Hearts of Oak Podcast

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

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

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

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

The Week According To . . . David Kurten

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

Dr Naomi Wolf - Enhancing Health Through Nutrition: Strengthening Your Immune System

Show notes and Transcript
'Cooking with Naomi' is probably not something that Dr Wolf had on her list of things to do, but it fits perfectly into the widespread concern of health and food. Naomi Wolf joins us once again to discuss a series of videos she has been doing called 'Liberty Lifestyle' that highlight natural remedies that are not fashionable for many of us in the West but are essential ingredients in many parts of the world and have been used for centuries. We have been sold a lie that Big Pharma are here to keep us well, and healthy eating seems to be a thing of the past so Naomi gives us a little history behind it and shows how this is a massive myth. We start by looking at why her recent episode on the benefits of Mustard Seed Oil was banned, why would a discussion about a healthy ingredient be so dangerous? Naomi tells us of the effectiveness of natural remedies like mustard seed oil and turmeric, how FDA regulations are impacting herbal remedies, and of the holistic benefits of alternative treatments for cancer. This episode advocates for informed consent, challenges mainstream medical interventions and empowers individuals to explore alternative health solutions.Share this with your friends, even your liberal ones....Because this topic effects us all.
Dr. Naomi Wolf is a bestselling author, columnist, and professor; she is a graduate of Yale University and received a doctorate from Oxford.She is cofounder and CEO of DailyClout.io, a successful civic tech company.Since the publication of her landmark international bestseller, The Beauty Myth, which The New York Times called “one of the most important books of the 20th century," Dr Wolf’s other seven bestsellers have been translated worldwide.The End of America and Give Me Liberty: A Handbook For American Revolutionaries, predicted the current crisis in authoritarianism and presented effective tools for citizens to promote civic engagement.Dr Wolf trains thought leaders of tomorrow, teaching public presentation to Rhodes Scholars and co-leading a Stony Brook University that gave professors skills to become public intellectuals.She was a Rhodes scholar herself, and was an advisor to the Clinton re-election campaign and to Vice President Al Gore. Dr Wolf has written for every major news outlet in the US and many globally; she had four opinion columns, including in The Guardian and the Sunday Times of London.She lives with her husband, veteran and private detective Brian, in the Hudson Valley.
Interview recorded   2.4.24
Connect with Dr Wolf and Daily Clout...Website              www.dailyclout.ioX                          x.com/naomirwolf                            x.com/DailyCloutVIDEOS               rumble.com/user/DailyCloutBOOKS               https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/Naomi-Wolf/author/B000APBBU8?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
(Hearts of Oak)
And I am delighted to have Dr. Naomi Wolf back with us once again.
Naomi, thank you so much for your time today.
(Dr Naomi Wolf)
Thank you so much for having me. I love speaking with you and your audience.
Always great having you and so much to talk about.
But I think first thing I'll mention, your books, obviously, you've had you on twice before.
Well, a couple even more times. But on your latest book, the latest one, Facing the Beast, Courage, Faith and Resistance in a New Dark Age.
And I love that spiritual thread that runs through that.
And before that, the body of others, new authoritarians, COVID-19 and the war against the human.
So they are all available and the links are all in the description.
But I wanted you all to talk about something quite different.
And that's maybe eating for health, I think, and taking back control of your immune system.
And I came across, I think it was the one on mustard seed oil, whenever that got restricted.
And then I started delving into a number of the other videos you had done.
And I'm guessing you probably hadn't thought that you were going to be doing cooking videos from your kitchen.
No, indeed. And, you know, as I headline it, I made bad cooks.
So this is the bad cook cooks that I had to change my life when I realized just how serious the interventions in our food supply and our pharmaceutical, like over-the-counter supply were.
Well, there seems to be no end to your talents, Naomi, and I've really enjoyed watching those.
But maybe we'll get into the mustard seed oil video.
I'd never heard of mustard seed oil, and I had no idea that actually it was a bad product. And then it got bad.
And then I started delving into that. And the first thing is, where can I get mustard seed oil? That's my first thought of the UK.
But tell us what that was about. And then we'll step back and maybe look at, mention some of the other videos and this whole, I guess, battle with FDA and what their role is in our health.
But mustard seed oil, why on earth was that banned?
[2:30] It's so crazy, Peter. I, you know, people who know my work know that I'm not a I don't think of myself.
I've never prepared. I'm not a doctor. I'm not a nutritionist. I'm a poetry defill.
You know, I have no background in any of this. And I I didn't think I'd ever be shining a light on this issue of taking back control of our health and well-being.
But this is what happened to me. As you know, because you've had me on several times for this reason, I oversaw and oversee a group of 3,250 doctors and scientists and specialists and biostatisticians and medical fraud investigators, clinicians.
Research scientists who united to go through the Pfizer documents released under court order, there are 450 000 documents and the fda had asked for those to be kept hidden for 75 years well our volunteers have now produced almost 100 reports linking to the originals so you don't have to take anyone's word for it you can click through and see the original document right, that is it links to and...
The latest book is coming out in a month I believe.
That is correct and what they found, sadly, is the greatest crime against humanity in recorded history, that Pfizer, with the collusion of the FDA, meaning the collusion of the CDC, the collusion of the White House, all of whom were looped in to this genocide, really, and sterilization of the population.
They inflicted catastrophic damage on us that is not over, right?
And on Western Europe, no doubt, everywhere Pfizer was rolled out.
And this is just what the documents we got to see because of the successful lawsuit.
So we don't know the AstraZeneca papers.
The Moderna papers are just coming out. We're seeing the same sterilization effect in the Moderna papers.
But we see from the Pfizer documents that Pfizer knew they were killing people, creating catastrophic events like stroke and blood clots, lung clots, leg clots, dementias, heart damage, catastrophic scale liver damage, kidney damage.
They knew that the vaccines didn't work to stop COVID. The third most common side effect in the documents is COVID.
And they concluded a month after rollout that the vaccines had failed to stop COVID, didn't tell us. And the centrepiece, and I'm just recapping quickly, is that they were grossly experimenting on disrupting human reproduction.
And they knew they were causing what they called reproductive disorders in women, especially at industrial scale.
And so now we have a 13 to 20% drop in live births in the United States and Western Europe.
Igor Chudov, a mathematician who works with government and databases, confirms that there are a million missing babies in Western Europe now.
And we know why. So given all of that, and given the,
It caused such an emotional toll to look at this and report on this week after week that I started to think, well, okay, we know what the sicknesses are.
How do we heal people, right? We need to be able to focus on something positive and constructive for humanity so that people have some hope, You know, that they are not beholden for their health to the same institutions and industries that murdered them or and sterilized them and disabled them.
So I began to look back at, I began a series called Liberty Lifestyle, right, that looks back at traditional remedies, forgotten remedies that used to be very common.
And also alternative treatments, notably herbs and spices, which have been used for millennia to treat the kinds of conditions that people now have, you know, have always had, but now, that the injuries, we know that they're ramped up.
And so I've been looking at, okay, if my loved ones who are vaccinated are going to have circulatory problems, what has traditionally healed circulation, if people are going to have heart problems, what's traditionally protected the heart?
And then, you know, and other questions, right, based on what we knew to be the damage and injuries in the Pfizer documents.
And so what has been amazing about these videos, and the research I've been doing is, you mentioned it with mustard oil.
Well, A, what's amazing is that it's even more censored than our work on the Pfizer documents, like even more censored, as censored as you can be.
And I was censored by the White House and the CDC and the, you know, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, Dr. Walensky, 15 White House staffers in 2021 singled out my tweet about menstrual dysregulation and identified it, put pressure on Twitter and Facebook to censor me.
This has all come out in the lawsuits by two attorneys general.
As censored as our work on the Pfizer documents has been, And even my alert to women before the Pfizer documents, you know, as recently as last week when my husband was detained in the Netherlands for seven hours and questioned by three different officials when I was in Europe for the first time to talk to people face to face about the Pfizer documents.
As censored as all of that has been, our work on common traditional remedies such as a mustard oil or turmeric have been even more censored.
Literally YouTube de-platformed us for the mustard seed oil.
Twitter briefly froze us.
You know, every, to this day, I just did a report on a sperm suppressor and a hormonal oestrogen disruptor in personal lubricant over the counter CVS personal lubricant.
And YouTube is having none of it. And it's not because it's an adult subject.
I mean, you know, there's polyethylene glycol and toothpaste and you know YouTube is having none of it so it and it stands to reason, I mean I looked up the numbers and the numbers for, basically we're not just threatening one product of one pharma company now right since what i'm doing is is not just saying oh turmeric's been used for millennia but actually looking up peer-reviewed studies on turmeric or mobby bark and coconut water or, you know, sassafras or guava leaves or, you know, all of the traditional remedies I've explored, the peer-reviewed studies show very often much better outcomes using these remedies than their pharmaceutical rivals.
So I'm not surprised. And you can imagine the scale of the market that we're then threatening.
So I'm not surprised that I'm being so widely censored, but I do feel like it's a very positive thing to explore. It's changed my life for sure.
And I do feel like it's a race against time because many of the traditional remedies that have been marginalized, you can say, well, this is just normal pharmaceutical greed.
They don't want us to know that actually you stabilize hypertension in two weeks more easily with Mabi bark and coconut water, traditionally in use for centuries in the the Caribbean than with, you know, blood pressure medication that is patented based on pharmaceutical petroleum derivative products.
But in addition, we're finding shocking, like if they can't get us with the injections to restrict our sex drive and our reproductive health, they're getting us with our food supply and our personal care supply, meaning we found a sperm suppressant in common baking mixes in the United States.
I don't think these are allowed in Britain or Europe, but it's worth looking.
I just threw out Progresso breadcrumbs because they had the same sperm suppressant.
We don't need a sperm suppressant in our food supply, any of us.
And also in our personal care products, we're finding parabens, which are hormone disruptors, bad for men and bad for women.
But I'm literally astonished to find it in personal lubricant, which goes right into your body if you're a woman and directly affects your partner if he's a man.
So it's shocking that these ingredients continue to to be fed into our food and personal care supply, to lower our sex drive, lower the aggression of men as warriors, for sure.
You know, destabilize the family, I would argue, because everyone's less happy and degenderize us, basically.
But this is all part of, I think I've so many conversations with, with friends in the UK saying, actually, where do we get food?
And beginning to to look at going back to how food is produced and going to local farms and that sort of thing.
And this is a much wider conversation, I guess, of massive mistrust that a lot of us now have over the last four years of regulatory bodies of what we are told and looking for alternatives.
So I get what you're doing fits into that massive void that people are crying out for, just good, honest, straightforward ideas, of how we need to live our lives better because the government certainly aren't going to do it for us. It's up to each of us.
Indeed. And we used to, in the United States, we have what used to be a very good law compelling the FDA to compel any food or medicine to fully disclose all of the ingredients.
And I've been shocked to find that, you know, there are huge carve outs.
I mean, I shouldn't be shocked at anything now after the Pfizer documents.
But, you know, one of the issues I disclosed in my video today is that in the U.S., toothpaste only has to disclose a fraction of 1% of their ingredients.
We literally don't know what's in the rest of the ingredients.
However, we're warned that if we swallow any toothpaste, we need to go right to the poison control center or right to the hospital.
So, yes, the distrust is, I guess, long overdue.
I think there's they're different. I feel like when I'm in Europe, the food supply is healthier because I don't think you're allowed some of the adulterants that we have that we have in the United States.
I mean, there are memes on social media and I've experienced this for myself where there's a long list of psycho chemicals added to a global brand in the US that is not added, at least not disclosed in the UK.
However, I think that, I know from having lived in the UK and gone back many times to visit, not since the pandemic, but I know that your wonderful tradition of healthy farming, good treatment of animals.
Local production of vegetables and fruits is being disrupted by Big Ag and no doubt by Big Pharma the way ours is in the US.
And one of the immediate things, too, is they want to mRNA inject animals and they want to, like in the US, they're they're starting to do kind of a social credit score for animals or like, surveillance for animals that you that every single animal is tagged. You know, livestock is tagged.
And they also have ridiculous laws in the United States.
Thomas Massey in our Congress is fighting, is trying to pass freedom to farm bills or food freedom bills.
And I'm sure you'll need something similar in the UK, from what I understand, in the sense that there are laws against local producers of livestock or cows or sheep slaughtering their cows locally and bringing the meat to farmers markets.
They have to be fed into this whole kind of industrial food system and shipped for miles and slaughtered in FDA slaughterhouses that are largely, you know, then many of our meat producers like Smithfield are owned by China or being bought up by China.
Right. So you're not even getting, you're getting food processed by our worst enemies, the ones who my reporting showed have the IP, the manufacture, the distribution of these mRNA injections that have decimated our populations.
So why would you trust food manufactured that way? And from what I understand,
I do think something similar is happening in the UK.
Like you used to be able to, I remember when I was a graduate student in Oxford, you could go to the local market and local farmers were selling their local apples and carrots and their local meat in a pretty farm-to-table way and I would be surprised if that is still as reliable as it used to be but you tell me.
Well yeah with the regulatory board we've always had kind of a gold-plated regulatory industry across Europe on everything and we I guess see the US has been lax in in different industries but I think that's, there is a lot of restrictions now, certainly the farming community, we've had massive demonstrations, as they have all over Europe, at the restrictions and the pushback against farming.
You said you're in the Netherlands and they are some of the biggest farmers in Europe, actually, for what they provide.
And they are up in arms at the massive restrictions that they face, which I guess means that actually the food will be brought in from elsewhere, from far away.
So, yeah, we're seeing a big change, certainly in our farming industry all across Europe.
Well, let's think about that, right? If the people are brought in from far away, you don't – I mean –, This is a parallel, right? And as I always say, I'm the daughter of immigrants. Granddaughter of immigrants.
I believe in legal immigration. But if you have no control, if the globalist plan is to throw millions of people from all over the world at Britain, at France, at Germany, at the Netherlands, you're not going to have a European culture in the same way that you used to.
You don't have a European culture that you can or a British culture, right, or a Scottish culture, Welsh culture that you can tend as a social contract.
And that's not a racist thing to say. Right. Anyone can be Welsh.
Anyone can be British from anywhere in the world. But citizens need to be able to have borders and have laws about how many people that country can absorb and acculturate to that culture, right?
And if they can't do that, then they no longer have a country or a culture.
And that's the globalist plan, right?
Because destroying Western Europe as a beacon of liberty, destroying Britain as the home of the Magna Carta and the free press, all of that depends on throwing millions of people who don't come from constitutional republics or share European values at Europe, and I'm including Britain.
So having said that, think about your food supply, right?
If your food supply comes from, if you're in Wales and your food supply comes from a Welsh farmer up the road, you can pretty much trust it.
You know, if he poisons his neighbours or she poisons her neighbours, that can't be concealed.
But if you bring in the food supply from anywhere and you add additives like Apeel, which is this Bill Gates-derived coating on vegetables...
Or, which I found to be the case in Europe and in Britain, the legislation is so opaque that you really don't know what's in, what you're bringing in to your local greengrocer, local supermarket at Sainsbury's.
Then horrible things can be done to your population just like they're being done to ours.
No, 100%. And we now have labelling that it says has a Union Jack on it.
You think that's a British product, but it only means it's packaged in the UK.
It could be from anywhere else.
So I know. So it goes on and on.
And you think you can trust that, but actually you can't. But tell us about it because, again, it's a bit different in the UK than it is in the States.
You've got the FDA that covers everything, covers the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry.
We kind of have separate. We've got the Food Standards Agency for the food side and then the Medicine and Healthcare Regulatory Agency, which is the pharmaceutical side.
But tell us how the control that the FDA, the Food and Drugs Administration, have in the States, because it does seem to be all encompassing.
I've talked to farmers and they talk about how they, I think there are only four or five processing, meat processing plants in America now.
And so it's all reduced down to a industry that controls that process.
But the FDA seemed to have absolute control of everything that the Americans consume, just as the FSA, the same in the UK.
Yeah, I mean, I have to drill into it in a little more detail.
But broadly speaking, you're 100% right.
I would throw in another agency called the USDA, which oversees farms and what happens to farms.
So something has to be USDA approved before a farmer can bring it to market, certainly when it comes to milk and meat.
So we do have a much more centralized system now, and it's one that no doubt the EU is trying to impose on Europe.
I think Europe has, I mean, look at, you know, France and Italy.
They have such a legacy of terroir, right?
You know, this local production, they fetishize it as much as they should, right?
So much a part of tourism that you go to Burgundy and you get grapes from Burgundy.
You go to, you know, you get your pâté from Normandy.
Your people have permission to call something champagne if it's from champagne, right?
And that's been wiped out in the U.S.
And so I do think Europeans and British people should look at what's happened in the U.S.
And the fight we're having here over our food supply as their future if they don't resist resist and rebel.
And especially resist EU directives, leave the EU like more aggressively than Britain's managed to leave the EU, and reclaim the right to grow and sell and buy food.
Because what's happened in the US is not only this massive centralization, you're right, there are only a few meat processing plants, but also what you see behind me is an agricultural cultural area. It's the Hudson Valley.
And it's a very rich agricultural area.
And there have been a lot of small food producers in this area.
But what's happening is that the state is intentionally making it more and more difficult for people to be the independent farmers that they used to be in our nation's history, let alone for citizens to purchase from independent farmers.
So for example, right up the road, there used to be this wonderful barn where you could on the honour system go into a little shed and there was cheese and milk products and ice cream made from these cows that were in this giant shed.
And you would just leave your $5 for the pint of ice cream. And it was fantastic.
And you'd sit in the sun and you could see the cows and you could eat your ice cream. And it was just, it contributed to the local economy.
It was something tourists love to to do. The cows looked happy.
Well, I spoke to the owners of that little dairy and they were freaking out a few years ago because the state said, suddenly you need a $60,000 investment in pasteurizing this milk.
And by the way, it is illegal in many places to purchase raw milk and pasteurized milk in the United States. And they weren't even.
They weren't even selling raw milk. They had this $60,000 equipment imposed on them unnecessarily.
And she kept saying, it was heart-breaking, she kept saying, look at our cows, they're healthy.
We don't need this for our cows to be healthy. Our cows are healthy.
So that was designed we're seeing all these regulations to drive people out of, to close small farms right and then BlackRock buys up the land or the big producers buy up the the farm essentially and streamline it, we bought half a cow from a neighbor and like, we had to, it was like a drug deal.
We had to go to them without anyone knowing and they loaded these packages up in the back of our car and, but we feel happy to be able to do that because we know that they raised the cow, they slaughtered the cow, they didn't put any sperm suppressor in the cow's meat or mRNA. But we're down to that, right? Let me give you one other example.
They're so sneaky. Like the Union Jack thing is just typical of the sneakiest.
At the start of the pandemic, there used to be a thriving farmer's market in the town of Great Barrington up the road.
Well, I was astonished to go to the farmer's market during lockdowns and a farmer's market is outdoors, right?
So it's the safest possible place you could get your food if you're worried about a respiratory infection.
Well, I was astonished that they had made the population of farmers in the farmer's market half the number it had been and I said why are there only half the number of farmers here and one of the people had been tasked in such a Marxist way by the governor with telling which farmers could show up and which couldn't which meant that their farms would go out of business right they wouldn't have an income if they couldn't come to the farmer's market and she was very upset that that was her job but she had to do it if there was to be a farmer's market per our governor.
And it was just and she said it so that there won't be crowding.
But here's the farmer's market on one parking lot and here's an empty parking lot right across the street.
They could have just doubled the acreage of the farmer's market and had all the farmers.
Right. But it was intentionally designed to crush local farms. And that's what it did.
Tell us some of this seems to go full circle. Some of your background is in political consultancy work where you control the narrative and you decide who gets which information.
And at one time, I guess the political system controlled the news narrative.
It's not so much anymore with 24-hour news.
But it seems that the FDA are the gatekeepers of food and health in the same way that politicians want to control the news narrative.
Is there a way past that because it does seem certainly, well I don't even know if you can blame the democrats or the republicans but it seems to be they're given more and more power and authority and you mentioned that sixty thousand dollars to fit into new regulations that more and more regulations come that don't seem to have a reason. But it does seem as though they are the absolute gatekeepers of all our health and food access.
Yeah, it's true. But I don't want you to, you know, Europeans and British viewers to be lulled into thinking it's not a risk to their own system.
For example, I was a student in Britain, a graduate student for many years, and I was in your national health system.
The NHS is an even more rigid gatekeeper of health than in some ways than our system, where at least you can get a private doctor pretty easily.
At least there's private medicine.
I mean, the state, like it's been so interesting to me to go back to Europe and see how Europeans and British people are losing their liberties.
And it's so genius, because both in Britain, even with this nominal exit Brexit, and in Europe in general, what I've seen is that for the post-war era, everything has been made increasingly lovely.
If you rely on the state, you get your benefits, you get your health care, you get your free university, or your low-cost university.
but, that seemed fine for decades when the EU or the NHS was not trying to murder you or imprison you in a 15 minute city or, you know, kill your grandma with Midazolam or whatever the British version of Remdesivir is.
But then in the, then in 2020, it's like the, the lulling seductive superstructure got, the window dressing got pulled away.
And all of a sudden you realize like, oh my God, if the NHS wants to administer end of life drugs for someone they say has COVID, they can do it. And there's no alternative.
And if the NHS wants to, I got so many desperate emails from NHS workers saying, I don't want this injection. My daughter doesn't want this injection.
There's nowhere else to go, right? If you're a nurse or a doctor, very few other places to go to make a living.
You know, the, the, oh, I remember just one tiny example.
I was a graduate student and I went to my local NHS clinic and don't get mad at me because you pay 60 pounds if you're not British, which is as it should be.
I was not mooching off your system, but there, there was no other clinic to go to.
And they said, oh, you can't have your records. And I'm like, why can't I have my my records.
They're like, well, because look at the fine print, you've, there is no medical privacy anymore.
And Boots, I went to Boots and I'm like, I want my records. They're like, we don't have them there. It's digital. Like it's all digital, right?
I'm a tech CEO. It's all digital. They're like, they're in a warehouse in, you know, bodily. No, they're not.
You have my records. You're just not giving them to me. I understood that the NHS data was being monetized and sold to third parties.
People's privacy was being sold. My privacy was being sold. But you had absolutely no recourse, you know, legally.
I mean, the hoops people went through. And British people sign away their right, essentially, to sue their doctors or the NHS if something terrible happens to them by the fine print they have to sign in the contract in order to just get seen by the doctor.
So the state screws you as, you know, active advocates of your own health if you want the NHS to care for you in any way. And it's very difficult to go around the NHS.
So I just want to say that because this is intentional, right?
And for 50 years, it was lovely or 60 years.
And then they're like, OK, now we've got you. And same with, you know, benefits.
I mean, people in the Netherlands were telling me they were scared to speak up about losing their liberties because they were scared of losing their benefits.
And it's not great in a way that in the US there aren't any benefits, you know, except Social Security or Medicare.
But it does mean that people aren't scared of losing their benefits.
So we'd be able to mount a more effective resistance. So I just want to like...
How can I put it, yes the FDA is very effectively strangling our food and drugs but there's a lot of illusion of choice in Britain and Europe that does not bear scrutiny.
Trust me most of our viewers will have gone past the point where we believe that our institutions want the best for us. Hey can I, you've done the the whole thing on food and your cooking and your herbs or I think it's herbs with an H but anyway I will go with herbs, but mustard oil and then turmeric where people obviously have heard of and then you'd one, astragalus anti-cancer immune boosting and again all the I think we've been told up to this point that, that is kind of backward those are societies that actually haven't advanced and we've advanced so far that we've got got a drug for that problem and you're going back to actually, you don't need a drug, in fact if you take a drug you probably need another one and another one to fix all the side effects that have happened, but what, whenever that video was restricted, I mean what were your thoughts, you're simply talking about a herbal, not even a medicine, just a herb that's been used for some of these things are Chinese medicine that have been used for maybe hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years. And suddenly in America, it's bad.
What was your first response when you're thinking, you're just trying to put out good information on food and then suddenly that gets removed?
Well, I mean, it's a gift as a journalist, right?
The more bots and trolls and censorship you see in a certain subject, it's like a big sign saying, dig here, there's a story.
So I was struck, but then I did the math and I understand why these resources are being thrown at suppressing this information.
I mean, I mentioned some of the numbers, but let me just give you one example briefly.
There's a tonic called Lydia Pinkham's tonic, and it was famous in the 19th century, may have been sold in Britain. I don't know.
It was an American tonic. Lydia Pinkham had learned about these herbs from Native Americans who had used them for, as you say, centuries.
And it was bought. She was heralded as a pioneer in the history books I'd read as a child.
Then the formula got bought and reformulated by a small pharma company, then bought again and reformulated by a larger pharma company.
And now you cannot get the original version of Lydia Pinkham's tonic.
And notably, I saw that in JSTOR and all over the Internet, there's like a campaign that started in about 2020 to smear her as a quack and to even smear the women who loved her product, which were thousands and thousands as like alcoholics.
Right. Because she used some alcohol in her formulation.
Well, that's really interesting. You know, whenever you see a smear campaign, there's something going on.
And I bought the herbs to reconstruct Lydia Pinkham's tonic. Well, you know what?
What are the numbers? The numbers are astonishing. It's a 16 billion dollar menopause industry worldwide.
And if black cohosh and false unicorn root and fenugreek can ease the symptoms of menstrual pain and menopause and be a uterine tonic so women don't miscarry, all the things that, like, for me as a feminist, if thousands and thousands of women are writing thank you letters to Lydia Pinkham, something's working, right?
And so it's very interesting to me that that formulation was bought up and erased because it was working.
So that's a 16 billion dollar industry. The whole notion that menopause is a disease or menstruation, you can't handle it by yourself.
You need these pills or those pills, you know, is just nonsense.
And Native Americans have known that forever.
And that's what got suppressed. So I'm not surprised, even though I'm kind of impressed that we've stumbled on something that threatens so many profit centers.
But I guess the other thing I would say is that many people, the kind of marginalization of like traditional remedies, right?
Or herbal remedies, herbal remedies.
It's so fascinating to me because it's not science based. And I guess I, too, daughter of hippies, you know, whatever.
I, too, kind of thought, oh, yeah, sure.
Ginger tea, whatever, you know, that maybe these things have some mild benefit, but it's nothing compared to, you know, prescription medicine.
But now I've looked both at the formulation and distribution of prescription medicine, but also I've read Rockefeller Medicine Men, which shows how the Flexner Report took over basically all medical licensing and medical education in the United States to direct it to a petroleum based pharmaceutical product system by the guy, John D. Rockefeller, who had the petroleum. Right.
And then lastly, as I mentioned earlier, I've learned to read scientific peer reviewed studies and these so much does better. As I said, so much does better.
So I think that's why my stuff is being censored because I actually don't just say, Hey, try garlic.
You know, if you're having inflammatory conditions, here's this NIH database, which has this peer reviewed study from the journal of oncology that shows that you're actually going to do better or as well with the guava leaf tea or with the sassafras or with the mustard oil than you would do with the pharmaceutical equivalent.
I mean, can I just say, and then I promise I'll stop ranting.
I have a friend who has cancer. So many people have cancer now.
The number of herbal products that kill cancer cells, both in vivo and in vitro, meaning both in the lab and in mammals is off the charts, off the charts effective. And so that's all I want to say.
You know, like people deserve to know this is informed consent.
Where do we then, massive, but we'll reduce the dot to just a little bit, where then vaccines fit into this.
I saw a couple of days ago, I think it was RFK put a post up, or it might have been Ed Dowd, talking about, I think something like 18 times the level of cancer in those who are vaccinated, as opposed to those who are non-vaccinated.
And this is coming again and again. We've had all different, with William Makis on recently talking about this whole area.
And again it's looking for alternatives and the difficulty of finding those and being dismissed as crazy for looking at a way to solve your situation outside the norm, but that whole thing, I kind of think that's what will resonate with a lot of people, a friend of mine came down with cancer a few days ago, came out and again it's happening again and again and there does seem to be these natural remedies for it, that that haven't never been discussed. I remember a friend taking natural remedies maybe 20 years ago and I was thinking they're just crazy, just blast your body with chemo and now I'm thinking, actually there probably was a lot in that.
I think people are delving deeper into this and I know a number of the the posts you put up, the videos you mentioned that actually, they are, can be used to actually combat cancer.
And I think that's what will resonate with a lot of people.
Yeah. And I really want to stress, so I don't get arrested because the FDA, seriously.
You're not a medical doctor. You're not a medical doctor.
But when I say anti-cancer, that is the conclusion that these peer-reviewed studies come to, so yeah, like I agree with you. I think there's it's a matter of urgency to get these, this evidence, I'll put it that way to people so they can decide for themselves, but what I would say here the the fundamental error in the western medical, post Rockefeller medical approach, I was in a store where they were selling these herbal treatments.
And I stumbled upon them because I live in Brooklyn now part time in a Caribbean and African neighbourhood basically where they have these, and Latin American, where I have these very intact herbalist traditions, right?
Like they never stopped. They remember what they're for. They use them appropriately. They never stopped.
So I'm in a Caribbean owned store and I'm looking at these teas and one of them is anti-cancer.
And I'm like, well, luckily I don't need that. And there was this beat as this guy looked at me like, you're an idiot.
And I kind of have realized on this journey of understanding how these herbs work, that that is a stupid way to think, right?
You take these treatments so that you won't need them, so that you keep your body in an optimal, immune state, so that it's efficiently dealing with getting rid of toxins or threats as you go through your day.
And I guess what I mean to say there is a lot of these herbs have multiple benefits, right? They're good for your circulation.
They're good for your immune system. They're anti-inflammatory.
Well, that's how our systems actually work.
You know, the does, it's not like just because there's like oncology over here and, you know, cardiology over here, it doesn't mean these are separate systems, right?
This was put in place by Rockefeller and the Flexner report and his funding of medical schools to be more about research as it turns out for for industry than healing, but healing is all interconnected.
So if you have an herb that's good for your circulation, it's anti-inflammatory, you know, it's likely to be good for other things as well.
Good for your mood, good for your sleep, et cetera.
So I guess I just want to confess that I was so indoctrinated that I too thought.
We're just a bunch of systems because that's how the West and Western medicine teaches us to think.
And we have to treat our symptoms, whereas many other traditions, including those that use herbs, understand that you're you're keeping the whole system in balance and working effectively. And that is a state of health.
Well, Rockefeller Medicine Man is next on my list after Privacy is Power, which I'm in the middle of reading at the moment.
So, yeah, that is definitely next. When I heard you mention one of your videos, I thought, oh, that's that's next on my list. Hey, I'm wondering, is there going to be a Cooking with Naomi Christmas book coming out? It would do well.
That's so funny. People do like the cooking. I was astonished that people liked my cooking videos because I think of myself as such a bad cook.
But I'm getting a little better.
Absolutely, I'm going to put these into a book. I think people deserve to know.
They deserve to know the science.
I mean, to your point, what is chemistry? And I promise I'll stop.
But the same chemistry that goes into showing a pharmaceutical intervention works, right, with all the nonsense we know go into those trials, that's the same chemistry that peer-reviewed studies show, mauby bark or guava leaves or avocado leaves also work, right?
It's all chemistry. They're not different kinds of things, which is how we're propagandized. They're medicines too.
Oh 100%. Well, Naomi, I always appreciate you coming on and I think every time it's a different subject.
I think that's the mark of you as a journalist, actually, going where the information leads and that can always be a different direction. But I've loved those videos.
So thank you so much for coming on and sharing some of your thoughts on that.
Thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate the conversation. Take care.
 

James Roguski - World Health Organization: Two Months to Flatten the WHO

Show notes and Transcript
James Roguski has been calling out lies and propaganda for decades.He believes it is every person's responsibility to question their most cherished beliefs, challenge claims of authority and disobey unjust laws and that is how we grow while remaining free and maintaining our integrity.In February 2022 the company that had hosted James's websites for over a decade deleted his account and tens of thousands of hours of his work. They gave no reason other than the content violated their “Terms of Service.”They may of deleted many of James's websites, but they ignited his passion to burn even brighter.If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then this interview and James's Substack are the places to be.
Connect with James...Substack             jamesroguski.substack.comWebsite               exitthewho.orgX                          twitter.com/jamesroguski
Interview recorded  29.3.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
TRANSCRIPT
(Hearts of Oak)
And I'm delighted to be joined by James Roguski today. James, thank you so much for your time today.
(James Roguski)
Oh, any time. I'm honoured that you'll have me share this information with you and your audience. And so thank you very much for having me.
Well, we're going to delve into all things WHO.
And people obviously can find you @JamesRoguski on, that is your Twitter handle.
And obviously Substack, it is again the same, just .substack.com.
On the end of your name all the links are in the description and I know that our audience will be interested and hungry for that information so you're an awesome source of information and thanks to Noor for actually connecting us when she said I know someone who knows all things WHO you need to have them on so although I don't really know Noor yet the answer is yes and then I delved into and found out, she was completely accurate.
So thank you to Noor for the introduction and connection.
But James, before we get into the topic WHO, can I just ask you to take a moment and introduce yourself to our guests?
Well, you know, you mentioned my Twitter handle, and I don't honestly really spend a lot of time on Twitter.
But if anybody goes to my Twitter account, you'll see that right at the top, I have my phone number and I encourage everybody to give me a phone call.
310-619-3055.
I'm in California. So, you know, wherever you may be, I'm that serious about what's going on with the WHO that if anybody out there, you know, wants to have a conversation, happy to do so, you know, reach out on telegram or signal or WhatsApp or phone call or text message or whatever it might be.
You know, we got connected through Noor, but I'm readily available because this is complicated. It's confusing. And what I have observed is that almost everybody gets a little tiny piece of information that's been mangled.
You know, the game of telephone, right?
You know, you tell somebody who tells somebody who tells somebody who tells somebody.
I just want people to get the facts. Don't believe anything I say.
All I've been doing is pointing to the WHO's documents and their video recordings of their meetings and going, hey, did you see that? Did you see what they said?
Now, I obviously have opinions and happy to share my opinions with you.
But what I encourage everybody to do is to go to the source.
Read the darn documents don't listen to hear, you know hearsay, it's funny I hear I have a lot of people reach out to me and they go, oh did you hear what so-and-so said I'm like okay that might be a clue but by definition that is hearsay if you hear somebody say something interesting and you dig in and you find the source, man, 99 times out of 100 the source is a little bit different than what what you heard somebody say about the source.
So don't trust me, right? I think I'm trustworthy, but don't trust me.
Don't take my word for it.
The problem that we're dealing with is people hear something, they accept it, and then when they're greeted with the actual source, factual documents, it conflicts with the confusing thing they heard somebody say, and they don't wanna let go of their initial understanding, one of the hardest things in the world to do is to unlearn something that you thought you knew but maybe where you got that information was a little bit mangled.
So be careful out there
I agree too often our feelings are to accept things and to assume things and I always whenever I see someone posting something I, with so many memes you kind of think think, okay, is that accurate?
And delve into it. And you're right. Then you find out whether it's true and you're not repeating hearsay, which can be extremely dangerous.
But James, WHO, how did you, before we get into kind of what it is, and I do want to give that kind of overview to the audience, because I think it's important to put together the piece of the jigsaw.
And I know you delve deeply into many different parts of it on your Substack, but how on earth did the WHO come on your radar and how did you decide that I tell you what I think I want to delve into this and make this a large part of my life to understand it and expose it?
I'll have to thank some invisible sensor out in the world. I have been talking about natural health for 30 years and written a number of books and you know had many many many many websites.
And in 2022, I learned that the FDA on, if my memory is correct, I believe it was January 21st, 2022, that the FDA approved outpatient injections for infants to receive Remdesivir.
And my head exploded. And I wrote a couple of articles on websites that I had.
And a couple of days later, I got an email from my website hosting provider that I had been with for like a decade and everything was gone.
And I was like, Oh, must've been right over the target with that one. Okay.
And I, I have to say, I was a little bit happy with myself because I was like, Oh, all right.
I guess this is one of those midlife crisis change of, you know, direction things that the universe is trying to tell me something.
And so, I ended up, I had many, many websites and they were all gone and rather than rebuild them, I'm like, okay, fine.
What should I be doing? And I ended up on Substack. So jamesrugoski.substack.com.
And I started writing on Substack and I got to give credit where credit is due.
I bumped into an article by Shabnam Palaisa Muhammad, who's connected to many, many things, but she's also with World Council for Health.
And she had started started talking about something that had happened really on December 1st, 2021.
So this was February 2022.
And I ended up doing about a month's worth of research.
And on March 24th, so slightly more than a year, two years ago, I published a big article about what was going on with the proposed pandemic treaty.
And I thought I was done with it. And four days later, would have been two years ago yesterday, I woke up at four in the morning and I was compelled to go searching for something.
And I found a website that had a document and it said, we've obtained this document.
And the document was hyperlinked. So I clicked on it and I went down the rabbit hole and I started reading the document and I just got a massive shiver down my spine.
I'm like, wait a minute, what is this?
It wasn't anything to do with the treaty. It was amendments to another existing document called the International Health Regulations.
It had been submitted to the WHO more than two months prior in January.
And it was to be discussed in May, which was, a month and pretty much two months away.
And I'm like, nobody's talking about this. What the heck is this?
And it was the Biden administration trying to do many things.
They had a number of different amendments, but what they were mainly trying to do was shorten the time period through which any future amendments might be put into effect.
Currently that's two years, they wanted to shorten it to six months.
And I'm like, okay, what does that mean? what's coming?
And down the rabbit hole I went and I haven't gotten out of the WHO rabbit hole since.
I've got a slogan for myself. I want to get out of the WHO and on with the new, but we've got two months to flatten the WHO they're shooting to, they're hoping to adopt amendments to the international health regulations and a new pandemic treaty, two separate things. And it's really important to keep those things separate.
May 27th to June 1st is their yearly world health assembly.
And so for the next two months, just trying to raise everyone's awareness of what it is they're trying to do.
Well we'll get on to the pandemic treaty and a lot has been made out of it, I think it was the World Council for Health had that petition in the UK and we'll maybe touch on some of that but we, I mean you've got this organization, a massive power grab and I don't think many people will have had any idea of this and the role this played, I mean it's 75 year history probably most people don't even know it's a UN organization and the power it had I think maybe the WEF is higher on people's radar where the WHO seems to have been much under it and I mean just give us a little bit of a snapshot and I know you've looked into the the current proposals.
But there's 75 years of history of this organization, but it seems to be having a massive power grab, certainly COVID time.
But what about the organization itself? Because we're told it's just a benign organization, but it doesn't seem so.
I don't know if anything in life is benign. It all depends on what is going on with it.
So you've really got to go back almost to the Civil War in the United States and the 1800s where –, If you think about living in a world where you ride a horse, okay, and you don't have a toilet that goes into a wastewater sewage treatment system, okay, you know, manure everywhere.
People who lived in cities would have a chamber pot, maybe throw it out the window in the gutter.
I can only imagine, I've heard stories about the stench, you know, of the River Seine in Paris.
Getting control in large cities of everyone's excrement is what really cleaned up a lot of infectious disease.
Okay. And so from the 1800s, early 1900s, all the way through World War II, after World War II, when the WHO was brought into being, and in 1951, they sort of organized the sanitary regulations.
We kind of take a lot of things for granted right now, but the pathogens found in excrement from animals and humans are a problem.
Well, we don't really deal with that so much anymore.
And the fallacy of all of the many childhood diseases that just plummeted in the 1800s, 1900s, you know, after World War II, they were primarily gone.
And then started jabbing people and they gave credit to the jabs for what sanitation actually did.
And so fast forward to 1969, I don't know how old you are, so I'll have a little fun with you.
Where were you and what were you doing when the moon landing happened in July of 1969?
I was just a thought somewhere. I wasn't around. 77 is my birthday.
Okay. I was a nine-year-old boy. I was born in 1960.
And I was watching, you know, black and white feed from maybe it was the moon, maybe it was the Hollywood soundstage, whatever.
At that same time in July of 1969, the 22nd World Health Assembly was going on in Boston.
And five days after the moon shot, or the moon landing, they agreed to the international health regulations.
That was sort of an update on the sanitary regulations.
Nobody was paying attention. Nobody read them. Nobody ever ratified them.
What they put in there, all of the diplomats who met said, okay, you know, we've agreed to all of this.
And if nobody objects, it'll be international law.
So it wasn't the case that the UK parliament or the Senate of the United States or any other body around the world considered it and voted to, you know.
What they put in there was, we'll give everybody nine months to object to it.
And if nobody objects, then we're good.
So on the first day of January 1971, it went into legally binding effect.
Everybody's kind of default, ignored it, and it was now international law.
Fast forward to 2005, after 9-11, after the anthrax scare, after SARS-1, they made a whole bunch of changes in 2005.
And that went into effect in 2007. So for 17 years or so, we've been under the international health regulations.
Raise your hand, everybody, if you've read them. Okay.
Why would you, who, you know, two and a half years ago, I had no idea.
Okay. So I can, understand why that's just mysterious.
Well, the idea behind the 2005 regulations was they wanted nations to feel comfortable, not just seeing if someone who was traveling at the border was bringing in leprosy or smallpox or whatever, checking ships to see if they're infested with with rats or, you know, other vectors that might bring some kind of disease.
They also wanted nations to set up an office in their nation to surveil their health system.
To say, you know, if something's going on, you know, I've talked to many people in the UK and where all the mussel beds and oyster shells and all the many seafood areas around the coast, with the sewage not being as well processed as it might be, you get E. Coli infections and things like that.
So they want the nations to immediately notify the WHO if something is going on, not just at a border crossing, but inside the country.
And on one level, you go, you know, that's just, okay, we got a problem.
As a good member of the international community, you tell the WHO, if it's deemed to be a public health emergency of international concern, P-H-E-I-C, or fake, the director general can alert the world that you've got a problem.
On a certain level, much of that makes sense.
And we've been operating under that rule, those rules since 2007.
When COVID hit, it all went out the window. Everybody panicked, right?
Oh, you know, something's going on in China.
And everybody went nuts. They threw their plans out the window.
They started making rules out of thin air to do lockdowns and social distancing.
Just an absolute mess.
Okay. And so there was a call to strengthen the international health regulations because everybody ignored them.
Right. And the, one of the biggest issues that triggered these negotiations, it didn't trigger it necessarily, but it certainly is embedded deeply into it.
If you can recall when South Africa and Botswana said that they had found a very different variant called Omicron, and they publicly quickly said, hey, look what we found.
And Europe, and I think the UK, I'm not 100% sure about the UK, but European Union, you know, travel lockdowns. Oh, you know, no more travel to South Africa.
Well, that's what the international health regulations were supposed to prevent.
Don't punish nations for being honest.
But that's what happened. And then the real kick in the balls, quite frankly, from their point of view, was Pfizer and Moderna put that into the boosters and made a couple of billions of dollars.
And so what we're dealing with here is not what people think it is.
What we're dealing with here is a trade dispute.
We're dealing with an understanding that, wait a minute, the international health regulations are supposed to encourage transparency.
Hey, we got a problem.
But what's being negotiated is not, how do you deal with that problem?
How do you give someone good early treatment? How do you let doctors be doctors and deal with the patient in front of them?
You know, there's all these many, many issues.
And so the confusion has been enormous because there's, on one hand, amendments to the international health regulations.
But on the other hand, there's a whole new agreement that they would like to have passed, two separate related but separate tracks.
And almost everybody's getting them all co-mingled and confused.
And so I'll stop right there for that.
That's the setup, right? The reason why these negotiations are happening is because the relatively poor nations like South Africa and Botswana said, hey, we identified something. We turned it over to you.
You put travel restrictions to hurt our economy and then you took that information and made billions of dollars off of it.
Oh, hell no. That ain't happening again.
Okay. That is what these negotiations are really all about. And then it gets worse from there.
It's not about your health or, you know, what you should do to maintain or optimize or regain your health.
This is a business deal and it's an evil, evil business deal.
Well, I can, I want to get to the session they've just had and you have titled it, the spirit of Geneva, which I know is a reference used many times in it, and that's on your latest sub-stack.
But looking at the WHO, it seems to be, I think we've learned a lot, the relationship the governments have with Big Pharma, with the mass lobby power of Big Pharma, I think has been exposed to many people during the COVID tyranny.
And I'm guessing the WHO is no different and very much part of that collusion with Big Pharma to assist in making money.
Because in the West, obviously, this is the opposite of your thinking, your background.
The thinking we're told now is you've got a problem. Don't worry, there are drugs to treat it manufactured by a mass company that will make a ton of money from you.
No conversation about health, style, lifestyle, diet, anything like that.
So it does seem as if the WHO are very much part of that big pharma global entity.
I have dubbed what's going on with this negotiations for the new treaty, and maybe we'll talk about that first, as the new OPEC.
OPEC currently stands for the oil producing and exporting countries, Saudi Arabia and so forth.
Well, the new OPEC, in my view, is the Organization of Pandemic Emergency Corporations.
If you think about this from a business perspective, if you were doing some sort of thesis or something at a business school, or I don't know if people in your audience are familiar with United States television program called Shark Tank, where entrepreneurs pitch their business idea, right?
If 10 years ago you said, hey, I got this business idea, we'll put a bunch of letters in a data file, and we'll say that that's the genetic sequence of a deadly pathogen.
And we'll then wrap that up in a lipid nanoparticle and say that if we get your body to make that pathogenic compound, to get your immune system to attack your own body, to trigger immunity to this deadly pathogen, we can scare everybody, get governments to put billions of dollars into our business model, and we'll be billionaires.
You'd have probably gotten laughed off stage. You probably would have failed your business school course.
But wait a minute. That's what just happened.
Well, that's a really good business model. And I got clued in to great detail in November of 2022.
I was actually waiting and trying to find, I had put in freedom of information requests and they were being denied.
By that time, the treaty had first come out in July and then again in November.
But the amendments that were not the ones Biden proposed, but a whole new batch of amendments had been submitted, but they were being kept secret.
So I was looking all over the place to try to find information.
And I watched the Indonesian health minister speak before the B20 meeting, not the G20, the 20 biggest countries, but the business leaders from the 20 biggest countries.
And he had advanced information about something that was going to be happening the next month in December.
And what he told the audience was, hey, United States and a whole bunch of other nations, they're about to implement through the World Bank, the pandemic fund, got a multi-billion dollar fund.
And this is a great business opportunity. Go invest.
Well, invest in what?
Pandemic-related products and the industry that surrounds them.
Testing, laboratory, genetic analysis, anything related to pandemic-related products was viewed as a potential growth industry because the nations were putting together this multi-billion dollar fund and contracts were going to have to be dished out.
The next month, the Congress of the U.S. passed and President Biden signed the National Defense Authorization Act.
Well, that pledged $5 billion a year from the U.S. Defense Department to oversee the global health security agenda, which is a build out of, you know, bio labs and the one health approach, which is predicated on the, I think, misguided belief.
Oh, well, you know what happened in Wuhan is, you know, a bat and a pangolin got together and somebody had some soup in a wet market in Wuhan.
And that's why we got a pandemic as opposed to, Hey, wait a minute.
People were going to bat caves in some other part of China, bringing the guano or whatever they use to get the pathogens. And they're messing with them in the lab.
Maybe that's where the problem started. Who the heck knows at this point, right?
But what they want to do is shut down, you know, animal, trade with wild animal meats or domestic animal, you know, oh, you're going to get sick because you're eating meat and there's going to be some pathogen in there and it's going to transfer to humans and we're all going to die.
So the solution is let's go find those pathogens and bring them into a whole WHO coordinated laboratory network where if we identify a pathogen, we'll put that into the pathogen access and benefit sharing system, stamp it with our information so that if anybody turns that into a product, we get to share the benefits.
And we'll put the WHO in charge of a global distribution and logistics network to distribute the products.
Well, if you've ever worked retail, you know that if you have a lot of products in storage, you've got to rotate your stock.
So if you've got pandemic related products sitting in a big old warehouse, they proudly talk about their 20,000 square meter distribution hub in Dubai.
That's four football fields.
Okay. How many contracts could you disperse amongst your cronies to fill four football fields with pandemic related products?
Well, that's not good enough. You got to rotate that stock.
You need an emergency here and an early action alert and a pandemic and this and that and the other to move those products, get them either jabbed into people's arms or, or use the gloves, or use the tests, or whatever it might be.
What we're dealing with here is organized crime and racketeering and a business model that needs another pandemic.
Let's go look for it. They call it a pathogen with pandemic potential.
Whenever I hear that phrase, my mind says, well, that's a pathogen with pandemic profiteering potential.
Let's go find something scary.
Scare the people who will be scared by that kind of thing. People will line up to get jabbed or take drugs or whatever it might be.
What it's really predicated on is an argument from the relatively poor nations who, when the jabs rolled out in 2021, they couldn't afford to get contracts to buy the jabs.
Canada bought 400 million jabs for 40 million people.
European Union did a few text messages and cut a deal and bought up gobs and gobs. So the smaller nations, while they gave the information about Omicron, they couldn't beg, borrow, or buy, get a contract for any of the jams.
They should be down on their knees praising God that they were so lucky that they missed out.
But they also missed out on the profits.
And that's what these negotiations are about. Nobody, nobody has had the guts to go, excuse me, the jabs didn't work.
They didn't stop infection. They didn't stop transmission.
They deranged people's immune system. Now we've got, you know, disease, disability, and death, excess deaths, sudden deaths.
Why are we arguing that we want investment to build out mRNA manufacturing plants?
You know, send a container from Germany to build a manufacturing plant, you know, in Rwanda or wherever they're setting this up.
They're not questioning the flaws in the treatment, right?
They want more ventilators and more midazolam and more, you know, Paxlovid and Molnupiravir or whatever the next drug, you know, Remdesivir, whatever it might be.
They missed out on the the profit of being able to produce that and poison their own people with it, but they don't seem to understand what probably most of your audience understands, that they did quite better than the nations who did all of the pharmaceutical treatments.
On the WHO's own website, site, if you look at the stats, on a population basis, there's about a billion people in North and South America.
There's about a half a billion in Europe, and there's over a billion in Africa.
16 times as many people in North and South America died and their deaths were attributed to COVID when compared to Africa.
And in Europe, it's like 30 times.
We should be exporting whatever they did into our systems, but that's not profitable.
So they're trying to export what killed many, many more people into their nations so that they can profit from it.
And the cognitive dissonance and the just bias in their thinking were if you stood up in one of the rooms where they're having these meetings and you said, excuse me, are you people absolutely insane?
Why do you want the thing that doesn't work and causes health problems?
Oh, wait a minute. It's very profitable.
What they want is the wealthy nations, United States, UK, Canada, European Union, Australia, the global north, which is not a geographical thing.
It's a line of of wealthy versus poor.
They want the global north to put a bunch of money into a big fund.
I actually think the WHO has fund envy.
They're looking at the United States and the WHO pandemic fund, and they want to have a bigger fund, you know, $30 billion a year that they can distribute to oligarchs in poor nations to build out what I call the other fake.
You know, they talk about the Public Health Emergency of International Concern, PHEIC, and I talk about the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex.
They want poor people in rich nations to either take their tax dollars or debt money, put it into a fund that they control to give to oligarchs in poor nations under the premise that looking for pathogens, bringing them into the laboratory and turning them into pandemic-related products is how you would stop the next pandemic.
Well, how about good, clean water and healthy food and essential medications and nutrition and maybe herbs and some vitamins? How about that?
Well, that's just nowhere near as profitable.
There are lots I'd like to pick up on you, but I will hold myself back.
And I will ask you for what's been happening the last number of days.
And that is the ninth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, which most of the public will not know this group has ever met once, never mind nine times or whatever it is.
And that's, I think, how a lot of these organizations wanted to be.
But that was going to finish on the 28th.
So we record this Good Friday, so yesterday.
And they don't seem to have come to an agreement. So I think you're saying it's going to resume again end of April for another 10, 12 days.
What exactly was the international governmental negotiating body negotiating and what exactly did they not, were they not able to agree on?
Pretty much what I was just talking about. They were negotiating the new agreement.
Many people call it a treaty, but it's really not properly called a treaty.
It's a framework convention, think framework convention for climate change.
That was an agreement that was reached in 1992.
And year after year after year, unelected, unaccountable, unknown bureaucrats get together.
They have a conference of the parties and they would decide how to dish out all this money, have all the contracts to fill up the distribution hubs with whatever they think they need for whatever pandemic they're looking for.
And so the problem that they're having are many. I'll try to summarize it this way.
They keep saying that it's a member nation-led series of negotiations.
Well, what they've been doing is they get together, they talk, they submit for two years now, whatever their input would be.
And then the six members of the the Bureau, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Bodies Bureau, one from each region of the WHO, would then craft a new version of the treaty.
Well, that was the wrong way to do it if they were really trying to reach an honest agreement, because what has consistently happened is when they came back with each new version, all of the member nations said, well, did you not hear what what we told you we wanted in that treaty, you ignored us, right?
Back in April, they did this, and there was a 208-page compilation text that was everything that all the nation said they wanted.
And rather than make that public, they kept that hidden forever.
They came out with a 43-page Bureau's text.
Well, you can't eliminate 200, you know, take 208 pages and boil it down to 43 and keep everybody happy.
So all summer long in 2023, they were arguing about that. They came out with another one in October.
Same thing. They came out with another one in February. Same thing.
In these past couple of weeks of negotiations, it was the first time that they took the Bureau's draft submission and treated it as a negotiating text.
And so in these past two weeks, they started with a 29-page document that looked all nice nice and clean, you know, here's what it is.
But it didn't reflect what the nations actually said that they wanted.
It was all sugar-coated and sweet looking, but it didn't actually say what the nations had been telling them they wanted.
So in the last two weeks, that ballooned up to 140 pages with over 5,000 text edits.
It's the first time the nations actually got to have them, you know, put that in and they're going to go back and do the same dumb thing.
They're going to have the Bureau take that 140 page document and have them try to winnow it down to probably even smaller than 30 pages because they're desperate to just get any agreement.
Because if they get any agreement and it's a framework convention, then next year they can add whatever they want to add.
It's like signing a blank check or an empty contract.
If you were contracting with somebody to do something, and at the last minute they said, hey, you know what?
Let's just sign on the dotted line. I've got all these blank pieces of paper.
We'll figure this out next year. Just agree, and we'll have other people work out the details later.
That's insane. But that's what they're trying to ram through.
And tell us how there has been some pushback on this WHO power grab in the UK media.
We had that petition. And I know there's a pandemic treaty, there's international health regulations.
And I know, I don't want to confuse them, but also want to simplify them.
Maybe another time we can delve even deeper into this.
But there is a slow awareness, but yet governments seem to be very willing.
And I guess the government doesn't want to be left behind.
It has to join in the club and agree.
It doesn't want to have any punishments or any negative response from Big Pharma.
You know, if they don't sign this, then I can imagine the UK being told by Pfizer, well, you may not get the drug at that cheap price.
It may be double the price for you. So I'm sure there's pushing behind the scenes.
But how does it, I think I've watched some of your videos talking about, and you've mentioned the beginning, this automatically comes in, that it's not that governments opt into it, it's kind of they need to opt out of it.
And if they don't put up their hand, disagree, it automatically becomes part of the laws of each country.
To clarify all of that, again, it is important to start with the awareness that there's two separate negotiations, okay?
And so in the UK, very specifically, it's a little bit unique in how international agreements are concluded and agreed upon and put into force.
And so in other countries, it's very, very different. So everybody needs to take this with the proverbial grain of salt, depending upon where you live.
In the UK, what is supposed to happen is the executive branch of government, the foreign minister, the health minister, the prime minister, whoever is given the authority from the crown to approve or adopt any international agreement is supposed to then have the foreign development and Trade Office, submit it for 21 days to Parliament, not to be approved, but to be reviewed and potentially rejected.
If they just sit on their butt for 21 days and don't do anything, you missed your chance too late.
Okay, so that's for any new agreement. With the international health regulations, it's cooked into the IHR from 1969 and 2005.
If your nation and your executive branch sends a delegate to the yearly World Health Assembly and they agree to regulation changes or amendments to the international health regulations, it's assumed that you're good with it unless the executive, you know, head head of state, writes a letter to the WHO and says, nope, we reject them.
And so in 2022, they tried to pull a fast one.
They submitted amendments in violation of Article 55, which says you've got to give four months notice.
They submitted amendments to five articles on May 24th, 2022, four days later, they concocted a fake document saying that they adopted them, but they never voted.
And nobody, with the exception of Rob Roos and 11 other members of the European Parliament, on November 28th, 2023, they wrote a letter to Tedros and they said, said, hey, you guys purportedly adopted these amendments in May of 2022, but there's no record that you ever voted.
Silence. November. So what is that? Four, five months now, four months, five months.
They don't really seem to care because the propaganda and the hypnosis, they just keep saying, well, we adopted these amendments. No, you didn't.
Not by any proper voting means that anybody's been able to find.
And so they don't really seem to care about rules.
Article 55 said that they should have submitted a final package of amendments by January 27th, 2024, four months in advance of their May meeting.
Well, they just blew that off and they're still negotiating.
So to wrap this up and let everybody know what's coming in April, from April 22nd to the 26th, they're supposed to have the last week of negotiations about the amendments, which we we haven't really spent too, too much time talking about.
And what's of great concern to me in the amendments is they want to make it easier to quarantine people when they're traveling internationally.
Look at article 24 and 27 and articles 35, 36, 37, and annexes, you know, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight, they want the WHO to be the one to determine which vaccines can be required.
They're not requiring them.
They would be the ones who decide if the nation you're traveling to, when you disembark, if they say, well, you got to take a rapid antigen test, or you got to show that you've gotten this jab, or boom, you're in quarantine.
The WHO's international health regulations have almost always been about restricting international travel, and now they want to add quarantine to the language that was not there before.
Now, that's not your doctor and you.
Whatever people are talking about in terms of mandates and mask mandates and any kind of lockdowns or social distancing, no one in the UK, no one in the United States, no one in any nation around the world needed any amendments or a new treaty to abuse your rights and freedoms over the last four years.
So the concern about that is local.
What is your local health official doing? What is your local city council or mayor or school board or medical review board?
What is your hospital making their doctors do, the NHS or whatever it might be? Those issues are very, very local.
The amendments are about international travel and quarantining.
You know, you get off the cruise boat and your vacation might go to crap in a heartbeat because you didn't pass the test that the WHO authorized and the nation you're visiting requires.
The treaty is a big money game.
It's just corruption. Let's get rich nations to put billions of dollars to build out the infrastructure in poor nations so all our cronies can make a bunch of money because they missed out the first time.
And so in the end of April, from the 29th of April to I believe May 10th, they've scheduled a new additional two weeks worth of negotiations on the treaty because they're having a hell of a time, meaning the greed on both sides is causing great difficulty in reaching an agreement on how to distribute all of the billions of dollars that they want to collect to run this criminal operation.
So we've got two months to flatten the WHO, and I have every faith that people around the world can see through this.
They're not addressing the real issues of what it is that people need to do to be healthy.
They're just trying to redistribute the wealth under the guise of preventing the next pandemic.
But I'm pretty sure that going out looking for pathogens and bringing them into laboratories to do gain of function and then create more biological weapon mRNA jabs that local people can manufacture and profit from.
I think that's how you profiteer from the next pandemic, not how you prevent it.
100% and can I just remind people of James Substack, jamesroguski.substack.com, piece every day and it is, when I looked into it I thought this is good and then as I've looked into it further I think it's probably the go-to place to understand what exactly is happening with the World Health Organization.
So to our viewers and listeners, make sure, sign up and make that your go-to place for understanding the WHO.
Jim, just as we finish, as the viewers, the listeners go and make use of your Substack and read it.
And I'm amazed at the, always at the time that people put into those articles, I've gotten into doing videos, actually writing, that is a whole other skill.
And the work, the effort, the research that you put in on each individual article is phenomenal.
But what do you want the viewers, the listeners, how do they respond?
What is your point in that? It's educating, and then they take that information.
And what can they do with it? Where do they go with that then?
Well, step number one is to understand what the heck is going on.
And, I think we gave a pretty decent summary.
And so the easy answer for the people watching this video is take the link to this video and share it like you've never shared anything in your life.
OK, what's going on is all of these many documents are getting confused and people are talking about all kinds of different things.
The documents are changing, you know, on an ongoing basis.
They've got amendments and treaties last year and this year.
If you just share this video and I don't mean just post it on Facebook and walk away and think that Facebook is gonna knock on everybody's door and go, Hey did you see this okay, If you have a phone and you have a contact list, take the link and start with a, Ann and Bob and Carol and Doug and Emily and Fred and on down the list, if there's a person that you don't share this video with you're censoring this information.
They're not going to find it on the mainstream news. They're probably not going to find it on most alternative news. They're probably going to get it wrong.
Now, I've put all of this information in exitthewho.org.
I've been working with people in dozens of countries around the world.
So if you want the mother load, right, Go to exitthewho.org.
But what we've just done here is a reasonable summary of what the heck is going on.
For most people, this is enough to alert them, hey, you ought to pay attention.
You got two months from about now to when they're meeting.
Spread the word. Take this video, share it. Take that video, share it. Share it, share it, share it.
I'll leave you with a math problem. Okay. If you tell a hundred people and they do the same and they do the same through five levels of referral, five degrees of separation, a hundred to the fifth power is 10 billion.
So if you share this and other people share this, it could go viral overnight.
And so you could be sharing a TikTok video of your cat doing something funny.
OK, or you could be sharing this with everybody, you know, go from A to Z, send them a text message, then go to your email account and send this video to everybody that, you know, via email.
And then if you have a social media account, you can post it on there, but go to your direct messages and direct messages to everybody that you've got a friend or a follower or whatever it might be.
And then call up everybody you've got a phone number for and go, hey, I texted you, I emailed you, I DM'd you, are you okay?
You know, what do you think about this video that I just sent you?
And if they don't care, that's okay.
You can spend your time trying to convince them, right? Or you can blame me for not being able to convince them.
Take the easy road. And there will be some people who go, oh my God, I had no idea this was going on. Thank you so very much.
Work with the willing, organize your actions.
There's on exitthewho.org. It's an activist toolbox. There's an endless list of things you can do.
And my phone number is in every article. If you have a question, I'm in California.
So you got to use whatever codes you need to use or signal or telegram or WhatsApp, send me a text message, whatever it might be if you have any questions be more than happy to help you but it starts with awareness.
And so you can do your part just by making as many people as you possibly can aware of this discussion that we just had.
Well James once again thank you for giving us your time expanding on that and all those links will be in the description for the viewers and listeners to make use of and to pass on to share and to encourage friends family colleagues to actually delve into the subject and understand what we all face worldwide.
So thank you, James, for your time.
Thank you, Peter.

The Week According To . . . Ben Harnwell

As we bid 'arrivederci' to the month of March we are glad to be joined once again by the International Editor of Steve Bannon's WarRoom, Ben Harnwell.Ben has his finger on the pulse of all that is happening and has even been making headlines himself, which we will cover in this episode as we look at some of the news and talking points from the past seven days including...- Big Win for Ben: Steve Bannon wants to open MAGA 'gladiator schools' after Harnwell wins a legal battle in Italy.- It’s time we talked about the fall of Kyiv.- Gaza: Security Council passes resolution demanding ‘an immediate ceasefire’ during Ramadan.- An Italian town is struggling to sell off its empty homes for one euro each.- UK chancellor defends remarks about high salaries after being criticised for being out of touch.- Teacher loses claim of unfair dismissal after 'humiliating' student over preferred pronouns.- Why Steve Bannon's WarRoom remains a juggernaut.- Ramadan lights in London, no mention of Easter. At what point is enough enough?- Councils flying transgender flag to support Trans Day of Visibility
In the two years between December 2006 and December 2008, Benjamin Harnwell was engaged in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Dignity, consulting widely with various experts around the world. This work was drawn to a conclusion on 8 December 2008, when (with Gay Mitchell MEP) he founded the European Parliament’s Working Group on Human Dignity (of which he remains Honorary Secretary); and on the same date, simultaneously established (with Nirj Deva MEP) the Dignitatis Humanae Institute (of which he is Director).The Working Group was publicly launched on 25 March 2009 by European Parliament Speaker Dr. Hans-Gert Pöttering MEP (now a Patron of the Dignitatis Humanae Institute). The DHI has since been engaged in launching parallel parliamentary working groups on human dignity in various legislatures around the world, all based on the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Dignity.Ben was the Chief of Staff to Nirj Deva MEP until the end of 2010, since which point he is now based permanently in Rome, directing the development of the DHI. When involved in politics, he was an active member of the British Conservative Party for over 15 years. Benjamin identifies himself philosophically as an Austro-libertarian, co-founding (with Vincent de Roeck) the European Parliament’s Mises Circle, which exists to promote greater recognition of the Austrian School of Economics; he also co-founded the international Right Approach Group (with Patrick Barron), to explore free-market solutions to contemporary problems.In 2002 and 2004, Ben was seconded to Colombo as Special Advisor to Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.H.E. Mons. Sánchez Sorondo, Bishop Chancellor of the Pontifical Academies of Science and Social Sciences, appointed Ben External Counsellor in 2016.Since February 2018 Harnwell, as director of the DHI, is also the director of the Abbey of Trisulti, founded in AD 1204 and National Monument of Italy since 1873.From October 2021 to date Ben serves as international editor at “Steve Bannon’s War Room” on the number 1 ranked US political podcast.
Connect with Ben...GETTR                gettr.com/user/harnwellX                         x.com/ben_harnwellWAR ROOM        warroom.org/
Recorded 30.3.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
Links to topics...gladiator schools https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13170455/steve-bannon-gladiator-schools-italy-maga-politicians.html Kyiv https://archive.ph/9HWzjGaza ceasefire’ during Ramadan https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147931Italian homes one euro https://edition.cnn.com/travel/patrica-italy-town-one-euro-homes-struggle/index.htmlJeremy Hunt https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/24/jeremy-hunt-doubles-down-on-100k-a-year-doesnt-go-far-claimpronouns https://www.gbnews.com/news/teacher-loses-claim-of-unfair-dismissal-pronounsBannon's WarRoom  https://x.com/gc22gc/status/1772265343265734879?s=20media's 12 splintering realities https://www.axios.com/2024/03/25/news-media-filter-bubble-different-realitiessame sex marriage https://x.com/David_Cameron/status/1773636628382155214?s=20Ramadan at Easter   https://x.com/DVATW/status/1773281910967390625?s=20Trans Day  https://x.com/NewcastleCC/status/1772942201049235851?s=20

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

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

Karys Rhea - How UNRWA Perpetuates the Palestinian Refugee Myth

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