Americans in Israel.
And the Arab who murders Americans also gets a lifetime pension.
And if the Arab was killed murdering a Jew or an American, his or her family gets the lifetime pension.
So this is the most heinous regime on the face of the earth.
And it is just mind-boggling that people around the world are supporting this regime and supporting Hamas in Israel's existential war.
Hamas, Article 7 of their charter calls for the murder of every Jew on earth, every Jew on earth.
Article 13 calls for the destruction of Israel.
They massacred 1,200 innocent Jews, raped them, mutilated them, tortured them, and then kidnapped 250 mostly Jews. Six Americans, I might add, are left.
And now they're saying that out of the 140 left, that they released 100, out of the 140 left, they're saying they don't think they have 40 Jews there.
In other words, it's likely that these Hamas monsters have murdered all of the Jewish hostages, murdered them all.
The world should wake up and understand this is an Islamic, radical Islamic war against the West and against the Jews.
Mahmoud al-Zahar, the co-founder of Hamas, two months ago on the Internet, said, I want the world to understand this. This is the co-founder of Hamas.
First, we're going to kill all the Jews, but we're not done after that.
Next, we're going to kill all the despicable Christians. And then all the non-Muslims establish a caliphate where Islam rules the world. He said it two months ago.
And so you have these non-Muslims supporting Hamas, who wants to kill every one of them.
Not to mention, they immediately say every gay person will hang and kill immediately.
The gay people, the transgender, they're dead immediately.
So how are these left-wing students and left-wing people around the world supporting the most despicable ideology on the face of the earth, the ideology of the Hamas and Abbas regimes.
I want to pick up on a few of those, and I would love for the Western liberals to have a pride rally through Gaza or West Bank and see how long that lasts.
But that's a whole other issue. Modern-day Israel has been for 75 years, give or take a year, since 1948.
And re-establishing that entity, that territory that had been Israel before the Romans removed, basically removed it from the face of the map.
But tell us about that, because you obviously look closely at, since 1948, at the establishment, Israel has had to fight for its survival on a nearly daily basis.
Israel's military spending is huge compared to other countries, and it must do that because it has to defend itself.
I mean, tell us about that, because that 75 years, I see it as a Christian that Israel have the right to exist, have the right to take the land that is theirs, and seem to be a natural, progression from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to actually Israel re-establishing that in that vacuum.
And yet many critique and mock and attack Israel simply for the right of existing in their land, which should be a given, really.
Those who oppose the Jewish state's right to exist are mocking God Almighty from the Christian and Jewish Bibles, are mocking the United Nations resolutions and England's resolutions who controlled this legally, this land legally, since 1917.
And it's nothing less than overt Jew hatred that's all it is. It's pure Jew hatred and
Israel has offered a Palestinian state to the Arabs four times in the last 20 years, four times.
Ehud Olmert was the most recent one, where Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, offered 97% of Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, 3% of Israel proper to make up for the 3% he couldn't give away because there's a half a million Jews living there.
So Olmert offered virtually all of the West Bank, half of Jerusalem, billions of dollars in aid, and Mahmoud Abbas said, said, no.
I called up the prime minister.
How could he not turn down? This is not a compromise.
You've given them every single part of the disputed territories and half of Jerusalem.
And Olmert said to me, Abbas said to me, you must eliminate three clauses in the agreement.
One, you must eliminate the clause that says we accept Israel as a Jewish state.
Abbas said, I'll never accept Israel as a Jewish state. Two, you must eliminate the clause that says you must limit the number of Arabs we bring into Israel proper to 150,000.
I want to bring in millions if I went into Israel. I will not accept a limitation on the number of Arabs I bring into Israel proper.
And three, you must eliminate the clause that says no further claims.
And the Olmert says, but that's the deal. We're giving you everything, virtually everything.
It ends all the claims. It's done. Peace. And Abbas said, I won't sign it until you get rid of those three clauses.
So they've been offered a state four times, turned it down every time in the last 20 years.
In the last 80 years, they've been offered a state eight times, starting with the Peel Commission in 1937, where they offered 95% of the rest of Palestine, 80% of original Palestine mandate went to Jordan.
There's only 20% left of the original Palestine mandate.
The Peel Commission offered 95% of the rest of Palestine to the Arabs, not 5% of the Jews, the Arabs said no.
In other words, they say no. They don't want a state.
They want Israel destroyed. They won't accept a Jewish state. That's the deal.
Because from 1948 to 1967, the Arabs controlled all of the West Bank, all of Gaza, half of Jerusalem.
They had it. Did they establish a state when they personally controlled it? No.
Because the goal is not a Palestinian state. It's Israel's destruction.
It's Israel's destruction. Let me show you a picture if you can see this.
This is the Palestinian Authority's official emblem that they commissioned.
This is their official emblem. You notice it's the shape of all of Israel with a keffiyeh over all of it, not just the West Bank and Gaza and Eastern Jerusalem, all of it.
Arafat, the arch terrorist in the centre, and a Kalashnikov rifle.
So their official emblem is all of Israel is ours.
What more proof do you need that they have no interest in a Palestinian state solution? They have in an end of Israel solution.
That's what they're interested in. And by the way, I can show you another thing.
It's quite interesting.
Every Arab that murders a Jew gets a poster. This is one of the Arabs who murdered a Jew.
This is on all the high school walls, all the university walls, calling him a martyr and a hero.
This is just one of hundreds of posters honouring Jews. And when a terrorist who killed Jews dies, they have a parade and they honour him.
What a great man or woman he was.
And they hand out candy and sweets to each other, praising murder. They glorify murder.
They glorified massacres. They glorify rape. They glorify terrorism.
This is a vicious, Nazi-like, despicable regime. And the world has to wake up because the radical Muslims are coming after everyone that's not Muslim, not just the Jews.
People better start to understand this and start supporting Israel, who's fighting a war against Hamas, to protect the entire world from radical Islam, not just Israel.
Is part of the problem that, I know on the Jewish side, you've got a weird mix of those who support Israel and Israel's right to exist from a biblical point of view, from a spiritual point of view, and those who support it from probably a social, historical, cultural point of view.
So you've got that weird mix in Judaism, which always confuses me.
But then on the other side, you've also got the world refusing to recognize that this is a clash between Islam and Judaism.
And the West thinks that you can come up with a solution which is a land-based solution. And if you've got one side wanting to destroy the other, actually, you've got a problem.
And the world doesn't seem to want to wake up to the reality that this is not simply a land issue, that the Islamic nations will not be happy until Israel doesn't exist.
Am I correct in my assumption or am I completely off?
The proof of what you just said is the fact they've been offered a state, the Palestinian Arabs, eight times in the last 80 years, four times in the last 20 years. They've said no.
When they controlled all this land themselves for 19 years, 48 to 67, they didn't establish a state.
They still were committing terrorist acts. This is a religious war. war.
The radical Muslims believe that the Jews or the Christians have no right to any land in the Middle East that is all theirs. Lebanon was a Christian country.
The radical Muslims destroyed Lebanon. It is now a Muslim country.
They massacred hundreds of thousands of Christians until Hezbollah.
Now Hezbollah has taken control of Lebanon.
So this is a religious war, and that's why it has nothing to do with land.
Land for peace is nonsense. It's been offered repeatedly. They say no.
It's a religious war. The issue is they don't want Israel in their midst.
They don't want a Christian country in their midst. They don't want non-Muslims in their midst.
I've met with many Christians who live in various parts of the Arab world.
They're scared to death for their lives.
Their lives are made miserable and dangerous by their fellow Muslims.
This is a reality, so yes land for peace has been offered repeatedly, turned down every single time, it's a religious war. The radical Arabs will not be satisfied until Israel doesn't exist, just like they weren't satisfied until Lebanon was no longer a Christian country.
Tell us I'm curious the ZOA obviously exists in the US in America and America, I think was Truman was one of the first leaders to actually recognize the state of Israel uh back in, just after the creation of Israel in 48 and there is that close link between America and Israel.
Do you want to just expand on that a little bit? Because geopolitically, that's a fascinating relationship.
And maybe then we can get up later into where it now sits at the moment between that maybe being more fractured than it has been.
But yeah, America and Israel have always been strong allies, starting with that Truman Declaration of Israel's right to exist in 1948.
Harry Truman, as president of the United States in 1948, was the first country in the vote at the United Nations to recognize the state of Israel.
Or maybe they cast the deciding vote, I'm not sure. But they certainly cast the vote to support Israel.
But the polls at that time in America showed Americans supported Israel by 80% of Americans supported the right of the Jewish people to have a state.
So this was overwhelming support in the United States.
The chief of staff to White House counsel to Truman was begging Truman to recognize it.
Quoting from the Bible, he repeatedly quoted the lines from the Bible saying, this land was given to the Jews, Mr. President, you must recognize it.
And by the way, many presidents since then have publicly stated there should be an Israel before there was an Israel.
John Adams, Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, and many others have in their speeches, I've said, we hope and pray that a Jewish state is re-established.
So there's been a love affair with the leaders of America and the American people and the Jewish state since America was created.
George Washington was a supporter. In fact, this is an interesting story.
Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and I believe John Adams, I think.
Proposed that the seal of the United States, which is now an eagle holding out its wings, they proposed the seal should be Moses splitting the sea as the pharaoh and the military Egyptians were coming across the sea to come and kill all the Jews who had just escaped.
All the Israelis, the Hebrews who had just escaped, and the sea splits and swallows up all the military while the Jews are watching in the scene beforehand and cheering.
That's the seal that Franklin Jefferson and Adams wanted as a seal of America.
That's the kind of connection America's had to the Jewish people.
It was barely voted down, barely voted. It almost became the seal.
So to this day, in a recent poll, who do you support in this war in America, Hamas or Israel?
I'm shocked. It's only 82 percent should be 100 percent. But it's 82% say Israel should be fighting against this vicious regime of Hamas.
So there's overwhelming support in America. There's even overwhelming support in Congress.
It has weakened. There are now a number of congressmen who are speaking out inappropriately in a hostile way toward Israel.
But nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of the Congress is supportive of Israel.
And that's been true really since Israel was – America was established in 1776.
There's been support for the re-establishment of a state and now for the state itself.
Well let me throw in some other kind of facts on that, I think the US is Israel's largest trading partner, I think I read is about 50 billion trade back and forward and of course you got the military aid that goes to Israel every year of billions and you mentioned the beginning about the U.S. backing Israel in the U.N.
And the U.S. has used a veto dozens and dozens of times in the U.N.
Supporting Israel, backing Israel.
And, of course, President Trump moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem despite all the pushback, despite the debate over that.
But all of that is actually Israel is shoulder to shoulder. And there have been a time where maybe Britain was shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel.
That is still there in relation to Europe, but actually it is the U.S.
that seems to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel.
Well, let me first tell you about, you mentioned the aid, billions of dollars in aid. Let me tell something that I'm sure most of your viewers do not know.
Israel was getting half a billion dollars in aid, 500 million, until the late 70s.
Then Carter was pushing the deal with Israel to give away the entire Sinai which was five times the size of Israel. Israel when they controlled the Sinai developed four major oil wells themselves in the Sinai these oil wells gave Israel two and a half billion dollars in income in 1978. And Menachem Begin, the prime minister, then said, we cannot give away the Sinai because we will lose two and a half billion dollars of oil wells we found, we developed ourselves.
And we can't do it. Carter said, I will make up the difference.
I'll give you the extra two and a half billion. So it went from 500 million to three billion.
But this is not really America's money per se.
Israel gave up two and a half billion. So $2.5 billion of the aid Israel gets is the fact that they gave up the oil wells.
And do you know, Peter, how much income today those four oil wells would be delivering to Israel?
$10 billion because oil prices have gone up dramatically. So they've given up a tremendous amount.
And people forget. Do you know how much aid Egypt gets from America?
It's never mentioned. $2.5 billion.
$2.5 billion for Egypt. Jordan, $1 billion. The Palestinian Authority, a terrorist dictatorship, gets almost $1 billion in aid right now.
So people forget about the aid others get. And with Israel, 97% of the aid they get is spent in America, buying equipment here in America.
So it comes right back to America in any event.
And you mentioned that Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem.
I was intimately involved in that issue with Senator John Kyle, who's a hero that no one even remembers.
He's the one who really pushed this issue more than anyone else.
And the vote to move the embassy in 1995 was 93 to 5 in the Senate, 93 to 5, 347 to 37 in the House.
In other words, over 95% of Congress voted to move the embassy.
Bill Clinton was against it. Now, he couldn't veto it because it would be overridden because it was such an overwhelming support.
So he ignored it. If you ignore a law, if a president ignores a law, it automatically becomes law in 30 days. and it became law.
And then Senator Dianne Feinstein had put in what's known as a poison pill.
She said, any president can say, I'm not moving it if there's a security issue.
And each president for 18 years said there's a security issue and never moved it.
But people, of course, predicted if you move it, there'll be violence all over the place.
Of course, it turned out to be completely false. There was no violence.
But let me tell you something else that I'm sure most of your viewers do not know.
Of course, they want to move the embassy to Jerusalem because Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
Jerusalem has been the holiest state to the Jewish people since time immemorial.
But the Arabs say this is their holy city. Well, is it? Is Jerusalem holy to Muslims?
Jerusalem was the capital only of Israel throughout history, never of any other country.
When the Palestinians conquered Palestine in 716, they made Ramleh their capital, not Jerusalem.
It's called the Temple Mount, not the Mosque Mount because the Jewish temple was on this area.
The majority of people living in Jerusalem since 1850, the first census, have been Jews.
The overwhelming majority of people living there since 1850 have been Jews.
The Jewish holy books mention the word Jerusalem 700 times. How many times is the word Jerusalem in the Koran?
How many times is the word Jerusalem, if it's so holy to Muslims, this is their holy book, how many times is it mentioned? Zero.
Not a single time. How can it be so holy to them if it's not in their holy book?
So they say, Muhammad went from Jerusalem to heaven.
But that's not what the Koran says. Read the Koran. It says that Muhammad went from the furthest mosque to heaven. It didn't say Jerusalem.
And they say, well, the furthest mosque was in Jerusalem. Well, when the Koran was written, there was not a single mosque in all of Jerusalem.
So if Muhammad went from the furthest mosque, it couldn't be in Jerusalem.
There were no mosques there.
So the truth is that Jerusalem is not holy to Muslims.
In fact, from 48 to 67, when they controlled Jerusalem, When they captured that war, they captured it.
They allowed it. The Jordan and the Arabs allowed it to become a slum.
There was virtually no water, electricity or plumbing.
There were 58 synagogues in Jerusalem that they captured.
They destroyed all 58 of them to eliminate proof that Jews, this was a holy place to them.
So that's another thing that most people don't understand.
Jerusalem is minimally holy to Muslims at most.
It is a holy to Jews and possibly Christians. I'm not a Christian, so I don't know the Bible so well, the Christian Bible, that may be holy to Christians, but it is not holy to Muslims.
Yeah, well, I think the holiness to Christians is simply because of the biblical story.
And without Judaism, there'd be no Christianity. Without Judaism, there'd be no Jesus.
But I love the way Muslims can claim hold of a city because Muhammad flew there on a winged donkey in his dreams.
So if we could all actually take our dreams and claim to hold, we could be in paradise more.
We could be anywhere.
But again there was no, it wasn't from Jerusalem it's from the furthest mosque, no mosque in Jerusalem, it can't be Jerusalem and by the way this is interesting, not a single Arab leader except from Jordan ever visited Jerusalem when the when the Arabs controlled it.
It meant nothing to them, Mecca and Medina are the holy cities for Muslims, not Jerusalem, it's high time we make that publicly clear.
No 100 % and Muhammad probably never went to Jerusalem if Muhammad did exist, but that's a whole other conversation I'll take up with Robert Spencer.
Can I ask you, because the support for Israel comes from different sections of society, and certainly there is a strong support from churches, from Christianity, not across the board, certainly, but there is.
Can you tell us, where does the support, the backing, individuals, organizations standing up for Israel's right to exist, where does that come from?
I mean, have you been surprised maybe with some of the areas it's come from that you weren't expecting?
The strongest support in America for the Jewish state and the Jewish people comes from the 80 million evangelical Christians.
Why are they so supportive of Israel as a Jewish state? Because it's in the Bible. Because God gave the land to the Jews.
When I speak at churches, they say it's in the Bible. This land was given to Jews by God. End of discussion.
So and the Jewish people are not nearly as strong Bible believers as the Christians.
So you have stronger support for Israel among the Christian evangelicals than you do, frankly, among the Jews.
So for most Christians, it's simply a matter of religion and God.
For others who are not religious, they recognize that this land was given to Israel under international law.
In 1917, the Balfour Declaration and many UN resolutions after it, and they accept the fact that that's right. Plus, they see it's reasonable.
Why should there be 56 Muslim states and not a single Jewish state where the Jews can practice their religion in the way they're supposed to?
So I think it's just a rational support for what's right, for what's moral, for what's decent, for what's just, that most non-religious people support the right of the Jews to have the state. It's a tiny little state.
There's over 200 million Muslims in the Middle East. There's only 7 million Jews.
Imagine if there were – there's 22 Arab states. Imagine if there were 22 Jewish states and one tiny little Arab state the size of Israel.
And the Jews would be saying, we want a 23rd Jewish state carved out of this tiny Arab state. The world would say, this is ridiculous.
The Arabs have nothing, this little tiny state. Leave them alone.
But that's the situation we have. 22 Arab states, 99.5% of the land mass, and they still want to make Israel even smaller in order to make it easier to destroy.
That's the basis. It's a religious war to destroy the Jewish state.
It has nothing to do with land per se. It has nothing to do with the Palestinian state. Nothing.
Because they could have had it eight times in the last 80 years.
They said no every single time.
Can I finish just with the current situation, which we'll not give justice to in our time, but just to touch on it.
And I am perplexed at how Israel seemed to be so bad at the PR war, at the publicity war, the media war.
But I've been intrigued watching kind of different countries holding with Israel and then pulling back in the media conversation.
And what is it like, maybe for our viewers, I mean, our viewers are 50-50, US, UK and Europe.
Maybe just give us your thoughts on where the media and the government is in terms of support for Israel over the last six months.
You mean the US government?
Yeah, yeah.
This government in America under Joe Biden and Barack Hussein Obama, Obama never left Washington.
Every president, when they're finished their term or terms, they go back home.
Obama stayed in Washington.
Obama is running the show behind the scenes. How do I know this?
Because almost every person that Biden has appointed that affects Israel is a friend of Obama's, virtually every one, and is hostile to Israel.
This government of Biden, Obama, Blinken is the most hostile to Israel we've ever had in America, I'm sorry to say.
So, and when the war started, Biden did come to Israel two days after the Hamas massacre.
And he said he has total support for Israel. But in that speech, the original speech on the tarmac, Biden said we need to establish a Palestinian state.
Now, that is his first speech two days after the massacre of 1,200 innocent Jews.
What's he bringing up a state for? It shows the hostility he has toward Israel.
And now he's pushing for a state relentlessly.
He condemns Israel for killing too many civilians. Let me tell you something.
The record is this is the smallest number of civilians per capita ever killed in any war in history.
And the reason for that is Israel drops leaflets before they hit a building to tell the Arabs to get out of the building. They put knock bombs where they knock on the top of the roof as a signal, get out of here. They call on cell phones, get out of here.
They protect civilians to the detriment of their own soldiers.
And when Hamas says 32,000 civilians were killed, first of all, Hamas is a terrorist Nazi-like monster group. Who believes them anyway?
But the fact is 15,000 of the alleged 30,000 or so have been terrorists. These are combatants.
And the other 15,000, a number of distinguished statisticians have studied the data from Hamas and say these are grotesquely exaggerated.
It is only a few thousand that have been killed.
And moreover, they say, look at what they say every day, Hamas' division telling you how many civilians died.
The same number of civilians die every single day according to the data of Hamas. That's not possible.
This showed you how fraudulent the data is.
So we have to really thank Israel for being extraordinarily humane in protecting civilians And let me tell you, in any war, innocent civilians die.
You can't have war without civilians dying. If you say to yourself, I won't go to war unless I can assure no civilians will die, the tyrants will win.
Hitler will win. Hamas will win. Because civilians naturally will die in a war. It's tragic.
And now when Biden went crazy, when Israel mistakenly killed seven aid workers, in wars, these types of tragic mistakes happen all the time.
In America's wars, we have killed many civilians' envoys, mistaking them for terrorists.
In Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, I can list them. I won't.
We've hit wedding parties by mistake, killing 50 people attending a wedding, including the bride.
So this happens in war. So the fact that Biden is making a major deal out of this tragic mistake just shows he is trying to find anything to put enormous pressure on Israel to set up a Palestinian terrorist state.
And remember, Israel gave away all of Gaza.
And what did they get in return? They got a Hamas regime and 30,000 rockets aimed at civilians, 30,000 since 2005 when the regime was established.
Why is it wise to give them even more land, the West Bank and Gaza, headed by who, Hamas, by Abbas, by another terrorist?
It'll give them more power to endanger Israel. And this state would be on Israel's longest border, directly adjacent to 70% of Israel's population.
It would be a tragic mistake to establish a state. That's why the Israeli people, 80% and more say we cannot have it, it's too dangerous.
Biden has become enormously hostile to Israel, despite the fact that overwhelming numbers of Americans support Israel, and we are devastated by this.
We're terribly disappointed by this.
But outside of this regime and Obama's first regime, the American governments have been extraordinarily supportive of Israel throughout the establishment of Israel and throughout America's own establishment in 1776.
You know, well we'll finish it up, there my criticism of Israel is they were for 13 years, they were far too patient with Hamas whenever they pulled out in 2010 to actually going in 2023 and it wasn't of their own accord, they went in actually, it was because of that attack on 7th October, so Israel had been remarkably reserved I think in how how they've dealt with them, and maybe they should have been a heck of a lot stronger. But that's another conversation.
Morton, I really appreciate you coming along. I do thoroughly love and admire the work that ZOA do there.
I know people go on the website, they can find not only your work on campuses, they can find news articles, they can donate, and there's many ways they can support you on ZOA.org.
So thank you so much for your time today.
Peter, thank you for your holy and important work to give a podium to people who are telling the truth of the Arab-Islamic war against Israel and the West. Very holy work you do. Thank you.

Dr Sebastian Gorka - Biden's Campaign Against America, the MAGA Media Juggernaut & Trump's Hold on the RNC

Show notes and Transcript
Dr. Sebastian Gorka returns to Hearts of Oak to offer his insights on the importance of personnel in politics, emphasizing the challenges faced by Trump supporters. He discusses the evolving dynamics within the Republican Party towards a more MAGA-centered approach and the need for alignment with the American people. We move onto populism in Europe, media landscape changes, challenges in education, and the significance of local politics for societal change. Dr. Gorka highlights the importance of grassroots activism and community engagement in shaping the future political landscape.
Sebastian Gorka, PhD., served as Deputy Assistant for Strategy to the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, and is currently a presidential appointee to the National Security Education Board at the Department of Defense. He is the host of AMERICA First, a nationally-syndicated radio show on the Salem Radio Network, and The Gorka Reality Check, the newest show on the cable news network Newsmax TV. He is the author of the New York Times bestselling book “Defeating Jihad,” and “Why We Fight.” His latest book is “The War for America’s Soul.”
Connect with Seb...LINKTREE              linktr.ee/sebgorkaSUBSTACK            substack.com/@sebastiangorkaX                            x.com/SebGorkaWEBSITE               www.sebastiangorka.com/
Interview recorded  8.4.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
TRANSCRIPT
(Hearts of Oak)
And I'm delighted to have Dr. Sebastian Gorka back with us again.
Dr. Gorka, thank you for your time today.
(Dr Sebastian Gorka)
My pleasure. Thank you for having me.
Great to have you on.
And of course, former Deputy Assistant to President, nationally syndicated radio host of America First with Sebastian Gorka and best-selling author.
And people can find you obviously @SebGorka.
And we'll get into some of your thoughts on your Twitter page in a little bit.
But, Dr. Gorka, if I can ask you, maybe first, looking at the GOP, back at the beginning of President Trump's first term in office, he trusts the GOP to fill those, I guess, 3,000-odd positions to keep the system running.
And he seems to, I think everyone seems to have learned that there was a concerted effort to push back.
But it seems to be that the President has realised he needs to fill those positions himself and there's a concerted effort to fill those positions with the brightest, the best patriots that America have, do you want to just let us know about that because he is going into this with his eyes wide open.
Well, absolutely, after what they did to him and to his administration the first time round.
And this is my greatest concern going forward, because it is clear the American people want him back.
He's trouncing Biden in the polls.
If you look at the primary results, we haven't even finished the primaries.
He's already broken his record for 2016. So whether it's wars across the world, the state of the economy, 16 million illegals, President Trump, if there is a free and fair election, will be God willing, if we do our part, the next president.
However, as Ronald Reagan taught us, politics, you know, personnel is politics.
And I am very concerned that we not have what we had last time, which is even at the cabinet level, subversives in the Trump administration.
So we can't make that mistake again. However, I give credit to the left.
My friend Chris Plant, who has the morning show here in D.C., has made this point very eloquently over the years.
Why would a decent person, especially a family man or a family woman, why would you work in a Republican administration, especially a Trump administration? You look at my example.
Look, I don't mind getting attacked by the left because, of course, I'm a proxy for the president.
But when they came after my wife, I had one journalist write 52 hit pieces on me in three months.
And when one of the articles named my 18-year-old son and called him a traitor in the headline, what person wants to actually put up with that?
I mean, I'm prepared to do it again.
And there's a handful of us who served in the Trump administration who understand America First, who are loyal to the president, are loyal to the mandate he received already, are prepared to do it again.
But there are 4,000 positions, 4,000 presidential appointees.
What lunatic is prepared to have the inhuman treatment meted out against them from a quote-unquote elite in the media that just dehumanizes.
I mean, from Hillary's deplorables comment to Biden last year standing in front of one of the most important buildings in the world for us when it comes to American history, which is Independence Hall, bathed in red light, flanked by two Marines in their dress blues, and he calls half the nation fascists, MAGA extremists.
I mean, this is how radical the left has become and how they've dehumanized the others.
So, yeah, I mean, you've hit upon my neuralgic point, which is the personnel policy, if we win, God willing, will be second Trump administration.
We cannot get it wrong this time. We just cannot get it wrong.
What does seem that the left are utterly vicious and ruthless in going after individuals and I had the privilege of watching the president speak twice when I was over last in Pennsylvania and then down South Carolina and it's an hour and 40 minutes of a political speech I've never seen before and I've been involved in politics in many years in the UK but it connects you at a heart level as opposed to the head level and he knocks off those attacks but the left are adamant that they will go after individuals.
Let me give you one concrete example, lest, you know, your listeners and viewers think this is just, you know, Sebastian Gorka's axe that he's grinding.
So I had a colleague, I was deputy assistant to the president.
My colleague, Peter Navarro, was assistant to the president for trade policy.
He was one of the key architects of our China policy.
Peter was subpoenaed by the infamous January 6th Committee of Congress, which was illegally constituted.
So an investigatory, I don't want to get into the weeds, but an investigatory committee of Congress has to have delegates from both parties.
It can't just be the majority party.
Nancy Pelosi refused the then speaker to accept nominations from the Republican Party.
So she picked a couple of the worst Trump haters who are nominal Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
And as such, this was an illegally constituted committee.
Peter Navarro receives a subpoena from this congressional committee, ordering him to come and testify.
He says, A, it's an illegal committee, I'm not going to comply.
B, I have it in writing from President Trump that my work for him is covered by the executive privilege, which is a constitutional statute in America that the discussions between the president and his aides are protected and they can't just be just willy-nilly divulged to anybody.
Peter lives one block away from the FBI. When he was in contempt of this subpoena, which is a misdemeanor offense, not a felony, it's a misdemeanor.
Instead of the FBI writing to Peter or writing to his lawyer, could your client come to our offices tomorrow morning and we'd like to present him with his breach of congressional subpoena documents.
Instead, my colleague, a renowned economist, academic professor, was tracked by the FBI to Reagan Airport, which is the airport for Washington, D.C.
And after he boarded a plane on a business trip, he was arrested in public, not only handcuffed.
This is when you realize we are in a police state.
And I say that with all sincerity. He was handcuffed and put in leg shackles, which meant he had to shuffle out of the airport like some slave on a chain gang.
Then he was taken to the FBI headquarters where he was strip searched on a congressional misdemeanour charge.
He is now sitting, as of two weeks ago, he is sitting in a federal prison in Florida, serving a four-month sentence for being in contempt of Congress.
So, you know, this is the left. This is the left. They talk about President Trump and MAGA is a threat to democracy.
Well, the only fascists I see right now are the Democrat Party, Biden's DOJ, and the FBI.
A woman, I had her daughter literally text me on Friday, said, my 73-year-old grandmother, who spent 10 minutes inside Congress praying for the nation on January 6th, has just been charged with four charges that will lead her to spend a year in prison.
A 73-year-old grandma who's going to be on my radio today has been charged with being inside of Congress and praying, Peter.
Yeah, I've seen the praying grandma. I've seen a number of clips of her and Peter's book, Taking Back Trump's America, certainly was an eye opener for me.
And I learned a lot reading that.
And of course, we've had some of the anniversaries of the J6ers.
There's no Jake Lang's now fourth anniversary of him in jail.
I mean, what does that mean? How do you see, God willing, President Trump winning the election?
Well, not winning, but allowed to win the election in November.
What does that mean for, for instance, some of those J6ers in jail, hundreds of them in jail for years and years, simply for going and being part of that event?
Well, the president has said this openly just last week. I was with him at Mar-a-Lago, and he said it the week before.
All the J6ers who committed no violent crimes, who simply walked through the halls, through the velvet rope, every single one, all the cases will be reviewed, and the president will pardon them.
Wow, wow. That's simple and decisive. What you'd expect from Trump as opposed to Biden, and it's like, here's the job, let's get this done.
I mean, this is, we could talk about this for hours.
This is how he functions.
I mean, you don't get to be the most successful entrepreneur in the hardest market in the world, which is Manhattan real estate.
You don't have the most successful TV show for 14 seasons in a row unless you're decisive.
And I saw this in the White House. You know, when we made the argument, the Iran deal, Obama's Iran deal is bad for America, bad for Israel, bad for the Middle East and actually gives the Mullahs a bomb, he said, okay, we're canceling it. He didn't waffle.
He didn't say, oh, let's create a task force or let's have a conference in Vienna.
He said, no, we're going to kill it now.
Absolutely. Can I ask you about the RNC?
Because I've looked at this and the media have billed it as Trump taking charge, taking control of the RNC, which seemed to be one of the biggest pushbacks to his presidency, certainly at the beginning with all those appointments.
It's now a very different situation with a lot of good people put in and what does that take over mean? And does that mean that actually moving past November and that he will be in a very different situation
Well it's massively significant.
I mean I said this when I was in The White House. I said it when I left The White House, Donald John Trump won the election despite the Republican Party, not thanks to the Republican Party.
The Republican Party hates him. I mean, it's the same as, you know, Brexit and the Tories.
It's the same as establishment politicians and Millei or Meloni.
We have these establishment, look, I think Bannon popularized it here.
We have the Uni-party. There's really not much difference between this amorphous blob that is the Democrats and the establishment Republicans.
Why? Because the Democrats are lunatics who hate America, and the establishment Republicans, we call them RINOS, Republicans in name only, are cuckolds who just facilitate what the left does and never push back even when they're in majority.
And they hate President Trump. To this day, the likes of Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney think that 64 million Americans, voting for a man who'd never run for political office before, and him becoming president, they think that's an anomaly.
They think that's, oh, just a blip, and we'll get back to business and footsie under the table with the Democrats.
They have no comprehension of the global phenomenon that is populism.
From Brexit, to Modi, to Maloney, to Orban, to Millei, you know, to Bolsonaro, there is a wholehearted international rejection of what a friend of mine called on my show recently, and I literally just wrote an article on this for my Substack, the un-accountable’s.
It's, you know, it's not left and right anymore. We've got to ditch that taxonomy.
It's not even conservative and liberal.
It is the unaccountable elites who are completely cosseted and insulated from anything in the real world.
The price of petrol doesn't affect them.
They think a six-quid almond latte from Starbucks is a good deal, and they don't give a crap whether manufacturing jobs have been shipped over to China or Mexico.
As long as the Wi-Fi signal in Starbucks is good, they can do their job as, you know, chief DEI officer or, you know, head of HR for some woke corporation.
And then there's the rest of us, the accountables who, you know, the plumber who, when the price of petrol goes up 300% under Joe Biden, you can't put food on the table for your kids.
Or you're the legal immigrants who came here from Mexico 10 years ago, got in line, took the exam, paid the money.
And you're a waiter in Dallas, and along comes this Nigerian illegal, one of the 16 million let in by Biden, who tells the boss of that cafe, I'll do Jose's job.
For cash, for 50% of what Jose's doing.
I mean, these are the people who pay the price of the betrayal of the people who build America, betrayed by the Democrats and their enablers in the Republican Party.
So yeah, that's where we are today.
And the GOP, look, Lara Trump becoming the co-chair, the firing of Rona Romney McDaniel.
OK, let's be clear here. The chair of the RNC, the National Committee, was Mitt Romney, one of the biggest rhino Trump haters, niece.
And her loss of eight elections in a row had to have some consequences. Now Lara's in charge.
They've hired Scott Press, a friend of mine who's one of the best grassroots activists in America.
And finally, the choice of the people will be reflected in the party that is supposed to be his party.
So to put it very briefly, the Republican Party will finally be a MAGA America First Party.
I saw one of your shows recently, I think it was Scott saying maybe it should be renamed America First instead of the GOP.
That was actually my associate producer talking in my ear. He wants me to shut up about that because he wants President Trump to drop that at the convention.
I think it's right. Why should we be called the Grand Old Party?
I mean, we're not in the 19th century, right? I mean, let's have something that reflects the will of the American people.
And I watched that interview with Scott. And that's exciting to bring in a different generation, actually have different ideas.
And someone who's done the groundwork for 10 years really should be rewarded with a position to roll out what he's doing in an area actually nationwide.
So it's exciting to see that, I guess, the boldness that Trump changing the RNC now can have for going forward.
Yeah, yeah. Look, the proof of the pudding will be the convention.
The proof of the pudding will be the results. But we're seeing some incredible, I mean, look, it's a little bit arcane and only relevant to American politics.
But we have this primary system where state by state you choose the candidate to lead the party for the election.
And I know New Hampshire very, very well.
New Hampshire is not an America First state. It used to be conservative.
Now a lot of hippies and, you know, idiots have moved in.
The record for primary votes, for the most votes ever cast in a primary, is held by Bernie Sanders.
That tells you just how, you know, woke a state it has become.
President Trump broke Bernie Sanders' standing primary record in New Hampshire this year.
I mean, these things are unprecedented. The fact that he, as of last week, he's had more people vote for him in primaries than voted for him in the whole primary season in 2016.
I think there's a grand awakening.
And if just, if only 60, 70% of the reports are true about the Hispanic and black vote.
According to the polls, the president now enjoys the majority of Hispanic votes in America.
That's just mind-blowing. The man who we've been told by the establishment of media is the racist, bigoted, you know, yada, yada, yada.
He's more popular with Hispanic Americans.
And I don't want to, you know, tempt fate.
He's getting upwards of 28, 30 percent of the black vote if that if that preference translates into actual ballots on November the 5th the democrat party will implode, I mean they've had a lock for absurd reasons, they've had a lock on the black vote for 70 years, the party that created the KKK, the party that was the party of southern segregation and plantations has had a lock on that vote forever and if 20, 30 percent of them leave that's it, there will be a crisis in the democrat party and it will be long overdue.
Yeah I'm seeing that break away from the tribal politics, how your parents voted to actually voting with your gut and your conviction which could be a massive change. Does Trump actually need to do debates head-to-head?
Obviously, he pulled out of the ones with the Republican field because he said, what's the point, and did his own. And that was genius, pure Trump.
But actually, going head-to-head with Biden, what is the point?
He's so far ahead in the polls.
How do you think he will play it? Because then you fit into the CNN, MSNBC, you fit in the Fox News, you fit into their schedules, and he doesn't need to do that.
Well, no, he doesn't need to because they're both known quantities.
They've both been presidents, one the most successful president of the modern era, biggest economy we've ever had, no wars for four years, crushed ISIS, stock market rallies literally every other day.
I had to watch the ticker tape in my studio because there was a new stock market rally, which isn't just for the fat cats.
Your pension is tied to that stock market. So people's 401k pensions are like blossoming.
And then we've had what? We've had Biden, record inflation.
Petrol got up to $7 a gallon in California. You've got the invasion of Russia, the invasion of Ukraine, the surrender of Afghanistan, war in the Middle East.
So it really should be a very stark binary option.
So do you need a debate? Not really. But President Trump's great troll comment last week that, yeah, we should have a debate as long as Biden is drug tested, because they found a bag of cocaine in the White House, which the Secret Service, mystically couldn't find any fingerprints on, despite a bag of cocaine being the perfect thing to find fingerprints on, because it's not porous.
It's absolutely like a sheet of glass that's plastic, right?
And they definitely pumped him full of something for the State of the Union because this is a guy who is not compos mentis.
This is a guy who doesn't function.
And then, you know, he actually ranted like a lunatic, like on speed or something for an hour during the State of the Union.
So it was a perfect troll. Will there be a debate? I doubt it.
I doubt they'd let Biden debate with President Trump.
But, you know, who knows? politics has been pretty weird for the last 10 years in America.
And earlier you mentioned about some of the populism and across Europe, also in Bolsanaro and Brazil.
And we're obviously having the European parliamentary elections coming up in June with a massive rise in populism.
And you understand this as a Brit, as someone who's Hungarian roots and studied in Hungary and now you're an American citizen.
You've got quite a unique perspective and view on this.
And I'm wondering how, because with Trump going into the White House, having an open and possible very good relationship with Europe, which wasn't there in the first place, I'm kind of sitting back intrigued watching how this will play out.
Because this could be a new, very strong relationship linking Europe and the US.
Well, it could. It just depends who wins the elections in Europe, right?
I mean, if it's the right people like Meloni in Italy, absolutely.
If it's the wrong people like the socialists, the trounce, truth and justice in Poland, then it'll be a different kind of relationship.
But people need to understand the president has a very strong soft spot in his heart for Europe because of his family background.
But just go back to that video, if your viewers haven't seen it.
Go back to the video when the president spoke at the United Nations General Assembly, long before Biden and the invasion of Ukraine.
And he said, very declaratively said, by way of wanted to help, he said, Germany, Europe, why are you buying energy from Russia?
It makes you dependent on a dictatorial regime that has military goals against NATO members or border countries.
And then the camera panned from the president warning Europe not to do that to the German delegation.
And the German delegation was tittering and giggling, saying, what does he know about geopolitics?
Well, isn't it funny that when we leave the office?
Vlad does what he did, puts a stranglehold on the energy of the Baltic states, Hungary, the Ukraine, and then Germany has to literally do a 180 and say, oh, we like nuclear energy now, and we're going to stop shutting down our nuclear energy plants.
So, you know, which part of Europe are we talking about?
The unaccountable asshole elites who are arrogant and don't give a fig for the people?
Are we talking about politicians like Nigel Farage who understand that the political elite has been roundly rejected by the people of Europe?
That's what will affect relations. Who's in charge?
Are they the, what is it, the Klaus Schwab fanboys and fangirls?
Or are they people who believe in the sovereignty of their own individual nations?
Well, it could be rewritten with AFD in Germany and Freedom Party in Austria.
Yeah, but look at the UK. Look at the UK. The UK's a disaster.
I was with Steve Hilton yesterday in California, and I'm like, this is a guy who worked in 10 Downing Street, and I said to him, so what is it with the Tory party?
And he said, he can't even explain it to me. How does, he said, Sunak is just so wet, so pathetic, and this is the best the UK can do.
So Nigel, get busy.
A hundred percent. It's depressing looking at every other green shoot across Europe and looking at the UK and having zero.
But yeah, I know Nigel is seriously considering his political future.
But he's involved in media. And I want to ask you about media.
Nigel, of course, very involved in media and in GB News, probably the star on GB News. and in the States, I think it was an Axios article a few weeks ago talking about a MAGA media juggernaut that seems to eclipse, no pun intended for today, but eclipse any influence that Fox ever had.
You're right in the centre of that, as is Bannon, Charlie Kirk.
I mean, the list is wide of the names of individuals who have stepped up to the mark and helped the public understand.
Tell us about that, because to me, that will be part of winning this war and getting the message out over the next six months.
Well when it comes to the media there's only one mass media platform that conservatives control and that is of course talk radio, the left has tried talk radio and it's always recuperative and bile filled and nobody can listen to it for more than three minutes.
I mean, my show's only five years old. I've got three and a half million daily listeners.
You look at the Rush Limbaugh slot that is now divided between Dan Bongino and a couple of other hosts, Buck Sexton and his partner.
And Rush was getting 20, 22, 23 million people listening.
Fox doesn't even do that. I mean, before Tucker left, Tucker had the most popular show.
And on a good night, that was 5 million, which tells you why television is kind of irrelevant.
I mean, 5 million in a nation of 340 million, and radio is multiples of that.
Now, since then, of course, we have what in the last few years, the rise of the Breitbarts, Newsmax doing incredibly successfully, pushing Fox out.
But the hope, I don't know if you can can pull it off. The renaming was the dumbest thing ever.
But Elon's buying of Twitter, I mean, he's been very open about he wants to make Twitter, the multimedia platform, he wants it to be the the Twitter, YouTube, Google, Spotify, all in one information platform.
And we'll see what happens with you know, the next thing is going to be video long form videos on that platform.
And God willing, power to his elbow, absolutely do it.
And then President Trump, I don't know how the left failed to sabotage him, but with the SEC giving him permission to have that merger of the Truth Social and the SPAC on the stock exchange, President Trump just affected a, what was it, $8 billion deal.
I mean, I don't try a lot. I mean, I put my segments from my radio show on Truth Social, and then I kind of cut and paste whatever I'm putting on Twitter on Truth Social.
So I'm not, you know, really working on Trump's platform.
And without trying, I got 900,000 followers. Now, that tells you, and this is a free speech platform that's not full of bots that are being generated for political purposes.
This is a true free speech platform in accordance with the First Amendment.
So I don't have a crystal ball, but the media environment is, it is being shook up something fabulous.
You look at how wokeism, I mean, you look at what wokeism has done to the likes of Netflix and HBO, and along comes Angel Studios with the Call of Freedom and that mega series on Jesus, that reinterpretation of Jesus.
Chosen?
Chosen, yeah.
This is like a boiling cauldron of things that are forming and shaping.
And it's going to be, I mean, look, I'm not a fan of Tucker.
Tucker's become a clickbait animal, in my opinion.
But the figures he's getting for his videos, that presages something very interesting for the future.
It's funny when the left think they've got rid of a problem like Trump, like Tucker, and they come back to haunt them.
I love it.
And I love it when they say, oh my gosh, President Trump's running out of money, and then the SPAC merger is approved, and he garners $4 billion himself from that deal.
It's like, oh my gosh, Biden and Obama and Clinton, they're so cool.
They had a fundraiser in Manhattan last weekend and they raised 25 million and president Trump had a fundraiser by himself, this weekend and raised 50 million, you just, you gotta laugh.
You do, you read the headline, there was a guardian hippies think on the RNC takeover saying oh well you know it hasn't gone as planned, you're thinking, well actually he's really, he's taken over the apparatus, the party machine and actually, it's going to take a little bit of time to get smooth running when you're taking over.
But it was the headline was anti. And then you read and you think, wow, that's bloody good.
Well, it's at the tactical level. So my wife, who hates politics because she's sane, she, because it's a long story, but there was a drag queen story hour at our local community center that provoked her to run for the board of that community center.
And then she became an election officer because she was worried about the integrity of the election.
So she became the chief election officer for our part of Virginia.
And then on Saturday, because she's fed up with the... We are in the richest county in Virginia.
It's the second richest county in America. And it's run by...
The RINO class at the RNC under Rona used us as a piggyback.
They took all the money from Fairfax County.
And then they never gave any money back to our candidates.
So my wife was convinced to run for the chair of the GOP in Fairfax County.
And I thought, oh my gosh. I mean, she'd never mentioned my name once.
She didn't mention in any of her campaign promotional material.
She trounced. It was a primary to other candidates. She defeated the second-placed loser by 40 points on Saturday.
And then, the hit piece is, oh, my gosh, MAGA, wife of Trump, takes over GOP.
It's like, you know that's how democracy works.
When 68% of the delegates, 68% said, yeah, we want her.
It's so weird how the left really hates the will of the American people now.
But that's what it's about. It's about winning. And it's easy in some ways to say, let's all move to West Virginia and get an area of freedom.
But actually to stay and fight, that's what's difficult.
And that's what's required to win.
Right, right. It's like, who's that guy who wrote Liberal Fascists, that conservative who went lunatic, anti-Trumper?
There's this, I can't believe he actually said it live on television.
He's become, you know, the quasi-Republican on CNN. And here it's, oh yeah, so it's Jonah Goldberg.
Jonah Goldberg was bashing Trump again on CNN or whatever, and he actually said out loud, all these small donors that President Trump is getting, it's a real problem because they don't understand the world, and it should be the policies of the mega donors that shape the Republican Party.
I say, Jonah, did these words just come out of your mouth that the plebs, the plebs are stupid?
How dare the people's desires like wanting to have a border and jobs in manufacturing?
How dare, leave it up to the billionaires because they really care about America.
Jonah Goldberg actually said that live on television.
And he didn't apologize. He didn't catch himself and say, oops, I said the quiet bit out loud.
These people believe it, Peter.
They believe it. How dare, how dare the American people vote for Donald Trump? How dare they?
I've seen a number of your tweets and you've been pointing that out, Biden at war, not with America's enemies but with America itself and America last, you put war on common sense, war on Christians, it's war on our children war on free speech.
Think of this I was speaking in front of about a thousand conservatives yesterday in California and I think, this is so, to diagnose the situation we live in the most perverse of ages because never before has a society or a civilization been run by those who hate their own country.
I mean, Obama said it. He said, I wish to radically transform, fundamentally transform America.
Well, you don't love anything that you wish to radically transform.
And it sounds extreme, but look at what just happened.
The federal government, the federal government, whose number one duty is the safety of our citizens, That's its number one thing, is now suing the governor of Texas because he deployed his National Guard elements to put container boxes along the border to stop it.
The feds were letting in the illegals, 10,000 a day.
And the governor, Abbott, said, OK, well, I've got to do something because I'm responsible for the citizens of my state of Texas. In the Texas Constitution, it says he must secure his state if there is an invasion.
So he moved the Conex boxes to just put a barrier along the Texan border.
Biden is suing Texas for trying to secure the territory of America.
It's like that's when you realize these people truly hate their own country and hate their own people.
100% and that's what seems to be the big two issues are the border and the economy and there are many other issues but I guess those two are simple election but then when the election is won you've got a much, well you've got a whole litany of issues that then need to be sorted out.
Well yes I mean here's the massive irony. I'm going to write a piece on this today or tomorrow that, this is the delightful thing about the left. They're evil bastards.
They hate Judeo-Christian civilization, but they're really quite stupid.
Why did Donald Trump win in 2016? If you have to boil it down to one univalent answer, he won because of illegal immigration.
I mean, the most powerful mobilizing slogan of 2016 was build the wall.
I mean, that really was, if you had to choose one, it was build the wall.
What have they just done in the last three and a half years, if there's one issue if you know you're running against him again, what's the one issue Peter, you shouldn't give to Donald Trump a second time round, you probably shouldn't give him the issue he won on the first time, you probably shouldn't give immigration back to him as a weapon and they haven't given it back to him as a weapon.
They've given it back to him as a nuclear bomb.
When you let in 10,000 illegals a day, and there's this guy who actually sealed the border eight years ago, you're actually re-electing Donald Trump on the same issue that you helped him to get elected on the first time. These people are cretins.
I mean, they really are cretins.
Completely, can I just finish off on education because it was your wonderful Oxford Union speech, I think it was the beginning of this year and it was Sebastian Gorka explains why America and the world needs president Trump back in office and you realize this is a battle for education for the next generation for children to actually rediscover the American dream that their parents fought for and strived for.
But let me just tell, what was that like going into an arena where you are hated because you stand up for the best of a country itself?
And then what are your thoughts on, actually, it is about reclaiming the education system?
Well, look, I thought twice about it, because it's got to be as, a heart of darkness when it comes to wokeism but I've got to give them full credit, I mean really, it's not part of the University but it's affiliated to it and it's run by the students of Oxford so, and look when the Oxford Union invites you to debate on any subject you have to go, when you see the photographs of Einstein, Maggie Thatcher, Ronald Reagan who've all debated in that beautiful building, you don't say well sorry, I'm not, I'm too good for that, And so they believe, you may not have it in the British system, but they believe in a First Amendment and freedom of speech.
And I'm just absolutely stunned that I had 120, 130 students vote for President Trump after I gave my speech.
But let me tell you a story. So it's run by this committee who, interestingly, are mostly classic scholars.
So the dinner beforehand was, you know, debating the Pliny versus Tacitus.
I felt like I'd arrived in some Evelyn Waugh novel. It was quite, quite funny.
But one of them, because you can only go and listen if you're a member of the union.
One of these students, after I gave my pitch, he stood up, took the microphone, and he was a perfect exemplar of what we face.
And he said, in front of hundreds of people, I mean, it was a packed crowd, standing room only, and I've literally just given my speech and I've traveled, what, 8,000 miles on my own dime.
And he says, I hate you and everything your former boss stood for.
And I'm an American. He was like an exchange student or whatever.
And he said, I would rather vote for a dead twig than to vote for President Trump.
And I accosted him afterwards over the little, you know, cocktails we were having.
And I said to him, you do realize how privileged you are, that you're an American at Oxford, and you really shouldn't dehumanize other people.
And to say in public that you hate a man you've never met before, and you'd rather vote for a piece of wood than a human being, you're actually dehumanizing at the level that the Nazis dehumanized somebody they politically disagreed with.
And then to his credit, he apologized. He said, yes, you're right.
And then literally 40 seconds later, he did it again.
And he made an ad hominem attack against me in front of witnesses as we're drinking.
And he just, the level of indoctrination is stunning. And I had the president of the Heritage Foundation on my radio show the week he was appointed.
And he's a former president of a college in Texas. He's a fourth-generation educator, PhD in history.
And my wife, who worked for Heritage at the time, smuggled me a question to ask him at the end of the hour.
And I said, so, Dr. Roberts, it's exciting to see Americans take back the schools, the mama bears rising up against the insane COVID mandates, the masks, the CRT, all this garbage.
That's cool. But what about higher ed? What about the colleges?
What about the universities? You've run one of these.
Can we salvage them? Can we rebuild them?
Live on air in front of three and a half million people, he said, it's brand newly minted president of the Heritage Foundation.
No, we have to burn them to the ground. Now, when he says that, you think, you know, let me think about that. And then what happens?
Three years later, the president of the most famous college in the world says, genocide of the Jews, that's a contextual statement and may not be hate-filled.
Then he's right. I mean, I got in an argument about this with a fellow conservative who said, well, we've got to save the colleges. I said, you can't save that.
I mean, when it's so ingrained that calling for genocide on Harvard campus is something the president thinks is OK, you can't change that unless you change everybody who works at Harvard, because they're all like that.
I mean, maybe there's two professors left who aren't woke, but you can't build it with thousands of people who hate America.
It's like, let me make an analogy that you're not supposed to say. It's impolitic.
My thing is national security and people tell me, well, Israel has to do what it has to do and it has to crush Hamas and then it'll be okay.
And they have to do whatever it takes.
Civilian casualties, yes, we get it, but they just got to crush Hamas. And I say, You can't crush Hamas. The polls say 70% to 80% of Gazans support what Hamas did on October 7th.
When 70% of a population says murdering beautiful young women at a rave in the desert is okay.
Unless the population is removed somewhere else, and Egypt built their wall with God.
You cannot fix that by killing the people who did October 7th because you'll just find more recruits. You can't fix these colleges.
And that's why home-schooling is enormous, why Hillsdale and the like of Grove City, conservative colleges that don't take one cent from the feds. So the feds can't force their CRT and equal rights garbage on them are so thriving.
But, my parents escaped communism.
And it's the idea that we're in that situation where in every communist nation that had a semblance of resistance, the kids would come home from school and then the parents would put the radio up loud and then deprogram their kids at night.
And say, okay, what did that commie teachers tell you about Stalin?
Let me tell you what the truth is about the West and capitalism.
And to think that we might be in a similar situation without a Berlin Wall, without bipolarity, but where we need to deprogram our kids.
That's why I tell people it's cool to work in the White House.
Don't get me wrong. As an immigrant, it's pretty cool.
It's pretty cool to be president. It's pretty cool to be a senator.
But it's mostly irrelevant. I mean, the founding fathers were very clear.
Federal government should be irrelevant. It should deal with two things, war and interstate trade. That's it.
Alex de Tocqueville understood America better than anyone, of course, because he's a foreigner. And he said, where's the locus of power? Where's real America?
It's locally. It's at the county commissioner. It's at the school board.
That's why when you want to take back a country, that's where you take it back.
Why is George Soros funding local school board races and local prosecutors at the county level?
I mean, people like Fani Willis. What the hell is the billionaire who broke the Bank of London doing funding local prosecutor races?
Well, because that's how you steal a country. And we kind of just snoozed past it for 40 years as bit by bit, the real locus of power at county, at a municipality level was taken over.
I mean, Tip O'Neill famously had this phrase in the 90s, the Democrat speaker, he said, politics is local.
And it became this kind of bumper sticker for the Democrats.
Oh, oh, all politics is local.
And we kind of laughed and said, oh, that's cute. Well, they actually meant it.
They understood that you capture a nation not with a presidential election.
You capture a nation. When I arrived to Virginia, I moved from Europe 2008.
And we put our kids into the local schools.
And we looked into the local school district, school board.
There were nine members of the school board. Every single one of them was a raving left-wing loony. And here's the important thing.
None of them had a child in the public schools of the county. And you go, what?
Then why are they running the board?
Because it's about controlling my children, right? This is what we have to wake up to.
Dr Sebastian Gorka it's wonderful having you on, it's an honour and I know you are, what three hours a day is it?
Three hours of live radio every day and then a weekly tv show on Newsmax.
On Salem media group, on Rumble, on Spotify, any place you want to watch it, all the links are on Sebastian's twitter feed at the top, so I appreciate your time thank you so much, Dr. Gorka.
Thank you. And check out my Substack, Sebastian Gorka, one word, sebastiangorka.substack.com
We will put it in the description. Thank you so much.

Lois McLatchie Miller - Protecting Everyone’s Right to Live & Speak the Truth in the UK

Show notes and Transcript
Lois McLatchie Miller is the senior legal communications officer for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) UK and is a regular media commentator. She joins us to discuss the work of ADF who's tagline, “Protecting everyone’s right to live & speak the Truth in the UK”, is needed more than ever. Are Christian freedoms really under threat in the UK? Lois discusses a number of issues which are off limits legally. Speaking up for the rights of the unborn. SIlent prayer on a public footpath. Common sense factual statements on gender and sexuality. Asking people if they want to talk about the sanctity of life. Criminalising thoughts that are the wrong emotion. So many views and actions have been attacked by this so called conservative government. And where is the church amidst this woke wave of censorship?
Lois McLatchie serves as a senior legal communications officer for ADF UK . She works with journalists and press representatives to advocate for fundamental freedoms in the “court of public opinion”, both in written pieces and through public speaking.Before beginning her current role, Lois was a legal analyst on ADF International’s UN Advocacy Team at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. There, she provided Member State representatives with key legal resources and amendatory language which promotes the inherent value of every person. She is an alumnus of ADF International’s Veritas Scholarship, under which she she completed training on on international law, communications and argumentation.Lois also holds an LLM Human Rights Law with distinction from the University of Kent, and an MA (Hons) International Relations from the University of St Andrews. During her studies, she participated in Areté Academy and Blackstone Legal Fellowship, where she completed extensive research on bioethical issues, including surrogacy.
Connect with Lois and ADF UK...X                      x.com/LoisMcLatch                         x.com/ADF_UKSUBSTACK      tradical.substack.comWEBSITE          adfinternational.org
Interview recorded 5.4.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on X https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
Transcript
(Hearts of Oak)I'm delighted to be joined today by Lois McLatchie-Miller. Lois, thank you so much for your time today.
Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here.Great to have you on and followed you on Twitter, on your many, many different media outlets in the UK, GB News and Talk TV, Talk Radio.People can follow you.There is your Twitter handle and all the links are in the description.You're the Senior Legal Communications Officer for ADF, Alliance Defending Freedom.I followed ADF for many, many years.And it's ADF.UK, but everything is there.And I think the tagline on ADF on the Twitter is protecting everyone's right to live and speak the truth in the UK, which is under attack.And that's truth with a capital T.Maybe we'll touch on that as well.I said before, I've had the privilege of doing work with Paul Coleman, who's your executive director.Great to have you on and discuss this whole area, which I don't know if we've talkedabout for a long time on Christian freedoms.But maybe I'll ask you a simple question that the left trans say, of course it's not, and that is freedoms, specifically Christian freedoms.How are they actually under threat in the UK?Yeah, well, thanks for that question.Well, I think looking around us as Christians in the UK, we can sense that there is a changing culture, which is fine.Christians at the church have survived throughout thousands of generations of many different challenges.But the one that faces us today is one that's particularly sensorial.I say that because of a lot of the legislation that has been brought in recently in my home country in Scotland, most notably, but also across the UK, where the ability to speak truth.We're taught to speak in grace and truth is increasingly being reduced for the fear of offending somebody sometimes or because, more likely, different ideologies set to take precedence.I think, in Western countries, there has always been one belief or one ideolo​gy that is dominant.In and many years ago, that was the church.The church had in place blasphemy laws back in the 1600s.It was wrong to stop people from challenging or questioning the church or even having conversations about what different interpretations of the Bible might mean, of course.We should have allowed those conversations.It was wrong to always impose blasphemy laws with very harsh sentences.But what we're seeing today is in the West, in the UK and across different countries like Finland and across the European Union; we're seeing laws come in which actually just reverse that and we have situations where we can't speak out against what are considered to be the true dogmas or the the most popular narrative views of our day.Whenever we're in a situation like that uh that's a disadvantage to everyone because we don't get to have the conversations about important societal issues that we need and especially right now it is a disadvantage to Christians who are commanded and who love to be able to speak about their beliefs and share and exchange them with other people.And maybe you want to touch on the role of Alliance Defending Freedom.I know that you work here in the UK, but I initially saw it as as a U.S organization.I think it's expanded now to to many parts of the world.It's to my mind, it's probably the major Christian organization defending individuals' rights to speak truth in many areas in society.And the attacks are becoming wider and wider in every area.But maybe our viewers in the UK may not be so aware of ADF.Do you want to just let the viewers know what ADF is and what actually it does?Yeah, absolutely.Well, ADF stands for Alliance Defending Freedom.And the US reference that you mentioned, well, we as an organisation began in the US over 25 years ago.But, 10 years ago, we started up a new branch of ADF, called ADF International, which is headquartered in Vienna.We, as a new international organization, have an eye to keep the right to live and speak the truth free all over the world.So, we have an alliance of over 4,000 lawyers who we support.Whatever their challenges are in their own country, to the concept of being able to speak the truth.They can come to us and we can support them in being able to take these things through courts.And we also have in-house legal teams based in situations of political significance: at the European Union, at the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg, or we have a big office in Washington DC because of the Latin American jurisdictions there or the institutions there.Here in London, we have an office ADF UK, and we work in-house to be supporting these rights, to be serving serving those individuals who are dragged through courts unfairly because of their faith.Or to be promoting in the media and in politics, these foundational ideas that are core.For example, over here in the UK, freedom of speech has been a core value to the Brits for a long, long time, as well as supporting things like the right to life, again, which has been secured in our understanding of human rights law in the West for a long, long time.Although, we have an international presence in each location that we're based in, we work locally with a local team working on local issues with local laws.I think there's a big difference between stateside and over in Europe where in the States you wear your faith on your sleeve more.The conversations are, I think, more vocal and more public, where certainly in the UK, your faith is supposedly a private thing that you keep away from your public life.Is that one of the reasons why we've got to where we're going; Christians taking themselves out of the public sphere?I think probably these things are symbiotic aren't they.As laws and culture and this kind of concept of cancel culture increases it can put pressure on Christians and others of minority beliefs to stay quiet and then that can perpetuate the kind of myth that these views are outdated and don't really exist and therefore legislation comes in to make it even more difficult to express our faith and therefore this cycle kind of continues.And that's one of the reasons why it's so important for Christians to be standing up for their freedom of speech.Sometimes, this can be seen as kind of an icky thing to do to be engaging in our rights and we were supposed to, you know, we are called to be persecuted and some people feel awkward or difficult about speaking up for their rights but we're encouraged to do so, because Paul the apostle when he was under pressure for assessing his beliefs he called on the Roman Roman justice system and invoked his rights as a Roman citizen.And it wasn't because he was afraid of going to prison or afraid of suffering, but it was because, for many reasons, firstly, upholding justice in a country is important.Secondly, because this can be an opportunity to share our story with a wider group of people and to secure the right for them too, to be able to live and speak the truth, to share their faith.It's important to engage in the structures of society that we have around us.And of course, we know that the message of Christianity can have a phenomenal impact, not only in the lives of individuals and in us loving our neighbour to be able to share the truth like this, but also in societies.If you look to pre-Christian Rome, for example, the culture was more hedonistic and awful than today.They were engaging in child sacrifice in some instances.Women were treated as about the same worth as a loaf of bread.Babies were exposed on rubbish heaps if they weren't wanted simply because they were girls.Yet, Christianity came in with a transformative message and instituted this first concept that we ever had of having human rights, of having the equal dignity of each person just because they are human.That is a message that we still carry with us today, the equal dignity and worth of each person, no matter black, white, male, female, born, unborn, child, adult, all of these things.We believe that they have equal dignity and worth.We believe that no child has ever been born in the wrong body, for example. And these are values that can be positive and make a hugely positive impact on those around us.There are great reasons to be upholding this freedom, to be able to share our faith, to be able to share this perspective in society and help shape the laws around us to be the best that they can be for the flourishing of everybody.I've been surprised.I mean, I remember back when I was working at Christian Concern and engaging with churches.And you're kind of thinking, well, surely churches should be engaging in this fight.But it seems as though often, and maybe Americans may think, you've got to stay at church.You're in a wonderful position.Well, it's not necessarily so.
And it seems that the church have retreated and left the fight to organizations like ADF.That's your job to speak truth and we'll quietly have a Bible study on a Wednesday evening and that's kind of our job ticked.I mean, how do you see that?Because, really it should be the church that are standing up for rights and freedoms and truth in the world.Yeah.So, the church has a commission, doesn't it, to be sharing the message and making disciples of those who believe.And I don't think that everybody in the church has the same necessarily frontline role in the politics that I do.I think that we all are called to have different parts of the body, but especially when we have state churches.But the church as an institution in society does have freedom to be able to speak into the societal issues of our day and to be sharing a perspective about how lives can be approved for everybody.And I think that church leaders have perhaps lost confidence in their ability to do that, that they do have a voice, that they can speak to politicians, they can speak to newspapers, to society and share their perspective and that it isn't wrong to do so.I wonder if there's been a little bit of a shyness over the last 50 years and speaking externally, but also internally about some issues that can be seen as controversial and maybe not having the language to articulate these things well.It is so important that we do so because we know, we believe the Bible as a church, not just because it's the Bible or because we're told to do so, but because we fundamentally do think it's true.We do think it holds valuable knowledge about how to best support everybody in society, best point them towards the way that they can be flourishing the most.If we truly believe that truth, then it is unfair, unjust and unkind of us to not be sharing that message, to not be speaking out.So, if we take our mission seriously, if we think that this is good for society, then we must be speaking about these issues in compassion and grace and holding out the wisdom that we've been taught.100% Many of our viewers, not necessarily Christian viewers, may be non-Christian, but I think certainly the response we've got is many people looking for what truth is and looking for certainty in life, especially during the last four years of COVID chaos and trying to find that certainty.I want to talk to you about the the pro-life conversation and the Christian freedom conversation wider.I do need to ask you as a scoff of the the chaos that's north of the border.We've all read about uh it wasn't an April fool's joke it was actually the SNP going fully woke and restricting all conversation.As been reported on a lot, but maybe you want to just mention that, firstly, as an example of this wave against the right to speak what you believe.Sure.Well, like I mentioned earlier, it was 1697 that the last man in Scotland was condemned for blasphemy.He had, Thomas Aitkenhead, a 20-year-old Edinburgh student who had questioned the validity of the miracles of the Bible and made some jokes about Scripture.He was condemned for that, and that was absolutely wrong.That law went defunct for hundreds of years nobody used it in 2021 it was repealed finally, but on the same day that it was repealed a new blasphemy law was put into place.That came into action on the 1st of April this year.That law creates a new offense called stirring up of hate.I certainly don't like to be hated.I don't like anyone else to feel hated either and obviously we've talked about Christianity.Christians should never be called to be stirring up hate in any measure.The problem with this law is that we don't know exactly what kind of language can be seen to come under this.There's no definition of what it means to stir up hate and essentially it's been left wide open to abuse for the government to decide what speech they don't like and to ban that now JK Rowling very famously tested this law right in the morning that it came out.She tweeted, of course, some some fiery tweets about trans activists.She asked the police to come and arrest her if she had done anything wrong.The police investigated these tweets that had been reported as a hate crime.They found that they did not meet the threshold and that is good.It is really good that we've had that benchmark set for feminists that these particular tweets did not meet the threshold.However, we don't actually know, because there is no clear definition if different tweets were worded differently on a different day.And perhaps even might I add, coming from somebody who isn't as famous or on a big platform, or doesn't have the world's attention watching them.We don't know if the police will find a different reason as to prosecuting tweets as hate crimes and we don't know also about other topics that haven't been tested so JK Rowling talked about um trans activists and their link to criminality.We haven't tested this out when it comes to speaking about marriage we know one of the protected categories within law is obviously transgender identity and sexual orientation so we don't know about Christians who might speak out about marriage being between a man and a woman and if in different contexts.That could potentially meet the threshold.There's many Questions about this law that we have not been bottomed out.Police of Scotland had three years to clarify you know to a greater extent what this law was really going to mean for us and really all the best they came up with was a kind of campaign about a hate monster and watching out that the hate monster doesn't doesn't get you doesn't cause you to accidentally commit a hate crime I think it's very disappointing from our establishment that we're in this situation.I do see it as a new form of blasphemy law and that can essentially be used in the future to to criminalize people who are simply expressing their beliefs and it creates it's a culture I think of kind of you can't say that.You know, we'll chill conversations about important societal issues even in the home.This reaches into the family dinner table.Where it still applies, and if kids were to report their parents for their quote-unquote hateful beliefs if that's what they've been taught in school or hateful beliefs, then their parents could be ended up in trouble for what they've said there too.I think it's a very far-reaching law.It is something to be concerned about.And it's frightening that a government are trying to legislate feelings.Maybe the first government in the world to say a certain feeling or a certain emotion is wrong.I guess we'll be told what emotions are right and you must feel those emotions at certain times.And then it falls on the police and in some ways although it's the bobby on the beat that they will have to implement this.They're probably thinking this there are no guidelines this is not explained properly and it it's dangerous.We see it time and time again.Legislation coming in that's worded so badly, so widely, that actually it's up to any individual.And on a Monday someone could be arrested,  on a Tuesday they're not and that's frightening.I guess no safeguards and it's so subjective.Yeah, that's right.I mean we've seen this actually with hate speech laws across the world, so we kind of have a flavour of where this is going already.ADF International was supporting a case in Finland and still is a politician a parliamentarian of 20 years and a former Home Secretary, and a grandmother mother.Paivi Razanen, tweeted in 2019, she tweeted a Bible verse and she challenged her church leadership as to whether they should really have sponsored the Pride parade in Helsinki.She felt that that was perhaps an inappropriate thing for a church to be doing.She was charged for hate speech.She was dragged to the court.She's been acquitted twice at the district court and the court of appeal, and her case has been appealed a third time to the Supreme Court in Finland.The charge that she has been, or what she's been charged under carries a potential sentence of up to two years in prison.We don't think that she would get the full sentence, but the fact that that hangs in the air is quite phenomenal.We've seen where this lands of grandmothers being dragged through courts for years for tweeting their beliefs.Again, in Mexico we've seen this with politicians out there who we've supported, who were convicted actually of gender gender-based political violence for having expressed their beliefs on biological reality.Their are cases being appealed to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, but there are two politicians whose careers have been severely jeopardised because they simply tweeted their well-founded beliefs about reality.They spoke the truth.We know where this goes.We know how the story ends.For Scotland and Ireland are now looking at putting in place their own hate speech law as well.It is concerning, but we're going to have to wait and see how this shakes out.Of course, like you say, it comes down often to an individual police decision on the day, and Police Scotland are now a centralised unit.There's no kind of peer review between different forces in Scotland.It really is down to just one hive mind making the decision on what could count as offensive in the future.The police recently in Scotland said that they were no longer going to be investigating over 24,000 crimes including some examples of theft, because they simply don't have the resources, but we're told that they are going to be investigating every single report of hate speech that comes in.And we've had over 4,000 so far.Bear in mind that this law has been enacted for four days.If you can compare the before and after the effect this is going to have on our resources of policing in the country when it comes into looking about who said what on Twitter.It's a phenomenally interesting place for a country to be, but we're going to see how it shakes out in the next few weeks, I imagine.It really is weird whenever politicians are more concerned of hurdy words than rape, because the rape convictions are, what, one and a half percent, I think, is a conviction from an allegation to conviction.And yet, it's falling over themselves to find a word that may cause someone offence somewhere and to go after that.It is unbelievable the waste of finance and police resources of going after something while you've got these massive problems in society and simply turning a blind eye to it.Yeah, no, absolutely.And you're right.Hate isn't a human emotion.It's a motion of the human heart.It'd be as well trying to ban greed or envy or lust.Hamza Yusuf.Justin Trudeau.Simon Harris.All of these guys can try to ban hate, but that's not essentially what it's going to make the difference in society.Do we have societal issues, societal tensions, of course we do, but resolving those conflicts is going to take more conversation not less.Telling people that that their views or that they are bad people for expressing beliefs is not going to be helpful in engaging those societal conversations.If we let bad speech go underground and be hidden, then it festers into even worse speech for the issues that the government is concerned about.Having conversations out in the open is really the best place for a democracy to be.We need to have these types of conversations and the marketplace of ideas will sort itself out.The ideas that need to be fleshed out can be done so with debate and discussion.I think that's the direction the West needs to be headed.It was certainly historically where we seem to be headed for a long time when we've taken this U-turn back to a kind of more authoritarian, censorial approach, which I think is going to not have the desired consequences of our government.I want to move on to life. Lots of conversation, probably in the UK more on what they call assisted dying or assisted suicide, which is assisting someone to end their life, so to murder.We've seen that, especially probably during COVID, it's becoming even a bigger conversation.I see a number of MPs just get rid of the older members of society and that fixes us, the survival of the fittest.It's a frightening.I guess,  where the conversation goes when you don't have any Christian ethos or belief of the value of life.But the value of life at the beginning as well; I mentioned to you before we went on we've had uh some great individuals: Scott Klusendorf and Seth Gruber, and Janique Stewart.It's always great to drop this in the conversation, because when you look at the other alternative media, I think this is a topic that people are afraid to go on and choice seems to trump life and the right to the individual.Maybe you want to touch on what the situation is in the U.K for me for U.S audience who aren't sure.What is the life abortion situation in the U.K?Legally speaking our uh our laws in effect allow abortion for any reason up till 24 weeks.Then after 24 weeks there's three reasons why it could go all the way up to birth.One is in cases of disability.For the child, one is if the mother's life is at risk, and one is if there's a risk of serious risk of physical or mental injury to her as a result of the pregnancy.That's as things stand now.We are are a bit of an outlier in Europe.Average kind of benchmark for European abortion caps between 12 and 15 weeks.At 24, we're almost double.We are much, much more liberal in our abortion law than others.But an amendment has been put forward as part of the criminal justice bill in our parliament by a politician who would like to see abortion decriminalised all the way up till birth in the UK for any reason.Whether you count yourself as pro-life, or pro-choice, or pro-abortion or whatever label you hold, this iteration of an abortion law is extremely dangerous and should be opposed.The reason is that it puts women's lives in danger.We have a scheme in the UK called Pills by Post.Since the pandemic and now permanently, a woman can call up an abortion provider, say that she is less than 10 weeks pregnant, and the abortion provider will be able to administer her by the post Misoprostol pills for her to perform her own abortion at home.The danger with this, of course, without saying obvious, is also that a woman can essentially acquire these medicines very easily, even after the 10-week mark all the way up to the 40-week mark.And this has happened in various instances.There was a case over the summer of a lady called Carla Foster who performed an abortion by obtaining pills in this way on, I think it was, between a 33 and 35 week old baby I believe.She had a very traumatic experience performing her own abortion in her bathroom at home and she talked she later named her baby who she had to give birth to of course, after having performed the abortion she named her baby Lily.She talks about the traumatic experience that was.Now, if we we take away laws which prevent women from doing this, because a small number of women have got around the system to do it.If we take away laws that prevent many more women from doing it, we'll have so many more women like Carla who obtain a very dangerous style of abortion at home like this.It would be an absolutely traumatic result for women.So, no matter what your ideological stance on abortion is, this is something to write to your MP and oppose, because no woman should be going through an abortion alone at home.We're told it was meant to be safe, legal and rare.There seems to be none of those things.Now, there's also been another amendment proposed to the same bill that MPs will have to pick between.The second amendment looks at this 24-week mark and says, well, hang on.This means that now that babies are surviving from 22 weeks outside the womb.We now have situations where in the same hospital; there can be a woman having a 23, 24 week baby aborted whilst the same age of baby is fighting for their lives and we're supporting them to survive.How can we just be discriminating against these two children simply because one is wanted and one is not.That doesn't seem just at all.They're taking the very they made the very modest and moderate proposal of simply lowering that limit on abortion from 24 down to 22 in line of the current state of viability in the UK.Now, of course this still makes us very much out of sync with Europe which is 12 to 15 weeks, but it is a step towards a more humane view of life.I think it's something that should be definitely supported by all MPs.Again, it's not even a defining ideological stance.It's not the Only pro-life.People should think this...It is just a reasonable measure to take to ensure that babies of all, at least at the same age, are treated equally.That no baby's life is being ended in the womb that could be surviving on the outside.My hope is that plenty of people in the U.K will see the sense in this, see the justice in this, and write to their MP and encourage them to support the amendment for 22 weeks and opposed the amendment for 40 weeks.Sorry, that was a lot of information in one go, but I hope that it came across okay.No, it did.And the changes in legislation are often incremental that you don't go for it straight away.It is a conversation and slowly you have to move people with you.But it's interesting, the state, the conversation in the legislation, acouple of states on the heartbeat legislation, and that goes around actually what is life?Can we define what life is?And I've been perplexed with conversations with those who are are absolute desperate for abortion.It's actually something that people are really fired up with, certainly in the left.And I remember touching on different issues, and it's fine, you touch on the issue of abortion, how dare you stop a woman taking the life of her child.But that conversation of life, and I don't see that as much in the UK, because the Harvard legislation, what is life?You feel the pulse, actually the heart's beating, and that makes sense.I would go down to conception, but hey, let's have a conversation.But no one seems to understand what life is and that seems to be the crux of the problem, I think.Yeah, and I think ideologically we're always put into this debate mould where we're told that we have to pick between a woman or her baby, you know, it's like pro-woman or pro-baby.Some people say that, you know, we should protect the woman at all costs and therefore if she doesn't want to have a pregnancy in her body at at all, then like it's absolutely her choice and the child gets no rights.There's not many people who go to the full extreme of saying that at any point up to birth, she should be able to make that choice or even after birth.Very few people would go to that extreme.But there are some.And on the other side, we have this kind of polar opposite opinion of only the child's life matters.And the woman doesn't matter at all.And forget about her.We just have to protect this baby's life.I personally never met anyone who said that, but I'm sure that there have been instances where that's come across.And that's obviously not right either.We're kind of locked into this strange polarization where actually very few people think on these extremes.And I think what most of us want to see is an option where we can protect both.Can we find solutions where we can protect both mother and baby?And I think that's what needs to come through far more in this debate into the mainstream and stop feeding this idea that we can now just have to pick a tribe and in fact look to solutions where we can support mothers and support babies far better.I know the U.S have a great network of pregnancy help centres, which I think do a great service to women, because many, you know, in one in five women in the U.K who have had abortions say that they didn't want to, they felt pressured or pushed into it.So, if we had better options of support, and I think we can all work towards situations where we can be doing more to support and encourage women to take the empowered step to choose motherhood, to choose life.In a culture where so often they're told that the only option is abortion and that they have no future apart from that.So, I'd love to see further changes in our culture towards supporting women.And I guess the danger is the organisations that provide abortion make money from it.BPAS are not going to provide a conversation with a mother saying, actually, these are your options.The option for them is one thing because that's their business.We don't seem to have a, mothers don't seem to be able to have a conversation, actually, of the options.And it seems to be if a mother is thinking of ending the life of her child, then she's kind of funnelled into one direction, and that is abortion.I think that probably needs to change.I guess that partially is the role of the church to have that conversation.Yeah, there's a lot more we can be doing for sure.I think we can all agree that women deserve far better than abortion.When we think about it no little girl ever grows up saying I would love to have an abortion when I'm older.It's never an ideal choice so, the fact that we are in a culture where one in three or one in four women are ending up having abortion is a great failure on society.It's a great failure in the rhetoric that, you know, my body my choice is so empowering when in fact it's really allowed men and family members and people that were meant to be rallying around women in crisis pregnancies to say, well, your body, your choice, your problem, I'm out.And the kind of abandoned woman to a responsibility that was always meant to be shared.So, I do think there's a lot more churches and charities and things to be doing, but we also, we do have great charities in the U.K who do volunteer support.Outside abortion facilities and have made a real life difference in the lives of many women who have chosen help and decided that they would like to continue their pregnancies if only they could have support.But unfortunately, we're seeing a clampdown on their work at a governmental level, which I think is the most anti-woman policy that this government has ever proposed.Completely. And you've written to Rishi Sunak. Have you got a reply back to your letter?I did not.You know it's so funny I I wrote that letter it wasn't an ADF initiative I would just write to my MP, but my MP is standing down and I knew that she wouldn't agree with me anyway on this.At the last minute I said, oh I'll write to Rishi, and I put it on on Twitter.So thank you for saying and noticing that, I'm glad I'm glad somebody did.Yes, no.I wrote to Rishi because I think that we've had a quote-unquote conservative government for 14 years in this country.But in the course of those years, we have seen the destruction of the family.We've seen no support for mothers.Our maternity policy, in essence, has really amounted to just cheaper childcare, which, of course, cheaper childcare is fine and good.But many women feel that they would love to be able to invest more in their families, in their children by staying home, by having tax rewards for being able to put those years into early motherhood.Yet we have very little support for the idea of a family other than getting women back into work as soon as possible.We've had an abortion rate that's only growing under the Conservative government.We've had pills by post implemented by this government and now potentially abortion up to birth under the the criminal justice bill amendment.So I think it's an absolute blight on any party that calls themselves conservative, who should be standing up for family, for freedom of speech, for life and for cherishing these values that are so important to so many of us in society.I felt frustrated that that had not been done.And so I wrote a letter.If only in the manifesto, all lives matter and both lives matter were two policies, I think, actually would have a very different society.You know, it's funny, in the Conservative manifesto; I checked in the 2019 manifesto and family is mentioned dozens of times as support for the family as this campaign was promised to us.But I personally have not seen any measures taken to support and uphold families.I've only seen the opposite.So I think that's a real miss by a government who could have done much better.Yeah, if only we could listen to Hungary and have the most family friendly policies in Europe, it could be quite different.I saw you, I think, recently, back in March, you'd been with, I think, Right to Life had been outside Parliament, highlighting what was happening.Just mention that because it's important for the public to come around initiatives and to try and let MPs know that there is vocal support for policies like this.Yeah, absolutely.I really encourage everybody in the U.K to be writing to their MP about this.The group right to life.I think it's https://righttolife.org.uk, have a tool on their website where you can very easily write to your MP.Put in your postcode and they'll let you know who it is and provide you with information that you can send on to your MP.It's very easy, just takes a couple of clicks and, yeah, even if you want to do it in a different matter you just get in touch.I think there's so many, I wasn't really aware until recently about the number of methods we do have available to us to engage in really important decisions that are made in Parliament.Writing to your MP can make a difference if they're on the fence, or at least letting them know that people in their constituency do care about this issue.It's something important to them and they of course are elected to represent you.There's also things like public consultations that frequently come up, and it's always worth just filling out that consultation and making your voice heard and engaging with these tools that we have before us, because other people do.And so if we're not voicing our own opinion in these measures where the governmentis looking for opinions, we won't be heard.I really encourage everyone to engage with those tools.Completely.And one MP who I saw you retweeted, a former guest of ours,  Andrew Bridgen.His tweet was there should not be double standards when it comes to free speech, yet repeatedly we see evidence that Christian expression is harshly censored while the right to voice more fashionable views is protected.This was a sign, someone holding up a sign if you want to talk you can talk, and this I think fits in with the buffer, so do you want to fill the audience in on that?Yeah, of course he was referring to the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt Livia has been volunteering to help women outside an abortion facility for quite a few years now.She's a retired medical scientist, and so she frequently has has held a sign that says here to talk if you want, or she's provided information about a helpline and just giving women that chance to talk over their options to hear about resources available to them, if they want, to consider keeping their child if it's if they're at an abortion, but they're not sure about whether they want to go ahead.It's a chance just to look at other options.I think you know pro-life or pro-choice,  especially if you're pro-choice, you should be pro having having these conversations, looking at all the true choices.However, Livia was recently charged and now faces trial because she held this sign near an abortion facility in Bournemouth, where there is a buffer zone, or a censorship zone, as we sometimes like to call them.Placed around the clinic.These buffer zones have been rolled out in five places across England and Wales so far, and under new legislation coming in soon, they will be rolled out across the country, and it makes it a crime to engage in influencing within 150 metres of a clinic.The law, the regulation that Livia was charged under prevents her from agreeing or engaging in disapproval or approval of abortion.So again, it's very, in both instances, it's very vague, ambiguous language and the authorities have deemed in Bournemouth that just by offering to talk.They're here to talk, if you want; that Livia has committed a crime.We're thrilled to be defending or to be supporting Livia's legal defence, because we believe that everybody should have the right to be engaged in these conversations.Nobody should be on trial just for having a belief about abortion or for offering to talk in any circumstance.The UK has public streets.We've always been able to express our views.We have a culture of democracy here and we can't understand why some issues are banned in certain places just because the government might not like what we have to say.So, that's one to watch out for.We're grateful that five politicians last week, as you alluded to, have spoken out for Libya.They've seen what happened in Bournemouth and they're aware that the new legislation coming in will roll this out across the U.K and we could see many more cases like Libya's.We've already seen a few.There was a priest, Father Sean Gough, who was arrested and put on trial, unfortunately vindicated, for holding a sign saying, praying for free speech.There was Isabel von Spruce, of course, most famously, also supported by ADF UK, who was arrested, actually twice, for a viral video for praying silently inside her head.So, this law has a very far-reaching consequence, even into the minds of individuals who are poor life.So something that whatever you think about abortion, we should be concerned about any form of censorship in our country and be able to keep those conversations open.Well, that, I mean, no one would have five years ago have said actually praying silently would be illegal in the UK.But in effect, that buffer zone legislation forced through by my MP, sadly to say, actually is, it means that prayer is now criminalised 150 yards from every abortion centre.That's how it's been acted on by the police.Well, we do have an opportunity to engage here for the better.So, the legislation that has been passed by the government bans influencing, like we talked about, very vague or unclear exactly what this means.Now, because it's so unclear the government are going to provide or the home office are going to provide guidance within the next few weeks to explain to police and prosecutors exactly how they should act outside of buffer zones and we know of course that freedom of thought is protected absolutely in human rights law as incorporated into the U.K law as well.It is wrong that Isabel was arrested for praying inside her head and the government have a chance to clarify here what the line is for being able to at least hold thoughts and conversations in public.Now, let's be clear for a second.We all disagree with harassment or intimidation or violence or anything like that.Nobody should be engaging in harassment of women in any situation.Of course, not here either.So, we're all comfortable with laws, which have already existed for a while, that ban that.But the government must clarify that while this legislation applies to harassment, It must not apply to silent prayer or simply peaceful prayer on the street or conversations like the one that Livia was trying to hold.A consensual conversation between two adults.So, that kindness is going to drop fairly soon.You know, there's still opportunities to engage with that.Again, you write to MP and encourage them to contact the Home Office about this and encourage them to do the right thing and clarify that we need freedom of thought and freedom of conversation.I mean, why not write to the Home Office as well and give your opinion?There is a chance still that we'll be able to preserve this and we'll have something to watch out for in the next few weeks.And just to finish, Lois, let me reiterate your comment about engage with MPs.You mentioned there was five and one of them, the awesome Carla Lockhart, DUP from Northern Ireland.And you realize there are voices, there are MPs who actually do have a belief.They are conviction politicians and they may be fewer of them than there used to be, but actually they are still there.And I think it's vital for us, whether you're watching it as Christians or not,whether you just believe in these fundamental rights that actually do engage with your MP, because you will you will find there are good MPs and you may be blessed by actually having a good MP different to Lois or myself that maybe don't have.Yeah Lois, there is, just want to reiterate that because there are good MPs and they will be fearless on speaking up on these issues.Yeah, yeah, absolutely I mean the the buffer zones debate in parliament before it was passed It was a very fiery debate and we were encouraged, although unfortunately the vote did not go in our favour when it came to the amendment.We were encouraged about the number who did stand up and in fact mentioned Isabel von Spruce by name in their speeches.So, we can see that these stories do have an impact.And hopefully because of the attention that has been shown to Isabel and the unjustifiable arrest that was made for the thoughts that she had inside her head.We hope this information will trickle through to MPs and government officials in places of power and we will be able to protect that freedom to pray silently at least.Lois, thank you so much for your time. It's great to have you on.As I said at the beginning, I followed ADF closely and people can find all the links.If they just go to your Twitter handle, they can find the links for ADF and find the links for your Substack and everything is there and it is in the description.So thank you so much for joining us today.Thank you so much. Thank you for all that you do.

The Week According To . . . David Kurten

Welcome to our regular review of some of the talking points and headlines of the past seven days and we are joined by the brilliantly outspoken David Kurten.David is full of common sense and fearless in his use of free speech as the listeners to his weekday show on TNT Radio will very well know.Plenty to get stuck into as we dig a little deeper into some of the posts David has made on his very popular X social media account and we discuss some of what has caught our eye in the press and from across the web, including...- He needs to be gone: The unelected UK foreign secretary wants more LGBTQQIAAPPP+ in Africa.- Not Our Flag: What is this woke abomination? - Former foreign minister being investigated after he said pro-Israel “extremists” in the party should be kicked out.- Police Scotland has received more than 3K hate crime reports since a new law was introduced.- US Secretary of State Blinken says Ukraine will be NATO member.- BULLSHIT ALERT: 'This could be 100 times worse than Covid' Bird flu warning from scientists.- Poll putting Tories on 98 seats shows ‘real anger’ of the public.- Illegal migrants are eligible for £1,600 a month under a “nonsensical” system in Labour-run Wales.
David Kurten is the leader of the Heritage Party, a political party in the UK which stands for free speech, traditional family values, national sovereignty, and defending our culture and heritage against extreme political correctness and ‘woke’ ideology.He was a London Assembly Member from 2016 to 2021.Before entering politics, David was a Chemistry teacher and taught in high schools in the UK, Botswana, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the USA and Bermuda.David presents his own show on TNT Radio, weekdays 10-11am (gmt)Connect with David and The Heritage Party...WEBSITE          heritageparty.org      X                       x.com/davidkurtenTNT RADIO      tntradio.live/presenters/david-kurten
Recorded  5.4.24Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/Links to topics...Foreign secretary https://x.com/davidkurten/status/1775762615093923973Not our flag https://x.com/davidkurten/status/1775199279218373079Conservatives https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-peer-israel-gaza-investigation-duncan-b2523466.htmlPolice Scotland https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-68721208Ukraine https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-secretary-state-blinken-says-ukraine-will-be-nato-member-2024-04-04/Bird flu  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13268235/This-100-times-worse-Covid-Bird-flu-warning-scientists-say-HALF-infections-H5N1-people-fatal-White-House-says-monitoring-situation.htmlreal anger https://web.archive.org/web/20240403015344/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/31/sir-iain-duncan-smith-votes-are-angry-at-government/nonsensical https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1884146/illegal-migrants-basic-income