Hearts of Oak Podcast

Dr Sebastian Gorka - Trump Assassination Attempt: An Inch From Civil War

A warm welcome for the return of Dr. Sebastian Gorka, as he discusses the recent assassination attempt on President Trump, criticising the left's normalisation of violence and The Secret Service's diversity hires over security competence. He delves into 'conspiracy' theories, border policies' impact on law enforcement morale, and praises President Trump's leadership during the attack. The conversation extends to political implications, examining JD Vance as the VP pick, media reactions, and critiques of the January 6th committee and FBI tactics. Dr. Gorka emphasizes resilience, core values, and the transformative power of adversity in shaping the political language and enforcing the MAGA message.
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              sebastiangorka.com/
Interview recorded  16.7.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER          x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE              heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS          heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA    heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                   heartsofoak.org/shop/

Pastor Mark Burns - Trump Assassination Attempt: The Spiritual Aftermath

We are honoured to have Pastor Mark Burns join us to discuss the recent assassination attempt on President Trump. Pastor Burns emphasizes Trump's love for the nation and humanity, and highlights divine protection. He delves into Judeo-Christian principles, stressing faith in God in adversity. Pastor Burns then shares his journey from supporting Obama to advocating for Trump and challenging the Democratic Party's control over the black community. He encourages gratitude and focusing on blessings over lacks, addressing the spiritual battle in current events and the role of faith in turbulent times. Pastor Burns concludes the podcast by emphasizing the importance of gratitude and trust in God. 
A lifelong resident of District 3, born in Anderson, SC, raised in Belton, SC and currently lives in Easley, SC; Pastor Mark Burns, labeled by Time Magazine as "Donald Trump's Top Pastor" and named one of the "16 People Who Shaped the 2016 Presidential Election" is the Co-Founder & CEO of The NOW Television Network, a Christian television network based out of South Carolina that reaches 236 million homes in the US & 83 countries including sub-Saharan Africa & Western Europe on digital cable television, satellite, Apple TV, Amazon, Android App, ROKU & online at theNOWnetwork.org.Pastor Burns has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, Al Jazeera-America, BBC, ABC News, CBS & National Public Radio (NPR). Many articles have been written about Pastor Mark Burns' ventures including Times Magazine, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, Bloomberg News, Vice News, and others...Pastor Burns is a renowned motivational speaker that has energized audiences across the country with stories that inspire greatness out of anyone listening just like his "All Lives Matter" Speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention which has inspired the world.After serving six years in the South Carolina Army National Guard, Pastor Burns founded the multicultural, non-denominational contemporary church The Harvest Praise & Worship Center of Easley. Pastor Burns has been blessed with seven adult children.
Connect with Pastor Burns...X/TWITTER       x.com/pastormarkburnsTRUTH              truthsocial.com/@pastormarkburnsWEBSITE           markburns.org
Interview recorded 15.7.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/

Martin Sellner - Europe Wakes Up: A Call to Defend Freedom

Martin Sellner, co-founder of Generation Identity, joins Hearts of Oak to discuss the patriotic youth movement's formation in Europe.He emphasizes nonviolent activism to counter mass migration and preserve national identity, despite challenges like bans and media demonization. Martin underscores the importance of cultural preservation and combating negative migration effects while advocating for truth and moral superiority in right-wing movements' arguments. His activism includes writing books and organizing demonstrations against multiculturalism and diversity agendas, highlighting the group's goals and challenges in the face of political and media scrutiny.
Martin Sellner is an Austrian patriotic activist and author and fights for the preservation of his homeland. Actions and theory, truth and resistance, determine Martin's life.  
Connect with Martin...X/TWITTER                 x.com/Martin_SellnerGETTR                        gettr.com/user/martinsellnerIBTELEGRAM                 t.me/martinsellnerIBSUBSTACK                 martinsellner.substack.comWEBSITE                    generation-identity.org.uk
Interview recorded  15.7.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/

The Week According To . . . Callum Smiles

We are delighted to be joined by Callum Smiles, 'The Unconventional Journalist' to help us pick through the past seven days news, headlines and talking points from across the web.Callum is a rare breed. A journalist who seeks truth and we always find his commentary refreshing, so we look forward to his thoughts on tonight's topics, including...- Bat-Shit Bonkers Britain: Couple fined £1.2K by council for clearing up rubbish in street- Minister of State for Gaza- Swear on The Bible? Our MP’s don’t even speak English anymore- History Erased: Another church in France up in flames- The new Labour government: "There's not a huge amount of money" But "£3 billion a year to Ukraine for as long as it takes."- Moscow issues warning to new Prime Minister Sir Keith Starmer, saying there would be a response if the UK allowed Ukraine to strike Russia with British weapons- Virus with 50% mortality rate takes 'dangerous' step towards spreading in humans simply by breathing- PM Keith Starmer could let out 40,000 inmates early to ease prisons crisis
Callum Smiles Media is an independent media outlet with only one agenda: The Truth.Having started a career in acting, Callum gave acting up during the draconian “COVID” era of ever expanding government and the tightening of the leash on the lives of the general public to focus on more important matters, finding the truth.Callum began to put his head above the parapet by conducting public debates called “Convince Me Otherwise” under Frankly Speaking Politics with Corrie Legge as well as performing comical politiskits to bring people’s attention to important matters through the medium of laughter, for example opening for a live AJ Roberts show with Matt Le Tissier as “Boris Johnson“.This led to being spotted by Rebel News where Callum worked for 9 months as the UK and European reporter, creating unique news packages and documentaries, such as going undercover in migrant hotels and migrants camps as well as the famous walk and talk with Greta Thunberg in Davos 2023.Callum left Rebel News in May 2023 to work independently, creating Callum Smiles Media.
Connect with Callum...X/TWITTER         x.com/CSmiles_NewsWEBSITE             callumsmilesmedia.com
Recorded 12.7.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
Links to topics...Couple fined by council https://web.archive.org/web/20240710221731/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/10/couple-fined-stoke-on-trent-council-clearing-up-rubbish/Minister of State for Gazahttps://x.com/LozzaFox/status/1809636477392867523MP’s don’t speak English anymorehttps://x.com/HeartsofOakUK/status/1811478381189267513Church in France up in flameshttps://x.com/HeartsofOakUK/status/1811361463551856838No money lefthttps://x.com/hector_drummond/status/1811500514472861877Russia vows to retaliate https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13619421/Russia-vows-retaliate-UK-allows-Kyiv-strike-territory-Storm-Shadow-missiles-Starmer-insisted-Ukraine-decide-use-long-range-weapons.htmlVirus with 50% mortality rate https://www.gbnews.com/health/bird-flu-symptoms-pandemic-2024Starmer could let out 40,000 inmates https://web.archive.org/web/20240710233248/https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-could-let-out-40000-inmates-early-to-ease-prisons-crisis-r68zq2vfq

Hermann Kelly - Immigration, Sovereignty and Traditional Values with The Irish Freedom Party

Shownotes and Transcript
Hermann Kelly, President of the Irish Freedom Party, shares insights on Irish politics and his background. He discusses growing up in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, his journey from theology to journalism to politics, working with Nigel Farage in the European Parliament, and the challenges of the political sphere. Hermann outlines the Irish Freedom Party's principles of national sovereignty, anti-EU influence, pro-life stance, and traditional family values, criticizing mainstream parties on immigration. He emphasizes the importance of controlled borders, work permits, and prioritizing Irish citizens' welfare. Hermann addresses media bias, advocating for social media and grassroots efforts to connect with voters and counter leftist narratives. His vision for the party focuses on restoring national sovereignty, protecting Irish culture, and prioritizing Irish citizens in policy decisions.
Originally from the Bogside in Derry, Hermann’s family have a small farm in Donegal since he was a young. After attending St Columb’s College in Derry, he studied marine biology in Edinburgh before studying theology as a lay student at St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth. First a secondary school teacher he then became a journalist, writing for various national newspapers including the Irish Mail on Sunday and Irish Examiner. He was formerly director of communications for the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group in the European Parliament, and his since come to work with The European Conservatives and Reformists Group. He is a founding member of The Irish Freedom Party and its current president.  
Connect with Hermann and The Irish Freedom Party...X/TWITTER        x.com/hermannkelly                           x.com/IrexitFreedomWEBSITE            irishfreedom.ie/
Interview recorded 10.7.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com and follow him on X/Twitter x.com/TheBoschFawstin
Transcript
(Hearts of Oak)
I'm delighted to be joined by someone whose name I have seen a lot back in my time in my UKIP days, and that's Hermann Kelly. Hermann, thank you so much for your time today.
(Hermann Kelly)
Great. Thank you very much for the invite, Peter. Great to be here.
It's good to have you discuss all things Irish politics. You can obviously follow Herman @HermannKelly on Twitter. And Hermann, journalist, former UKIP's European Media Supremo, head of comms at the EFDD group in the European Parliament, Nigel Farage's press secretary, and all the fun that came back in those times, of course, as president of the Irish Freedom Party, launched in 2018 as a common-sense political party in Ireland, because Ireland lacked those, and we'll get into all of that. But, Hermann, you were born in the bog side. Christmas Day, you were born in the bog side in Derry, London Derry, Stroke City, which which is over there in Northern Ireland. It's known as a very rough area, like the Shanklin Falls, maybe in Belfast. What was it like growing up in an area like the Belfast?
Well, it was only rough when I was growing up. It was a very friendly place, a very safe place, incredibly low crime rate. It was only rough if you were a British soldier.
So there's bullet holes at the side of our house, the front of our house, on the wall opposite our house. There was a high banking behind our house. IRA used it as a shooting spot. And as the British Army jeeps went past the army checkpoint, out the road, they would get shot at. I've seen that many times. But if you were a local, it was incredibly safe, very low crime rate. And it had my followers headmaster of a large primary school in Cregan and Derry just up the hill from ourselves. and that had 75% male unemployment, so it was quite financially poor. But it was very friendly, very safe. And I must say, it was also highest per capita, donations per capita of any city or any town in what was politically the UK. So people were very kind, very generous. I didn't find it rough at all.
It's interesting. Me growing up in Carrickfergus, that was absolutely fine because a lot of police lived there. So actually, it was monoculture, completely Protestant. You found it absolutely fine growing up in somewhere completely Catholic with no police or no army. It's interesting. We both grew up actually fairly safe childhoods. Interesting. But at kind of opposite ends of the scale in terms of that sectarian divide.
Yeah. I suppose for where we were, it was a kind of high trust, low friction society. That's the whole thing about not being a multicultural society of a kind of melting pot or a kind of constant friction of people bumping off each other, metaphorically rather than physically. I mean.
I always remembered very safe and certainly with the neighbours, very good people as neighbours, very, very lucky. And it shows the whole, the importance of common belief, nationality, and how it can lead to a very low-friction, high-trust society, which is easy to live in.
What was it you kind of aspired to growing up? Because you went, you studied theology, you've been in media and journalism and politics. Kind of growing up, what were your thoughts of what the future may be?
Well, obviously you can see with my, let's say, circuitous route of career that I didn't really know what I wanted to be when I was 18.
And I remembered the agony of what I was going to fill in in the UCAS form to go to university right up to the last minute. And I started at optometry and then marine biology and then theology.
I had always a great interest, developed a great interest in philosophy and then from that then theology and but I always had an abiding love interest because I grew up in day during the troubles, oh we always we were brought up with great interest in politics, interest in history in culture and also a great respect for language studied Irish studying English and a bit of French as well but the importance of language and all those things melded together my abiding interest in politics and history and culture and faith etc all those things and then also my respect for language and from that I eventually found my way to become a journalist and then a director of communication so in one way it was very circuitous but then it was when you look back it looked like a very straight path but the interest in politics and a respect for language and literature kind of have always remained with me.
Well so how did you end up working with UKIP with the EFDD group in the European Parliament, was it an interest just in politics European Parliament and then later on you connected with the chaos and the fun that was UKIP or did that come first how did that happen?
Well. I was actually, well, I'd previously been a teacher, I was working in Dublin and I think i became a teacher. I liked this idea of influence, influence on society to make the world a better place. And so it became a teacher then I realized that, well, where's the power to change society? Really? It's concentrated in the press, in the media. So it became a journalist. And then I think by that stage I had
maybe four, five children and someone said to me one time if you can say you're a consultant you can charge twice as much, well journalism in Ireland didn't pay very much so I then was working as a press officer for Libertas in the European election 2009 for deacon gamley who were then a Eurosceptic party pat across Europe and I was so I was then recommended on foot of this by Declan Gamley to Nigel Farage.
But previous to this, I had written an article for economic recovery in Ireland. Ireland needs to leave the euro. And I think Nigel Farage had seen this. It went up on UKIP website because it's unusual for people to advocate that in Ireland. And so he heard my name. And after I was recommended by Declan Gamley, he gave my call I said here let's meet up and I worked for Nigel Farage in Ireland it was the Lisbon 2 campaign of 2010 was it and 2010 and I sorry summer 2009 I worked for three months and after that just in Ireland he said come over work for me he was happy with the briefing he got and says here come over work for me full-time over in Brussels so as Ireland was absolutely going down the tubes and all these journalists were losing their jobs and losing their houses I thought well it's a good opportunity to take a well-paid and steady job, you know for the family.
Definitely. I remember applying to work over there and after 10 months, they finally approved it and it was far too late and I had to produce documentation that didn't exist in the UK. It was just chaos. But I always heard your name, Hermann Kelly, always mentioned, just as I kept hearing Gawain Tyler's name mentioned over in the UK. And it seemed to me these two were the ones that understood, had their finger on the pulse, certainly in terms of medium press.
I must say, I had great fun with UKIP MEPs. Like, I was working for the group, so it would have been probably 47 MEPs, seven different nationalities, I think. EFD group initially was about 42 MEPs, seven different nationalities. But the whole thing is you're meeting new people and people from different countries, different cultures, different experiences of life, pretty well-educated, pretty intelligent people, the whole lot. So it was very stimulating. It was good fun. It was important. I was committed to the work I was doing.
I was philosophically committed to it. So I wanted to do a good job. and you know what you develop good relations with the people I was working with, so a number of the MEPs Nigel Farage, Paul Nuttall later guys like Ray Finch that I was very good friends with these people and also a number of staff Jamie Linsworth, Orly Leloup was chief of staff, you know we also became good friends not just colleagues working together in a political party.
I remember going going for an interview with orally uh back in the days but it was all I guess the thing I found whenever I'd met a lot of the MEPs was they were real people and you kind of come across politicians that are too polished and that's all they've wanted to do the UKIP MEPs that actually lived their lives and then were doing this because they wanted to do something for their country, that's kind of rare these days in politics and that's what I love, that real but also sometimes a little bit of chaos, I mean you must have had some sleepless nights.
Well one previous, Mark Kreutzer, a previous press officer said getting all the UKIP MEPs together.
Was like, what was it, like herding cats, like, Yeah, see, to go against the stream, to go against the crowd or the mob, you have to have a quite individualistic contrarian streak to swim against that tide. So you must have that already to be happy to say to the establishment and the vast majority of the easy, instead of taking the easy path, you're taking the harder path and you're going against the tide. So you must have that contrarian and also quite self-confident streak to be able to do that so yeah it's a strength and a weakness, it's a strength in that people actually believe what they say and say what they believe, but it's difficult get them all in one room and get them all going singing off the same hymn sheet as you might say like you know but some great characters. I remember being here out in the front of the European Parliament here in the beer factory and was with a lot of MEPs and staff and turning around to Jamie Leansworth who was Nigel Farage's secretary at the time or advisor and saying, God, we have some characters here, huh?
That's an understatement. You've got guys like Godfrey Bloom, and Mike Hookham and all these different guys and Stuart Agnew and they're all very strong characters strong personalities but it was great fun as well and like you you get to like these people as well it was never a dull, never a dull moment no never a dull moment and some of the carry on in among the foreign MEPs as well I remember, you you had MEPs from like Greece and Latvia sorry Lithuania etc et cetera, and you meet them and hear, but their histories are very different. Their experiences of life were very different. So to hear them talking about the importance of national sovereignty against a kind of federalist EU state, etc. They all have it for their own reasons and find it in their own experience. But I certainly was very committed to the job. I did my very best. And certainly reaching for the referendum in 2015, we strove very, very hard. We worked very hard to get a referendum and we worked hard then to get a result. So it was very pleasing for me personally and not just professionally but also personally to get to achieve a referendum 2015 and get a result in the Brexit referendum of 2016, so I was my wife always used to give off to me you love your job as an accusation, I said yeah what's wrong with that I do
Yeah it's true it's good to love it, I want to get on the Irish politics but just last thing is is what was it like to be up, you're in the belly of the beast, you're up against the system, you're saying that, actually where we are standing here representing the UK, we are against everything that this institution, this parliament really wants, which is ever closer union, ever closer ties, control.
And we want to be free from that. What was that like? Because no other countries have had a breakaway, exit groups, but actually none of them have achieved anywhere near what UKIP achieved, so what was that like as the major grouping there who actually wanted to get out of there, you would have had a lot of commonality I guess with individual MEPs but maybe not with parties, so there must be tension as well
Oh yeah certainly in the second term with the EFDD group we there was a marriage of convenience we had with the five-star party and that wasn't a marriage made in heaven believe me uh so we were very Eurosceptic believed in national sovereign they wanted to leave the European union and we were sold a bit of a pup that they were kind of anti-establishment kind of Eurosceptic well the leaders were pepe grillo a guy david casaleggio certainly were quite rebellious and Eurosceptic But the MEPs who they voted in, where a lot of them had done Rasmus schemes and stuff like that, they're all very university-educated.
They weren't Euro-sceptic at all. And that was a very difficult time, yes. There was quite a few arguments there. But, you know what? Personally, I would always have different relations with various people, across the political spectrum here in Brussels. I would regard it as bad form to be, disliking people because of their political views. But certainly, politically, Yeah, we were treated pretty abysmally by the institutions of the European Parliament here, who certainly after Brexit were incredibly vindictive and actually went on a witch hunt of MEPs. And I know, for example, that Paul Nuttall, his life was made a nightmare with constant meetings by this finance department with false accusations. And basically the refusal, how they treated some people was just unbelievable.
Like one guy broke his arm. I know, for example, that they refused to pay the medical bills of a number of MEPs, which were 100% genuine, just out of malice. And they said, but you have to pay? That's the rules. Take us to court if you want. It's our court. This is the kind of stuff that would happen. and they refused to pay the staff of some MEPs. Asked why, we're not going to do it. If you want to, take it to court if you want. Remember, we control the court as well. So this was the attitude. So it really showed that centralisation of power in the hands of a small number of unaccountable elite is a very dangerous and stupid idea.
No completely. Right, I want to get on to Irish politics. And everything that you've taught about, I guess, has given you a wide grasp of what is happening across, your wide grasp of that political side and added to your journalism skills and background. So you've got the Irish Freedom Party and Ireland is, as I mentioned earlier, I grew up with Gareth Fitzgerald and Charlie Hockey in the 80s in Ireland. Ireland was a very different place, although it still was Irish. So that was the benefit of it.
Well, that bit's changed.
But, and we'll get into Immigrate, but the Irish Freedom Party, tell us kind of where that came from, the idea and what it stands for.
Because there was no party in Ireland looking for a sovereign, independent Ireland. You had Sinn Féin, who were basically, they were...
They're implementing British rule in Ireland, but also they were happy to advocate Brussels' rule. So they're opposed to UK influence in Ireland, but they were completely happy that the majority of the laws which run in Ireland actually come originally from Brussels by people who we didn't elect and who we can't get rid of. So I believe in nation and nation-state and democratic self-determination. I believe that Irish people are good enough to make their own laws, to decide their own destiny in this world. I'm opposed to subservience to the European Union. The big problem over here in Brussels with the EU itself is what you call qualified majority voting, where Ireland, we're 1% of the EU population. So that means that the votes are voted on, 99% of the votes are done by people who are not Irish, and these laws can be approved and imposed upon us, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it because we have disqualified majority voting in most of the areas. Many people do not realise that in areas of EU competence, EU law is superior to the Irishlaw, Irish Supreme Court, and the Irish Constitution. And that, for me, certainly is not a constitutional or democratic.
Like a constitutional republic. That is a province of Brussels. It's a subservient province of Brussels, and that's not what the people were promised 100 years ago.
So how did the party launch? It's been there since 2018, and I've looked at the Irish political scene from afar, and there wasn't anything which was common sense and seen.
One Taoiseach after another just destroying Ireland.
Yeah, there's this cultural like, it's funny because I was, we're talking about where we're both from, like, so growing up in the Brandywale, in the Lomar Road in Derry during the Troubles, I was brought up for all intents and purposes was a cultural superiority complex, that we were brought up that Irish poetry, Irish dance, Irish games and language and literature was fantastic. It was the best in the world and the world needed plenty of us. Go forth and procreate. We're wonderful, right? It then come down south and the experience is cultural self-loathing, which is very strong among the media class and the political class. And it's, well, where does this come from?
And it wasn't just but this cultural self-loathing is very deep in south of Ireland at the minute at something to which I'm very implacably opposed and now we're trying to change the ship of state around, you know what, Irish culture is good Irish nation it's important what's the only one one we have, that Irish democracy, we must, seek that we are in democratic control of our destiny in this world, not to have laws dictated to us by someone else who we didn't vote for and we can't get rid of. But it's to do with a lot of things as well. Our catch cry is that we want free people in a free country. So it's not just like we want democratic control in Ireland to leave the European Union. And that the government in Dublin is going to dictate our lives, is that personal freedom, personal responsibility are very important. They're vital.
We're standing up for things like the importance of free speech, for the right to not have the state dictate to you what you most put inside your body as a basic human right.
The right to private property, that the state does not control your life,
Even an Irish state doesn't control your life. So standing up for, I would describe these the basic building blocks of a liberal society. Of, as I said, free people in a free country, free speech, right to bodily autonomy, private property, lower government, less government waste, less government spending, lower taxation, the people be able themselves to make the decisions which control their own lives. So we started the party five years ago. We just now have had our first councillor elected in those last local elections. Glenn Moore and Clon Bakken will be running a large slate of candidates in the general election, which is likely to come about in October or November of this year. And I'm myself I ran as a candidate in the Midlands Northwest for the European election there just passed I ended up I got there was a huge huge number of candidates, 27 candidates in total, there were 13 nationalist candidates after Peter Casey the former presidential candidate I got the the highest is the highest vote of any nationalist I ended up with 21,000 votes and 3% of the vote.
Considering there were 13 nationalist candidates in the field, I did very well. And actually, the person who was presented themselves as kind of a little bit conservative, socially conservative, nationalist.
Eurosceptic, what do you call him, Keir Malooly from the Independent Ireland Party. What did they do? They got elected. And the first thing he did was come over to Brussels and join Renew, which is the Federalist fanatic group, with a complete and utter betrayal by the party of all those voters who voted for him. So I only wish he had told the voters before the election that he was going to join the Federalist group in the European Parliament rather than after, because I think my vote would have increased dramatically.
Well, Ireland are getting some of the policies, but Ireland seems to have been slow to move away from that. You had Fianna Gael, Fianna Fáil, you've always had them with a dose of Labour in there. Then obviously you've had the rise of Sinn Féin.
But Ireland seems to have been slow to move away from that group of parties. And Sinn Féin have been around a long time as well. They're not a new party. Tell me what that's like in moving to new parties and getting the message out. It's a tough sell, actually, putting something new out in the Irish political sphere and getting the message out in the media.
Absolutely, because historically, I was very slow to support new parties. Most of the successful political parties are split off from actually Sinn Féin from 1905 and onwards. We have Sinn Féin then split into Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and then Plan the Public. I believe all the parties are a break off of Sinn Féin bar the Green Party, if that is correct. And Sinn Féin well for example but even Fianna Fáil used to be Fianna Fáil, the Republican Party, they believed in National Democratic since they pushed to join the Common Market in 1973 and then it was still Sinn Féin policy to leave the Common Market or the European Community, whatever you called it, certainly up until the late 80s so we're basically....
Look, the Proclamation of Independence in 1916 talked about the Irish people having the right, and even says, also in the Irish Constitution of 1937, about the sovereignty and independence of Ireland should be protected for the good of the Irish nation. And that's what we're seeking for. All we're looking to do is to be a normal, self-governing country where we make our own laws for the benefit of the Irish people. That's all. We're not looking for anything new, crazy, or fandangled thing. But Sinn Féin have changed dramatically. They're now a European Unionist party. I call them a Euro-Loyalist party. I'm sure they hate it, but I love it. You know the reasons why. Oh yeah, I call Sinn Féin immigration party. It does make me laugh that they hate it as well. The Sinn Féin immigration party is Brits out everybody else in. Drives them mad.
I saw in your Wikipedia entry you'd used the term abort and import, which I also loved as well.
I say the Sinn Féin immigration policy is Brits out to everybody else, and the Fine Gael immigration policy is abort and import. And it actually works perfectly in all the romance languages, French and Spanish Spanish, et cetera. It all works perfectly in those, because I was telling someone over here at dinner one evening, I said, oh, that's really good in French too. That's fantastic. I always use as few words as possible to pack as much power into as little space as possible. That's my job as a press officer, was always to take complex ideas and crunch them down or boil them down into some in as few words as possible with as much power and impact, both political and emotional impact on people as it can. So that's a typical few examples of Hermanism, so to speak, like to boil down complex ideas. The simple language, because my job as press officer was always to get words or formula words that people understand, they can easily understand, easily remember.
I always scratch my head looking at Ireland originally used to be one of the strongest Catholic countries, most staunchly Christian Catholic countries in Europe. And yet you've had their political representatives have not gone along with any Catholic belief. You look at Sinn Féin, you look at the North SDLP, everything about them has been more the self-hatred woke agenda and nothing about what actually the church would teach. And I often wonder if I was going to mass each Sunday, actually politically, who would I vote for? Where Northern Ireland, the DUP, who generally were socially conservative. And for the Catholic side, there was no one socially conservative ever to vote for.
Absolutely. Well, certainly, yeah, in the last 20 years, you had to, I think a large part of it was self-inflicted by Vatican II about the self-loathing that anything came before 1965 was bad, was supposed to be forgotten, to be rejected. And that the new year zero, so to speak, the second Vatican Council ended, I think, 1968 or 69, that everything after that was okay. And it's all Libby-friendly.
That was great. great, but no, in the Irish context, even up in the North, which was normally more conservative, people were more, let's say, conscious and proud of being Christian and being Catholic, part of their identity, national identity, religious identity. Down south, completely the opposite, where people that, because the power of the media, that you had Sinn Féin, the Workers' Party in the 70s and 80s, a very...
They started off as nationalists that became internationalists and then became very a Marxist party, basically very anti-Christian and I believe that had a very, the leader's effect on the culture of Ireland because there were so many of them got into the media and had a big big impact, but ourselves, we are happy and proud to, when we are not a kind of confessional party, you don't have to be a Catholic to join the Irish Freedom Party. But we've made it very clear from day one that we are a pro-life party and we are pro-family, that we believe we want to protect and augment the foundations of civilisation. So where cultural Marxism wants to destroy the nation state.
National sovereignty, the nation state wants to destroy the family, even down to the distinctions of male and female. We want to counteract that. So we were against this trans ideology. We'll stand up for the distinction and common complementarity of man and a woman. We approve family. We want to encourage people to have children, to educate their children in their culture. It is then with education develops culture and a civilization. And we believe that we also believe in the nation state and in national democracy. So like, but all this stuff about.
It's very hard to have a functioning successful civilization where the family is not at the centre of it and faith is a very important, Christian faith you acknowledge not only acknowledge Christian faith as a historical origin but also as a living thing in Ireland. And I must say that compared to the Libby Dibbies in Ireland, you'll find that a large swathe of nationalists, they're not practicing Catholics and Christians, they're certainly culturally so.
And they're very proud of that. Because when they look around and they see that here we have, They have 10,000 abortions, 10,000 Irish children being killed in the womb last year in Ireland. Our birth rate is now 1.5, just over 1.5 children per woman. A few generations of that, the population of Ireland shrinks to filial.
So we are in favour of liberty and of life. So we would like to encourage people to get married, to have children, to start a family. So we advocate as a pro-natalist, pro-family party, but also advocate policies like we have already. And they've successfully implemented in Hungary to adjust the tax system to help young couples to have kids. And that, for example, if a couple have three or four children, that they don't pay tax and that they don't encourage young couples to have children because no country has a future without children.
And that's a basic fact because demographics is destiny. That is a universal truth all across the world and every time in every culture. So we want to encourage the people to have children and also then provide the basics all of them. So I was talking last night on a space and I was talking about the importance of, we are not looking for we're just looking for the ability for people to grow up in a safe environment, and then when they leave school that they have the ability to get a job.
Find someone who's only got married to be able to buy a house because at the minute, because of mass immigration, high house prices, young people cannot buy a house and they're all emigrating. A massive problem in Ireland isn't just immigration into Ireland, it's also emigration. We are importing a huge number of people into Ireland. We don't know who, in many cases, we don't know who they are, where they're from, do they have a criminal record. That is detrimental to the security of our country because it leads to an increased crime rate, et cetera. At the same time, because our young people cannot, in many cases, find an apartment to rent, certainly not a house to buy, which they cannot afford anyway. So what are they doing? They're emigrating to Australia and Canada. And that's.
Well that's the definition of a failed state isn't it, where you can even provide a job in a house for young people and they're emigrating so that is a failed state, so we as people actually are pretty upset how the country that they love being destroyed before their eyes and, but we will instead of personal darkness we would like to put out a light and do something about it, soI said, we're putting out candidates in the general election. We will keep on standing. Nigel Farage, he just got elected there during the week. It was his eighth time of standing for the Houses of Parliament. And I've only stood twice in the European election. That'd be my first time standing as a TD seat. So we're in the infancy of the Irish Freedom Party. But I am certain that in the years ahead, we will have a large impact. And we're already having an impact. because you saw there in that European election, Sinn Féin did very poorly.
Their vote fell, now last October, their vote in the polls was 35%. It's now 18%. And in the European election, their vote fell by 12.5%. A general nationalist sway was 12.5%. So that vote, I would suspect, or I would argue, went from Sinn Féin to a smog spore of nationalist candidates. It was like a plunder boss into a mattress and that vote went everywhere to so many different national candidates, 3,000 here, 3,500 there, maybe 21,000 people like me, but that the.
That Sinn Féin vote did not go to Fine Gael. It went to generalist nationalist candidates.
So we're having an impact on the narrative, on the discussion of the EU migration pact, on the anti-free speech laws that they're trying to introduce in Ireland, about the whole thing about housing availability, etc. We're having an impact on the political discussion in Ireland already. Ready and I would hope and expect that that increases in the years going forward.
I want to pick an immigration but let me just touch on the family, because when you look at Hungary and their pro-family and pro-life policies and there are parties you look at Italy and Greece and there are it's a pro-family nation still pro-family culture and a pro-life generally. But many parties, I know Reform will maybe talk a bit about pro-family, but pro-life, you know, that's up to the individual. But I can't imagine kids growing up thinking, you know, when I get older, someday I'd love to have an abortion.
It shouldn't be the main option. There has to be a range of options of adoption, of other ideas. And it seems as though especially young girls are pushed down this avenue and this is the only option and I mean I got a lot of respect for you as a party, not only being pro-family but actually pro-life because that's a completely common sense response to what we are facing.
Yeah well I was actually attended the rally for life, on in Dublin there on Saturday there's a very big crowd at it and there was a number of members and candidates for the Irish freedom party were there the Irish freedom party banner and the a number of national flags as well to show that we're proud to stand up for life and so well sure, how can you talk about human rights when you don't If you do not defend the right to life, if you don't defend the right to exist.
How can you talk about the right to free speech, the right to private property, the right to this and that? It's a nonsense. And on the counter to that, if you accept that you can wipe out and destroy and butcher innocent human life, if you accept that principle, well, the next thing you're then on to logical consequence of accepting that principle. Is you're then you extended over time and you're then in favor of euthanasia of old people and then your euthanasia of people who are physically handicapped in some way or then people who are depressed and then you're straight on the 100% healthy people who there's nothing wrong with them and then you're straight on to murder, murder of innocent people who have I've never done anything wrong, and there's nothing wrong with them. So it's philosophically to accept the principle that it's okay to destroy human life. I will never accept it.
Because you're on the slippery slope of a culture which advocates killing. Killing of its young, it's innocent. Then it's then killing old people, then sick people, and then healthy people. And that is that this two cities as Saint Augustine might say and the culture of life and the cultural death are extremely different and the consequences of a slight change in principle, like it's like coming up to a roundabout in a car and you're going around and you take one direction and as you follow out along that road that you've taken you can go in a very you end up in a very different destination if you take another turn off and you follow that path, for a number of miles. So be very careful. So that's why we've been very clear from day one that this is a pro-life party and we're also pro-family and we support a cultural life, not a culture of death.
I want to finish on immigration because it's very strange for Ireland because Ireland have so much influence worldwide and the Irish culture is known throughout, probably because of the potato famine, because of that mass migration that's meant there is Irishness everywhere, certainly in the US and you travel all over Europe and wider and you'll certainly find Irish pubs, people flock to that. That desire and likability and connection and respect for Irish culture and intrigue, all of that, that kind of seemed to be disappearing. I'm surprised the mass immigration, but the change that's brought to Ireland, considering Irishness is known, despite Ireland being a tiny country, its impact culturally is very wide all over the world. But yet successive governments have allowed absolute mass immigration on a scale I don't think anyone else has seen in Europe for such a country that size. How has that affected voters and the public? Because if you keep voting the same way, you're just going to get the same change in Ireland and decimation of Irishness.
All the main parties in Ireland, Fianna Fáil, Fianna Gael, Sinn Féin, Labour Party, all the left are all in favour of what pretty much amounts to open borders, mass immigration. Now the consequences of that at the moment is that the Irish population since 1995 has gone up by over 1.5 million people, gone from 3.5 to 5.3 million people. That's a 42% percent increase in a very short period of time. And Ireland actually is the fastest increasing we see in Europe.
In the Western world, actually, Ireland has the fastest increase of population through immigration of any country in the world, bar none.
So what is happening, I would describe it as the new colonization of Ireland, because the numbers coming in here is so large.
Like when we started off the party five years ago, I believe 12% of the population were non-national. It's now 22%. So there's been a 10% increase in the non-national part of our population within five years. That's immense. And actually, Grip Media did an analysis of the rate of influx of immigration into Ireland. And they worked out that if the current rate continues, what has happened over the last five years, As that continues, Irish people will be a minority in their own country by the year 2050.
And I don't know about you, but I certainly wasn't asked about that. I didn't give my consent. So we describe what's happened now as the colonization without consent. And all we're looking for is to be a normal country, which has borders, which controls for the good of its people, the numbers of people and the qualifications of the people who are coming in, that they make sure that one, do we need to and two, if you want to come in you have got to contribute to our society and so for example you've got skills that you can that you can contribute and you're not a kind of tax, like don't be coming in here looking for free housing, free welfare, free medical care, like you come in, you work you support yourself and when
[I very much believe in the work permit system. You come in, you work, you pay tax. And after that, after picking up, working, being paid, getting experience, having a good time, you then go back to your country of origin or go on to the next country, wherever you like. But I believe that because taking in large numbers of unvetted males into the country makes Ireland a less secure place. And like, for example, in 2022, there were 12 women were murdered in Ireland. Five of those were murdered by non-nationals. So there's been a swathe of increase in rapes and sexual assault in Ireland, as has happened all across Europe, be it in Germany, be it in Italy, be it in Sweden and France. So we should stop being naive and thinking that, oh, but it will never happen in Ireland because everybody loves us. They may do, but the consequences of mass unvetted immigration into Ireland are not very positive for Ireland at the minute. So all we're looking for is to be a normal country which controls its borders for the good of its own people. Because we want our young people, as I said earlier, to be able to get a job, be able to find a house and live in a secure area without any fear.
And that's what people see, the destruction of their country, the mass immigration, and of course the destruction of the family. How do you, I mean, someone who understands the media so well, how do you get your message out? You've got a block on the mainstream media. Is it looking for alternative media, going directly to individuals, to the voters? How do you kind of get around that block which exists in Ireland to stop your message of common sense getting out?
Well, you're completely true. The mainstream media, and when I say mainstream, it's funny because in regards, for example, that issue of are people in favour of mass immigration, 75% of people in Ireland are completely opposed to more migration. They believe Ireland has more than had enough. So that is the mainstream position. It's the extreme leftist position of open borders. They are the extremists. They are the minority. But the thing is, these leftists do control the media.
And so we find it very difficult if not impossible to get anything positive out in the Irish media, so we're using social media at the minute and during the European elections was a good boost because the local papers had to talk about us, talk to our candidates, the write-ups of the candidates was almost universally positive on local radio, there were debates, so we got the name and the candidates of the party out there in open debate. We were discussing our policies in a fair environment for the first time, but the national media blocked us completely. So basically, we're pretty much using social media and also boots on the ground to get out meeting people, canvassing is very, very important.
Well, Hermann, I really do appreciate your time. Hermann Kelly, President of the Irish Freedom Party, bringing common sense and an option to the voters that traditionally up to now really have not had any. So Hermann, thank you so much for joining us and giving us an overview, not only of Irish Freedom Party, but the difficulty and issues you're facing there in Ireland.
Thank you very much, Peter.

Bastien Frimas - French Election Special

In this special episode, we explore the nuances of French politics with expert Bastien Frimas, diving into the rise of Marine Le Pen and the challenges faced by right-wing parties like Rassemblement National (National Rally). We discuss the recent French general election, analysing strategic alliances formed to counter right-wing coalitions. We also examined potential coalition scenarios post-election and speculated on leadership changes within the French political landscape. Additionally, insights were shared on European political dynamics, including the formation of new alliances like Viktor Orban's Patriots for Europe and collaboration among right-wing factions on common policy objectives. Throughout this podcast, Bastien offers in-depth analysis on evolving political landscapes, coalition-building, and the impact of shifting ideologies on governance in Europe
Bastien Frimas is French of Norman descent and father of two. He has been active in politics for more than a decade and working for 8 years in the European Parliament, where he currently is assistant of Nicolas Bay, member of the European Conservatives and Reformists group together with Marion Maréchal.
Connect with Bastien...X/TWITTER         x.com/BastienFrimas
Interview recorded  8.7.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/

Dr Andy Wakefield - Protocol 7: Four Decades of Vaccine Controversy

Shownotes and Transcript
Dr. Andy Wakefield joins Hearts of Oak to discuss his transition from mainstream physician to medical industry whistle-blower, sharing with us his findings on the MMR vaccine's link to autism. He talks about facing backlash, making films like "Vaxxed" and the recently released "Protocol 7" to address vaccine safety and pharmaceutical fraud. Despite challenges like losing his license, Andy stresses the importance of revealing the truth to the public. He highlights the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry's negligence towards patient safety, legal protections shielding companies from vaccine injury liability, and the need for public involvement in spreading awareness and demanding accountability. 
PROTOCOL 7 - An Andy Wakefield Film  WEBSITE          protocol7.movie X/TWITTER      x.com/P7MovieINSTAGRAM     instagram.com/protocol7movie
Andy Wakefield has been likened to the Dreyfus of his generation -- a doctor falsely accused of scientific and medical misconduct, whose discoveries opened up entirely new perceptions of childhood autism, the gut-brain link, and vaccine safety. As an ‘insider,' the price for his discoveries and his refusal to walk away from the issues they raised, was swift and brutal, with loss of job, career, reputation, honours, colleagues, and country. And yet he enjoys a huge and growing support from around the world.Wakefield’s stance made him a trusted place for whistle-blowers -- from government and industry to confess and ‘download.' He has extraordinary stories to share. Wakefield is now an award-winning filmmaker. Despite elaborate attempts at censorship, his documentary VAXXED: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe – the revelations of a vaccine scientist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention- changed the public mindset on the truth about vaccine safety. Wakefield’s is a story that starts with professional trust in the instincts of mothers, choice and consequences, a quest for truth, and perseverance against overwhelming odds.Andy has long pursued the scientific link between childhood vaccines, intestinal inflammation, & neurological injury in children.  Dr. Wakefield is the co-founder of the Autism Media Channel & the founder of 7th Chakra Films.  He is the director of his first major narrative feature, the recently released #Protocol7, co-written with Terry Rossio (Aladdin, Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean, Fast and Furious, Godzilla vs. King Kong).
Connect with Andy...WEBSITE           7thchakrafilms.com INSTAGRAM      instagram.com/andrewjwakefieldX/TWITTER       x.com/DrAndyWakefield
Interview recorded  25.6.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
Transcript
(Hearts of Oak)
I am delighted to have Dr. Andrew Wakefield with us today. Andrew, thank you so much for joining us today.
(Dr Andy Wakefield)
Peter, my pleasure.
Great to be here.
Great to have you. And your name will be well known, certainly to many Brits. And I live through what you faced just as a Brit consuming news. And we'll get into all of that. People can follow you @DrAndyWakefield on Twitter. And we're going to talk about your latest film, Protocol7.Movie. All the links will be in the description. So we will get to that. But I encourage people to not only look at your Twitter feed, but also look at the website for the film, which is literally just out. But you're the award-winning filmmaker of Vaxxed and many other films. And of course, the latest one just came out. Doctor, if I can bring us back a little bit, because you had a certain time where your name was massively out there and that was simply asking questions. I think a lot of us have woken up to maybe big pharma, have woken up to vaccines and their role over the last four years. And you were much earlier than many people in the public. But that Lancet MMR autism, and I think your Wikipedia probably says fraud more than any other Wikipedia I've ever read.
But you talked about that link between MMR, mumps, measles and rubella vaccine and autism. Maybe you could just go back and let us know your background, your medical background, and then what led up to you putting that out and maybe give us an insight into the chaos that ensued?
Certainly, Peter.
I was an entirely mainstream physician.
I graduated at St. Mary's Hospital in London, part of the University of London, one of six generations of doctors in my family to have graduated there.
And I ran a research team in gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital in North London and our principal interests were Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis inflammatory bowel disease, and in 1995 parents started contacting me and saying my child was perfectly fine they had an MMR vaccine in many cases and they regressed rapidly into autism, had seizures, lost speech, and language interaction with their siblings.
And ultimately they were diagnosed with autism, well I know I knew nothing about autism.
It was so rare when I was at medical school we weren't taught about it and I said you must have got the wrong number,.
They said the reason we're contacting you is my child has intractable bowel problems, failure to thrive, they're in pain, I know they're in pain even though they've lost the ability to communicate.
And the doctors and nurses that I've spoken to about this have said that's just part of autism, get over it, put them in a home, move on have another child.
It's an extraordinary situation and so we investigated these children I put together a very eminent team of physicians.
Who investigated these children and confirmed that the parents were right the children had I had an inflammatory bowel disease, and that's now been confirmed in multiple studies worldwide.
When we treated that bowel disease, then not only did the gastrointestinal symptoms improve, but the autism improved.
We didn't cure it, but the children, for example, started using words they hadn't used for five years.
It was quite extraordinary.
And so as academics, we said that didn't happen, and we did it 183 times, and it happened pretty much every time.
So, we then began to believe that there was something really very, very interesting.
So, when the parents said my child regressed after a vaccine, we had a professional and moral obligation to take that very seriously.
But that really flew in the face of government policy and pharmaceutical industry profiteering. And that was really the beginning of the end of my career.
The dean, Harry Zuckerman, took me aside and said, if you continue this vaccine safety research, it will not be good for your career.
In that, at least he was correct. And when you offend government policymaking and the bottom line for the pharmaceutical industry, really, there's no price you will not pay.
And people are now familiar with that. In the context of COVID, it's happened to many, many eminent doctors and scientists.
But at the time, this was was a novelty, the cancel culture was a novelty, the ability of the system to destroy your career if you stepped out of line was something really quite new.
And...
So, I moved to America, set up a centre there for here in Austin, Texas for autism.
They eventually destroyed my career there.
And so I thought, well, how can I continue to help this population?
And I'd been fascinated by filmmaking for a long time, screenwriting for a long time.
And what had happened, Peter, is that over the years, because of the position I'd taken, And people had come to me from the Department of Health in the UK or from regulatory agencies such as the CDC in the US or the industry, the vaccine manufacturers, and said, we've done a terrible thing.
Here is the evidence. We've committed fraud. And so I became a repository, if you like, for whistle-blowers.
And this story, the latest story, Protocol 7, I mean, my films have been made about these whistle-blowers, some of them.
And the latest story, Protocol 7, is one such whistle-blower, who came to me many years ago and presented to me the compelling story that ultimately we've turned into a major narrative feature film.
Well, we'll get into that, but the role of media, I mean, you had BBC Channel 4 with hit pieces against you and I'm sure many others.
What was that like?
Because you said you were kind of mainstream.
I remember that time as well, whenever I was mainstream, probably six years ago.
So, it was a little bit later due.
And you believe these institutions are positive.
They're about actually reporting the news.
And then you realize, actually, they're not.
What was that like whenever you had all these media outlets suddenly make you a target of their reporting?
Well, I think it really, part of it was Rupert Murdoch, his son, James Murdoch, was put onto the board of GlaxoSmithKline, Europe's biggest manufacturer of MMR, with the objective as a non-executive director of protecting that company's interests in the media, certainly the Murdoch media.
And his target was me and they came after me in the biggest way and in the wake of that you know channel 4 as you say and others followed suit.
It was very tricky. It was very difficult, because you didn't get to put the other side of it everything was heavily edited and it was just a relentless attack they were determined utterly determined that I committed fraud never committed scientific fraud in my life.
But you can destroy the career of a physician or scientist in five minutes, literally five minutes.
All you need is the headline and that's it.
And then you spend the rest of your life trying to.
Get back your reputation if ever.
And I abandoned that idea because it was, the issue wasn't about me.
It was about something far more important.
And as soon as I, you know, I stopped worrying about what the media might say about me and simply got on with the job of doing what I could to help these children, then a huge weight was lifted from my shoulders.
I just didn't worry about that anymore.
Say what they like.
I've got a job to do while I still have time on this planet.
And that was to advocate on behalf of these children and try and move the needle on the real pandemic, which is of childhood neurodevelopmental disorders.
I mean, it's in the media in the UK every day.
We're talking about one in just over 20 children in Northern Ireland, in Scotland, in the UK.
And this is an extraordinary level of a permanent serious neurological condition.
When I was at medical school, it was one in 10,000.
So what has happened?
Just to bring your listeners up to date, your viewers up to date. The CDC performed a study at my behest.
I told them, I said, look, I think that age of exposure is a major factor.
The younger you are when you get the MMR, the greater the risk.
It's not simply you get the MMR, you get autism.
That's not it.
There's got to be a co-factor associated with it.
And age of exposure is one, I believe.
Now, everybody is now familiar that the outcome from a viral infection, for example, COVID, is age-related.
The older you are with COVID, the greater the risk.
So everybody gets that now.
And I said this to them.
I said, I think that younger of age, your exposure is a major risk.
Why?
Because with natural measles, if you get it under one, you're at greater risk of a severe outcome than you are if you're over one.
There is an age-related risk.
So, they went away, they tested that hypothesis, and they confirmed that it was absolutely true.
And they spent the next 14 years covering up, destroying the data, destroying the documents and changing the results to say that MMR vaccine was safe.
And it was only when William Thompson, the senior scientist at the CDC who had designed the study, collected the data and analysed the data, had written the paper, came to me, came to a colleague of mine who came to me and said, we have done this terrible thing.
I can no longer live with it.
Here is the truth.
And that was the basis of the film Vaxxed. And it wasn't my opinion.
It wasn't my producer's opinion.
This was the senior scientist from the CDC responsible for the study confessing to this fraud.
What happened?
Nothing. No one was held accountable.
Absolutely appalling.
These people, these five scientists at the CDC and their superiors had. Committed fraud and put millions of children at risk of serious permanent neurological disease and done so wilfully, knowing that there was a risk.
And so I was appalled. And beyond that, I thought my filmmaking is going to expose people.
It's going to actually hold people accountable for what they've done.
Your study was, it was a small study, wasn't it?
I think it was what like a dozen or 16.
You're simply saying there does seem to be a link and it's surprising it could have been surprised, one time it should have been surprising, that actually a doctor who raises a concern that should surely be looked at and checked over instead of attacking but it wasn't a massive.
You were simply saying these this is the pattern that I'm seeing in the small number of patients that I'm looking at in this study.
That's absolutely right.
The way in which human disease syndromes are described is usually in a handful of patients who present with...
It's such a consistent pattern of signs and symptoms of clinical measures that they merit reporting in their own right.
And that's exactly what this was.
It couldn't test any hypothesis.
It couldn't come to any conclusions other than more research was needed.
It actually said this study does not confirm an association between the vaccine.
It doesn't.
It couldn't do.
It is merely reporting the parent's story.
And it was a very sober paper.
But of course, the media blew it up to claim that I had said MMR vaccine causes autism.
No, I didn't.
However, I would say that now in light of the CDC study, I would most certainly.
And it's their behaviour.
It's their need to commit the fraud and hide the data that is the most compelling evidence that there is this clear link.
They know there's a link, and rather than do something responsible about it they have put the children at continued risk.
In fact they've expanded the vaccine program dramatically, so they've put even more children at risk in my opinion.
No, completely and where many of us maybe may not have been anti-vaxxers five years ago we sure as hell are now so it's changed completely, but can I just ask you; you were up against the UK General Medical Council.
They're the ones that allow you to practice.
They're a judge and jury. It was like a few years investigation.
Then in 2010, they decided that you were no longer acceptable.
They struck you off.
Tell us about that, because I've talked to doctors recently during the COVID chaos who have fought for their right to continue to practice as doctors and they've struggled. You were doing this 14 years ago.
What was that experience at the General Medical Council?
It was difficult.
It was really difficult because there needn't have been a hearing.
They'd made up their minds before we even walked through the door.
The General Medical Council were under threat from the government of having their powers taken away and the government dictating policy such as right to practice and medical sort of ethics.
And they therefore were under scrutiny from the government.
They had to deliver on a decision, and they did.
Now, the reason I can say that is that their decision was contrived and indeed made up their minds before they even come to the hearing is that when it came for the first time before a proper judiciary, before the UK's sort of senior courts, if you like.
The judge was appalled by the GMC's behaviour.
He said, and this is in the trial of John Walker Smith, my colleague's appeal against the decision to strike him off, he said, this must never happen again.
It was really a political tool to destroy dissent.
Now, I appealed as well as John Walker Smith, but I was told by my lawyers that it would cost me half a million pounds to pursue that appeal.
I didn't have half a million pounds.
I didn't have anything.
So, the law belongs to those who can afford it.
And that's a fact, whether you live in America or whether you live in the UK.
Justice belongs to those who can pay for it.
And so there was no opportunity for me to have my case heard on its merits it was simply thrown out.
What we did do though when Brian Dear a journalist published in the British medical journal now claiming that I had committed fraud which is absolute nonsense.
We sought to sue him and the British Medical Journal in the state of Texas.
Now, that's where I lived.
That's where my reputation was damaged.
And that's where there was legal precedent that allowed us to sue them.
Because the BMJ is a journal, sells its wares, its journal, to Texas medical schools.
It profits from Texas medical schools.
And there is a long-arm statute in Texas that allows us to sue them for defamation.
Why would you, it costs about $3 million to sue someone for defamation.
Why would you even think of doing that in a situation where all of the evidence is going to be laid bare for the public to scrutinize?
Why would you do that if you committed fraud?
You wouldn't do it.
There was no fraud and therefore we had an extremely strong case and they knew it.
They absolutely knew it and and they did everything they could to get out of it.
Ultimately, the judge, the appeal court judges here ruled that we did not have jurisdiction.
That went in the face of all of the legal precedent.
We did not have jurisdiction. Indeed, the BMJ lawyers invoked Texas law in an attack on us.
I mean, it was extraordinary that we weren't allowed to sue them here in Texas.
This was a political decision from the highest level.
They did not want this case to go forward.
They They knew we were going to prevail, we were going to win, and that would have undermined their entire sort of years and years and years attacking me and others for suggesting that MMR vaccine might not be safe.
And so we were denied the opportunity to have the case heard on its merits, and that's where it remains.
Tell us about Vaxxed in 2016 from cover-up to catastrophe.
And that talks about the CDC and others destroying evidence to show that there could be a link between MMR and autism.
That's something which I think many of us over the last four years would probably accept that sounds plausible, definitely that makes sense, because of what we've seen with big pharma and the collusion with media and governments.
But this, you put this out prior to that happening probably in a world where maybe people may not accept that as much because there was more were trusting institutions.
But tell us about that film and the authorities wanting to destroy any evidence which would show there was a link.
Yes, that was a fascinating film because, as I say, it was an insider from the CDC who was intimately involved in the study that looked at age of exposure to MMR and autism.
And it clearly showed that the younger you were when when you've got the vaccine, the greater the risk of autism.
And that was in...
All children, boys in particular, and black boys above all.
For some reason, black children seem to be highly susceptible to this adverse vaccine reaction.
Now, we don't know the reason for that.
Further follow-up studies should have been done.
Now, when the CDC found this association, they had some clear options that would have been there available to them in the interests of the the American public.
They could have said, right, we can delay.
Let's suggest delaying this vaccine until it's safer.
And we have done a bigger, better study to confirm it or refute it.
That's what they should have done, to give parents the information, to give them the option.
But they didn't.
They trashed all of the documents.
They trashed the data.
They altered the results.
And they, for 14 years deceived the public, doctors, the government, everybody, and so it was a very powerful story and we made the documentary it got into the Tribeca film festival which for us was one of the sort of preeminent film festivals and then it was withdrawn, it was censored.
And I think that occurred because one of the sponsors of the film was involved in money management on Wall Street involving the pharmaceutical companies and also perhaps a sponsor of the Tribeca Film Festival.
And so, you know, this is what I hear, whether it's true or not, that remains to be seen.
But we were censored.
This is the first time this had ever happened at Tribeca Film Festival.
And it was a bad few days.
And then De Niro went on the television on the what's called Good Morning America and the Today Show, the big national shows and said, we should never have done that.
We should have played this film, everybody should have seen it and made up their own minds.
And suddenly there was an explosion of interest in this film that people had been banned from seeing.
And every attempt by the media to cover it up or De Niro's partner, Jane Rosenthal, to shut him down during interviews failed.
He was very angry, very angry. And it had the impact of spreading the news of this film worldwide.
And so what we saw at that point, which should have pre-empted COVID, was a major shift in people's perception.
They came to the movie theatre, they watched the movie, and they said, wow.
There is something, there's a problem here.
And then, of course, we had the COVID experience and the extraordinary mishandling and misconduct and lies and deception, about the disease, its origins, and the vaccines, so-called vaccine.
And public trust in the public health authorities has never been at such a low.
And it will never recover and the point peter is this is that they only have themselves to blame.
That is the truth.
It's no good then coming after me, or after you, or people who bring them the message or come from the clinic and saying this is what I see in these children.
They only have themselves to blame for their arrogance and their stupidity.
Now, 2016 it was about that specific link MMR and autism 2019 you widened it in vax 2and to look at actually side effects, vaccine harms, across a range.
And certainly the issue does not seem to just be one vaccine, there seems to be a range and we've seen that, and I know any parent will have had this conversation thought, any parent that actually is aware of conversations happening, and they will maybe have questioned the rush to jab children.
I will touch on the amount of jabs children now get, which is quite concerning, the rise of jabs.
But 2019, yeah, you widen it away from just MMR and concerns of side effects to this seems to be in many vaccinations.
Was that received differently or do you still have the the same uphill struggle.
Now, that film was not mine.
It was made by Brian Burrows and Polly Tommy.
And I was interviewed for that film, but it wasn't my movie.
But what happened, it was based upon a series of interviews. After Vaxxed, we went off across the country, principally Polly Tommy, interviewing thousands of parents about their experience.
And it emerged that other vaccines were involved as well.
And I'd come to this via a different route.
I came over to America to testify before Congress on the vaccine autism issue.
And there I became aware that the mercury in vaccines was a problem.
I wasn't aware of it before, that aluminium in vaccines was a problem.
And so it became clear that it is very likely that it's the actual toxic load that a child is presented with at a very early stage, rather than just being one vaccine or another.
Now, we'll never be able to discern the truth of that.
We know which vaccines are involved, which are more important or less important.
And this comes to a point you've made, is that they have so many vaccines now that how do you even begin to untangle the complexity, the permutations of how was it this vaccine or this one and this one together or these three or these 15?
We just don't know.
And I think there's almost been a deliberate attempt to expand the program without doing the appropriate safety research in order to make it virtually impossible possible to target any specific vaccine.
So, I think that my sort of current thinking on it, and had we been allowed to conclude our research without it being sabotaged, is that it is related to the toxic load.
And there is a study that has literally just come out from Brian Hooker.
Scientist with an affected child, that shows that there is an exponential increase in severe adverse reactions like autism with increasing load of vaccines.
The more you're given at one time, the greater the risk of an adverse reaction.
This dose response effect is very plausible and is very strong evidence of causation. So, the field is highly complex.
I'm quite certain that the sheer volume of vaccines that are given to children is way in excess of being safe.
I mean, way in excess.
And it has never been subjected to any formal clinical trial.
You know, is it safe to give multiple vaccines at the same time?
Hasn't been done.
Well, yeah let me poke, because the issue is supposedly we have had a vaccine that's tested over a 10-year period or whatever and then it's decided safe, but the amount of vaccines that children are given; there is absolutely no way you could do any long-term study on that number of combinations of vaccines.
So, it's completely into the unknown.
It is.
Now and here's the dilemma lemma is that when you take a pharmaceutical agent in the United States, for example.
Then it goes through years, literally sort of 10, 15 years of clinical trials, randomized control clinical trials using a placebo, an inert placebo, before it's deemed to be safe.
And yet with vaccines, that doesn't apply.
They're classified as biologics, and the bar is set very much lower for safety.
And so for the childhood vaccines, there has never been a proper long-term placebo-controlled randomized trial of safety.
And therefore, it is deceptive, entirely deceptive to say that these vaccines are safe.
They're not because they've never been subjected to the appropriate safety studies. And people need to know that.
People need to realize that.
It just has not been done. And it's now, you know, it's too late to close the gate.
The horse has bolted.
The vaccine safety studies are very difficult to do now, certainly prospectively.
Well, one thing I just, before I get into Protocol 7, one thing I realized traveling the States so much over the last couple of years is that you turn on a TV, so different from Britain, and you see an advert for medication and it tells you how wonderful this medication is.
And then half the advert is telling you the possible side effects and usually ends up with death. And you're thinking, that's the last thing I want to have.
But that's a world away, and that's just kind of pushed through and accepted that actually the side effect could be much worse than the disease or the issue that it's trying to address.
And you think, I sit and watch some of those adverts when I'm over in the States and think, how do we get to this situation where death is seemingly better than a headache?
It is bizarre and this direct consumer advertising that happens in America and the other the only other place it happens is New Zealand.
We don't, you know it doesn't happen in the UK, but it it's it's there's something more insidious about it, and that is the fact that the nightly news networks here way in excess of 70% of their income comes from the pharmaceutical industry advertising.
They could not sustain their operation, a news operation, in the absence of that pharmaceutical industry sponsorship.
And so, the industry controls the narrative the industry controls the editorial the headline they're not going to publish something and this happened to me I was interviewing with a girl called Cheryl Ackerson outstanding journalist who was at the the time at CBS.
And she said, Andy, when we have finished editing this sequence about vaccines and autism, I will get a call within, you know, in 15 minutes, I'll get a call from the money men on the top story, a top floor saying, you will not play this segment because our sponsors have said they'll pull their money.
Well, she was wrong.
It was five minutes later. It came five minutes later.
And that's the way they operate, I'm afraid.
So there is, over and above advertising their drugs, there is something far more sinister about the control, the influence that these drug companies have over American mainstream media. Fortunately, in the UK, that direct-to-consumer advertising does not exist.
So I want to jump on, which fits perfectly into Protocol 7, which seems to be about someone, a lawyer, small town, sees issues with Big Pharma, with the industry and wants to challenge.
And it is a David and Goliath, something I guess, as you alluded to, we're all up against with Big Pharma.
But tell us about this film, which is a story about a whistle-blower, but also going up against Big Pharma.
This is based on a true story whistle-blower who came to me many years ago at a meeting in Chicago and revealed this fraud within Merck in respect of its mumps vaccine.
And it's really a story more about the behaviour, how the industry behaves when confronted with a threat to its profiteering and its monopolistic sort of control of a vaccine in a country like America.
And it's against sort of set against the love and devotion the um intuition of a mother who happens to be a lawyer who fights who battles against the power of the industry.
And I'm not going to spoil the end for anyone but I urge people to see this film.
It is it's now won 27 film awards it's only just really come out.
It's got some wonderful reviews.
Very, very high scores on rotten tomatoes and IMDb, so the key to the success of this film is its dissemination is people watching it and we're planning our UK release our European release as well right now So when it comes, please support it.
Please get your friends and family to it.
Merck realized in the 90s that the Mumps vaccine wasn't working and they took, many, many steps to cover that up and to essentially defraud the American public, the medical profession and others.
And that's what the story is about.
And it's based upon documents, actual documents obtained from that company that confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened.
It's important in the context of safety.
And you may say, why is it?
The film really is about, or Merck's fraud, was about the efficacy, the protectiveness of the vaccine.
It wasn't working as well as they said it was working.
And that made it dangerous.
Why?
Because mumps in children is a trivial condition.
That's acknowledged by the CDC.
Mumps in post-pubertal adults is not trivial.
You risk suffering testicular inflammation and sterility or or ovarian inflammation, brain inflammation.
And so a vaccine that doesn't work or only works for a limited amount of time will make you susceptible to mumps again when you're past puberty, when you're in that at-risk period. And so a vaccine that doesn't work makes it a dangerous vaccine.
It makes mumps a more dangerous disease.
And this is a very important thing to understand within the context of mumps.
Merck certainly knew about it and continued to defraud the public despite that.
So yeah, it's a very, very important film over and above the issue of mumps.
It's about how the industry responds to threats that really sort of compromise its ability to earn revenue, make profits, and maintain a monopoly.
Because I think people often forget, and maybe have woken up during the COVID tyranny, that these institutions, they exist to make money for their shareholders.
They don't really exist to make a product which makes you better.
Their primary aim is the share price for shareholders, just like any company.
And if they make a product that actually helps you, then to me, that's a bonus.
Is that too cynical a view of the industry?
No, it's absolutely true.
And they wouldn't deny that.
They would say, we're here as a business to make money.
We're here as a business to serve our shareholders, our stockholders, first and foremost.
That's not ambiguous at all.
They would admit to that.
The problem comes when everything's fine and they're making good drugs and they're benefiting people.
That's fine.
It's how the industry responds when something goes wrong.
And for example, with Merck and Vioxx, the drug that, you know, was notoriously unsafe.
But, you know, they knew at the time of licensing that there were problems. It was causing strokes and heart attacks.
It was estimated, I think, that many hundreds or thousands of people suffered as a consequence of that drug.
In the litigation in Australia, where Merck were, really, their heads were on the block about this.
They uncovered some, in discovery, they uncovered documents which were an exchange between Merck employees about what to do about doctors who criticized their drug.
And they said, we may have to seek them out and destroy them where they live.
This is not conspiracy theory.
This is company policy.
There you have these guys saying, we may have to seek them out and destroy them where they live.
Okay, so these are the kind of people with whom you're dealing.
Tell us, because we hear that these companies are beyond the legal sphere.
They have protections and safeguards within countries, and it doesn't matter what side effects that the drug causes, they have this legal protection.
I mean, is that the case, or is there a way of actually using the legal system to actually go after these companies?
Or is it a slap on the wrist?
Sometimes they pay out money to different governments and they say: oops
Well there there is and it's interesting the national childhood vaccine injury act in this country in America in 1986 took away liability financial liability from the drug companies for death and injury caused by childhood vaccines on the recommended schedule.
Now, that was a gold mine for the industry because they had mandatory markets.
Kids had effectively to get vaccinated to go to school and no liability.
All they could do was make a profit. But the legal system does work sometimes.
And in the context of COVID and the so-called COVID vaccine.
There's just been a ruling, I think, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that has said COVID vaccine is not a vaccine.
It doesn't protect against disease and it doesn't stop transmission.
Ergo, it is not a vaccine.
Now, once it's not a vaccine, by ruling of the court, it's not covered by the indemnity.
It's not covered by the government protecting the industry.
Suddenly, they're on their own.
And that really raises some very interesting legal possibilities that is for litigation in this country.
So, we'll see what happens.
But there will be every effort by the government to side with the pharmaceutical industry to prevent them being sued, I'm quite sure, because that's what happened.
But let's hope that the judges see it differently.
I just want to end off on people's response to you because you were maligned, attacked.
The media tried to discredit you.
You then moved to the US. You lost your medical license.
But these films you're putting out, they tell a compelling story.
Tell us about how you feel these films have woken people up, maybe in a way that back whenever this happened to you 25 years ago, the opening was not there for the same ability to win people over.
The opening does seem to be here now, maybe because of COVID, maybe people are more aware, maybe because of alternative media.
But tell us about the message you're putting out in these films and kind of the response you're getting.
Thing well really the films are made in a way that they're entirely up to the protocol seven, these were entirely factual documentary films and so vax for example if there'd been any word of a lie, if we'd got something wrong, we would have we've accused these scientists at the CDC of the worst sort of humanitarian crime.
Their job was to protect these children they did completely the opposite.
The hypocrisy goes way beyond what we've seen before and so if there had been a problem.
We would have been sued to the moon and back again and there wasn't and they why because they know that it's true.
And that's a very powerful thing and the same comes now with protocol 7 even though it's a narrative feature film.
If there was something in that film that was defamatory of Merck, then they would come after us.
They may well do because they're big and rich and powerful, certainly far more powerful than we are.
But that's not a reason. Not to get the story out.
My commitment is, my duty is to the public, not to Merck or to the government or indeed to the whistle-blower, but to the public who are being harmed.
And so never make a decision based in fear.
This is something I've learned over the years.
If the story has merit, if it's honest, if it's true, if it has integrity, then you get it out there and, you know, let the cards fall where they may.
Yeah completely.
I want to ask you about funding, because it's everything costs money.
It is actually, it takes a lot of work not only finance but expertise and research to put anything like this out and you know you're going up against an industry that will attack you in any opening any any chink in your armour.
Was it difficult to actually raise funding to put these films together?
Initially, it was.
You know, this is my fifth film, and initially it was difficult, because people said, well, you're a physician.
You know, what are you doing making films?
Now they say, they're much more inclined to say, you've proven you can do it.
Get on and make the next one.
It's not easy, particularly in the current climate, I mean, Hollywood itself is in the doldrums; filmmaking, but the people still want meaningful films they want films that count films like Sound of Freedom and others that they really mean something that are worth going to the movie theatres to watch.
And so that's the kind of film that we're making and hopefully we'll be able to continue to do it.
I just can ask you about the last last thing about those who want to be part of what's happening, supporting the film as it comes out. I mean, how do they play a part?
They can go, obviously, to the website, protocol7.movie, make sure and follow that, and they can follow your Twitter.
But if they want to say, actually, I believe this message, it's so true, I have friends, family, actually suffering side effects, not only MMR, but across the board, and I want to make sure this message gets out. How can they play a part in doing that?
One thing they can do, I mean, if they're immensely rich, they can fund the next film.
If they're not, then they can help.
People can help by going to the website and clicking on Pay It Forward.
And this is a way of, we saw it with Sound of Freedom.
It was very successful, a way of providing tickets for people who might not otherwise be able to afford a ticket to go and watch the movie, or for people who might not be inclined otherwise to go.
In other words if there if there is an incentive to get a free ticket they may go and then be persuaded.
And so it's a way of helping other people to access the film.
When they might not otherwise be able to or be inclined to do that so pay it forward is a very useful device.
And of course on the website you can pass on the trailer and make sure people watch that and get ready for it.
Please do.
Now, the success of the film comes down to the public.
And that means, you know, your listeners, your viewers.
So, we're very, very grateful for any help in that respect.
And Sound of Freedom did that to a degree we hadn't seen before.
And I encourage the viewers and listeners to do the same for Protocol 7. Dr. Andrew Wakefield, it is an honour to have you on and someone who I read all the stuff. In the late 90s and probably believed a lot of it that uh how times change and it's great to have you on and thank you for what you're doing on getting the message out on the link between the pharmaceutical industry and side effects.
Well thank you so much.
My pleasure thank you for having me on.

The Week According To . . . Betty

This week we welcome back our good friend Betty to help us make some sense of the past seven days from the news and from her awesome social media.Lot's to chat about including...- UK General Election Results: Welcome to Hell- Labour wins but are actually terribly weak- Newly appointed Foreign Secretary, David Lammy ‘understands’ Trans women can grow a cervix with hormone treatment and such like- REFORM: Nigel Farage will be a thorn in their sides as he takes his seat in Parliament- UTTER NONSENSE DAILY MAIL: Vote Farage, Get Labour? - CLOWN WORLD: Boy, 12, is referred to counter-extremist officers by his own school after declaring there 'are only two genders' and 'I'm gay not queer'- The Green Party: The absolute state of it- Is Far Right is the new term for not actually being insane?- The Power of Stepping Away - There are a set of two totally different standards in public life, the cosy little establishment always looks after its own- When I was young I was expecting flying cars in 2024, not 72 genders
Connect with Betty on X/Twitter @CaliforniaFrizz  x.com/CaliforniaFrizz
Interview recorded  6.7.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
Links to topics...When I was younghttps://x.com/CaliforniaFrizz/status/1808036457501630765The Green Party https://x.com/ArchRose90/status/1808865559552954660https://x.com/CreserDylanGrn/status/1808756382180544712Election Results https://x.com/CoviLeaks/status/1809136319534141689Keir Starmer https://x.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/1809137408866185690Nigel Farage Speech https://x.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1809137932961239482Vote Farage https://x.com/EssexPR/status/1808639358565765553David Lammy https://x.com/Artemisfornow/status/1806707650735804803Stepping Away https://x.com/CaliforniaFrizz/status/1808254318610382964Far Righthttps://x.com/juneslater17/status/1807890066724774387Establishment https://x.com/LozzaFox/status/1808393238492881328Boy two gendershttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13581155/Boy-12-referred-counter-extremist-Prevent-officers-school-declaring-two-genders-Im-gay-not-queer.html