Hearts of Oak Podcast

Right Said Fred LIVE: A Discussion on Freedom of Speech, COVID and Lockdowns

The Winston Smith Literary Review Presents...
An Evening With Right Said Fred: A Discussion on Freedom of Speech, COVID and Lockdowns
LIVE FROM Wallingford Town Hall Nr Oxford, England
Right Said Fred are one of the UK’s most enduring pop exports. Since forming in 1989, brothers Fred and Richard Fairbrass, have a list of achievements as songwriters and a band that include number #1 hits in 70 countries, they were also the first band to reach the number one slot in the US with a debut single since The Beatles.As multi-platinum award winning artists and songwriters, their global sales total 30 million and over 100 million plays on Spotify.They have writing credits on Taylor Swift and Sofi Tukker’s songs, their music has been featured in over 50 films and TV Shows and in excess of 100 commercials.The boys have performed with Bob Dylan, Mick Jagger and David Bowie plus plaudits from Madonna, Jay Z, and Prince to name but a few.30+ years on and 10 studio albums later, The Freds have found a new legion of fans with their no-nonsense views during the Covid ‘pandemic’ regarding lockdowns, masks, vaccines, nonsensical rules and all the regurgitated hysteria that surrounds it.They have been a staple feature at the huge anti-lockdown and freedom protests seen in London and have shown their integrity on their social media and in interviews, pointing out and challenging all the lies, scaremongering and hypocrisies that have been forced upon the population from the government and the main stream media.Right Said Fred are living proof that two music-loving brothers with an ear for a hit, plenty of passion, self-belief and a bit of critical thinking can defy all expectations and conquer the world – long live The Freds!
Connect with The Freds...Website https://rightsaidfred.com/Twitter https://twitter.com/TheFreds?s=20&t=T8cGz5XgcsB5VCkFi8p0dgGETTR https://gettr.com/user/thefredsFacebook https://www.facebook.com/rightsaidfredInstagram https://instagram.com/rightsaidfredofficialSpotify https://open.spotify.com/artist/15ajdFAi5bjj5pS9laBfBL?si=TRsoosqjT6Wjml--SwEinQYouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/RIGHTSAIDFREDUK
Follow Winston Smith Literary Review on Facebookhttps://www.facebook.com/WinstonSmithLiteraryReview/?ti=as
Streaming LIVE exclusively on Hearts of OakRecorded 28.9.23
*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 GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and on X https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Please subscribe, like and share!

Andrew Bridgen MP - A Bridgen Too Far for the UK Government

Show notes and Transcript
Andrew Bridgen MP is one of those rare individuals in UK politics. He is driven by convictions and critical thinking as opposed to fame and power which is the norm in Westminster (or on Capital Hill I assume). He was an absolute Brexiteer and led part of that campaign for The UK to have freedom from the EU. He joins Hearts of Oak to discuss how he fought for Brexit all through his political life, but his biggest battle has been against the Covid Tyranny imposed on us by the UK government. Andrew spoke up for all who have been vaccine injured and for that he was thrown out of the Conservative party and vilified in the media. But the Conservatives loss was the gain of The Reclaim Party as he now represents them as the MP for North West Leicestershire.His bravery and boldness is plain for all to see and as long as we have people like Andrew Bridgen in Parliament, we have a glimmer of hope in the UK.
Andrew Bridgen was elected in 2010 after spending 25 years running his successful family business, AB Produce, based in the constituency at Measham. Prior to this Andrew attended local state schools and Nottingham University. He has also trained as an officer in the Royal Marines. During his time in Parliament, Andrew has been a prolific speaker and has campaigned on a variety of local and national issues in Parliament. Locally Andrew campaigned for grant funding to bring all of NW Leics District Council housing up to the Decent Homes Standards.Andrew has also campaigned for better transport infrastructure which led to the duelling of the A453 and the planned electrification of the midland mainline. He has also worked with business and community groups to bring down the rate of unemployment in the District, as well as holding a jobs fair. On a national level, Andrew led the successful campaigns to decriminalise non-payment of the TV Licence and to scrap Air Passenger Duty for Children. He has also used his business experience to serve on the Regulatory Reform Committee as well as the Deregulation and the Enterprise Bill committee.
Connect with Andrew...X: https://x.com/ABridgen?s=20The Reclaim Party: https://www.reclaimparty.co.uk/andrew-bridgen
Interview recorded 22.9.23
*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 GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Please subscribe, like and share!
Transcript
(Hearts of Oak)
Andrew Bridgen, it is wonderful to speak to you today. Thank you so much for your time.
(Andrew Bridgen MP)
Yeah, you're welcome. 
Andrew Bridgen, of course you can find him @ABridgen on Twitter and he has served as Member of Parliament for North West Leicestershire since 2010, re-elected 2015, 2017 and 2019 with a whopping 62% off the vote, one of the few MPs with anywhere near that. Obviously, thrown out of the Conservative Party, the whip removed, and then that was in April 2023 for raising concerns on the Covid jab, and Andrew now represents the Reclaim Party in Parliament as an MP.Andrew, may I ask you first, what got you into politics? You entered Parliament in 2010.What made you think it would be a good idea to get into politics?
Frustration, Peter, and I've been running a business for 22 years, which would start it up the thousand pounds. So I've been I've been MD and chairman of the company and we built it up to 25 million turnover company employing 300 people by 2006. And I'd give, I'd been interested in politics. I joined the Conservatives in 1983 at Nottingham University.And I'd been chairman of the Institute of Directors and on the council of the IOD in Pall Mall, and through working during the Blair years with the East Midlands Regional Assembly as a business member. Obviously I'd met a lot of ministers and I can't say that I was impressed.Well, it was pretty clear they were going to bankrupt us. So a group of friends, most, they were all really sort of small and medium-sized business people and their wives, we used to meet in a pub locally and every Friday night it was sort of a groundhog day, so they always moaned about the state of the country.I'd given a reasonable donation to the Conservative Party in 2005 and I think we had a half a percent swing to the Conservatives so worked out at that rate we're never going to get rid of Tony Blair.And so they moaned every Friday night and it eventually it got to me but I mean by that time I was running a business that was making about three million pounds a year across the group.I've got a good management team and no debt whatsoever and one pint of Marston's Pedigree on a Friday night too many and I said to this group of collected individuals, that's it then. It's no good relying on anybody else.There's only us. So in North West Leicestershire was supposed to be a rock solid Labour seat. The council I don't think had ever been conservative controlled properly. I think they may have had control for about three months once out of 40 years after a by-election. So I said well you all stand for the council, the district council, I'll stand for MP, we'll take over and we'll get it sorted and to a man and a woman every single one of them agreed. And so I put most of the money up for the, I put the money up for the campaign and I got the nomination.Nobody really wanted to be the MP for North West Leicestershire, well the candidate for North West Leicestershire because no one, the Conservatives told me we can't win North West Leicestershire, 83rd target seat. They also said they weren't giving me any money but I said that's fine, I've got my own money and my factory was in the, in the, so I actually did have a payroll vote.So 300 people plus their families in the constituency and the District Council elections came round first in 2007 and I was already selected as the parliamentary candidate. I ran those elections and put the money up and it was the first time the Conservatives had put a full slate up in the seat and they said I was running them too thin but I always thought basically if you didn't put a candidate up at an election it's very difficult to see how how they're going to vote for somebody aren't they? So we put a full slate of candidates up and took Labour down to five councils out of 38 in one night, the biggest swing in the country in the District Council elections in 2007. We took control of the council obviously, and I had the second biggest swing in against Labour in 2010, so I turned a rock-solid four and a half thousand Labour majority with a much loved Labour MP, who sadly died, into seven and a half thousand Conservatives at one, so that's like a 12.5% swing.The seat's my home and, you know, I'm very comfortable in North West Leicestershire.And we moved it to, in 2015, it went up to 11,200 majority.And despite Theresa May's best efforts in 17 with her manifesto, which was appalling, I moved it up to 13,300 majority.Then in 19, I led the leave campaign in the referendum for the East Midlands.I told my seat that if they didn't back me I would have to resign as their MP because we didn't agree on the big issues but to be honest Peter I was fairly sure they would. So the East Midlands voted 59-41 to leave and my own seat voted 61 39 and I'm actually the MP who persuaded Boris Johnson to back leave.He was no way that he was a natural Brexiteer and also if you look back on YouTube you'll find that on the eve of the referendum Boris Johnson came to my seat and we went round Ashby de la Zouch. That's when I told him we were going to win and you should have seen his face when I told him we were going to win. I don't think that that wasn't actually part of the plan Peter and in fact he tried to talk me out of it he said no no it's going to be close but we're not going to win. I said no no we're going to win tomorrow.No, it's going to be close. I said, well, maybe I said, but certainly not around here, not around here. It's not going to be close. You know, the bit we're running. So, and then in 19, on the get Brexit done election, which now seems so much happened since 19. It feels like a very long time ago, more than four years away. And I got a 20,400 majority, it was 62.8% of the vote.And the BBC, I had no sleep that night, the next morning the BBC interviewed me and they said, Mr Bridgen, you must be delighted, this is your fourth election victory, each time you've increased your vote, you've increased your majority, your percentage of the vote, you must be delighted.I said, no, it's terrible actually.They said, why is it terrible?I said, well, I've, you know, it's nine years since I was first elected as the MP, I've delivered the highest economic growth in the country. We've taken the poorest constituency in Leicestershire and made it the richest, the only part of Leicestershire with above-average UK salaries and wages. We've got the happiest place to live in the Midlands now, Colville, which was the most deprived town in Leicestershire.I said one in three of the electorate are still not voting for me. I'm gonna have to work much much harder. 
Tell me about that whole Brexit battle. I mean my time was UKIP and UKIP was easy because 100% of Kippers were on board. The Conservative Party have always had that tension and division over Europe. What was that like actually in the Conservative Party pushing something that wasn't necessarily what the Conservatives wanted? 
Well it wasn't what the establishment wanted, all the established parties were backing Remain.I think it was interesting that the Conservative Party was like, a very civilized internal war, and there were probably only a quarter to 30 percent of conservative MPs who were for leave, so still the majority were, remain, or indifferent, and some of them maintaining indifference, which I mean, I don't know what you're into politics for. If a big question like whether we should remain or leave the European Union, they say, I don't want to get involved in this.I'll just sit down and see what my people say. I mean, that's not exactly leadership, is it?I mean, I think that should be pretty much automatic deselection, if you can't make your mind up on that sort of issue.And what comes back to mind is that the Conservative Party, we used to, when I was in the Conservative Party, before they threw me out, well, first I'll tell you this, Conservatives have never been encouraged in the Conservative Party, they're only ever tolerated.And the Conservative Party, Parliamentary Party, had something called an away day every two years, and they pay for them in advance to get a good deal. So despite the fact that there was this internal schism over the referendum that was coming, the party had paid for an away weekend in Oxfordshire at this basically hotel that's like a Bond villain's hideout, with an underground lecture theatre, which is a very weird place, and because we paid for it, we were told we'd all got to go there, and this is only sort of three months before the referendum, and we had a very civilised weekend of talking about policy, but no one mentioned the EU and no one mentioned the referendum over the whole two and a half days and the dinner, but I do remember that Craig Oliver sat with me at the final dinner he sat next to me on my table at the final dinner and I told him, I said have you got yourself another job lined up for when you lose, and he said to me he said that's fine he said if we win by one vote that's it settled and that's that's it done. I said well I'll be honest I'll take though I'll take that on as as it cuts both ways, you know, if we win by one. And I knew we were going to win, Peter, because, I'd been around the East Midlands and I could tell we were definitely going to win. But it's about driving the vote up because it wasn't just winning by a seat, all the votes were cumulative, so every vote counted.And what I'd sussed out is in my seat and in the East Midlands is that people who didn't normally vote were going to come out and vote. They weren't, those people who didn't normally engage with politics, they weren't coming out to, they weren't coming out to vote for the status quo, they were voting for change. So I concentrated my campaigning efforts the last six weeks.And did a lot of campaigning and also I was running a load of field operatives who were, 90% of it, they were UKIP. The Remain campaign had nobody on the ground willing to deliver leaflets, hardly at all, for them. We were destroying them on the ground battle. Obviously, in the air campaign we could only be responsive because they got all the media, they got all the established parties, and we were the insurgents. So that was more of a struggle, but on the ground we were doing very, very well. And what I'd sussed out was that people were going to come out and vote who didn't normally vote and every time I saw the polls I was not disappointed because I knew that we were probably, we probably got five or six percent better than the polls were saying because these people who were going to come out and vote and they told me they were and I believe they were, They're not engaged in politics, they're not on YouGov's polling panel, and when Com Res or somebody else rang them up and they said, oh, I'm going to vote to leave the European Union, they'd say, well, did you vote in the last general election? No.Did you vote in the local? No. Did you vote in the one before? No. Have you ever voted? No.And they'd put them down as zero chance of voting. Well, I knew as long as we got those people out, it was all going to come as a bit of a surprise to the Remain campaign.In North West Leicestershire, and we counted our votes, so I know it's fine, I know exactly what the vote was in North West Leicestershire, but you could terminate my seat of North West Leicestershire until the next boundary changes.I think it was a sort of 70-75% turnout to get me in in 2010, important election.And then ever since then, as my majority had gone up, the turnout had gone down and it dropped to sort of 68.5% or something in 19. But I mean, it was a stonking massive majority.And obviously the referendum, I was very encouraged when it was nearly 80%.And I'd spent all my time in Northwest Leicestershire and across the East Midlands. In my villages, I mean, it's a general election, they turn out 85 percent anyway. I'm not going to squeeze much more out of those people. You know, it's very hard to squeeze that they're on the second, third pressings of the pips. So I went to all the areas that normally turn out 50, 55, 60 percent because there was plenty of low-hanging fruit and you know it was that turnout in North West Leicestershire and across the East Midlands some people who didn't normally vote and that's why we won and that's why the polling was so wrong and that's what people like David Cameron who'd come to my seat in 2008 when he was leader of the opposition and he really upset me Peter so I'm a a candidate. We've just taken the council with the biggest swing in the country for the first time in living memory and Cameron told me in front of constituents that my seat was a dump and it should never be conservative. And they weren't giving me any money and I said I don't need your money and to be honest David if that's your view, never ever come to my constituency again and I will with it. And to be honest, David Cameron is a man of his word, he never came, he never came again. So that's fine. And I think now my majority is bigger than Whitney, so I meanwhat a dump the Cotswolds must be. North West Leicestershire. And we've gentrified. So people used to say Coalville was a very poor place and it didn't have a chance and now it's Coalville and proud. In fact I'm speaking to you from Coalville today. 
I want to get on to the COVID discussion situation, but just you, you talked at the beginning about having a business and I guess part of your reason for getting into politics was you wanted the government to butt out, you want local businesses to be able to get on, to have, not to have restrictions on them actually doing well, making money, employing people. What kind of other kind of interests or passions?
Well, I've actually cut my teeth in politics when I was chair of the Institute of Directors, which they didn't like particularly because they were fairly pro-EU, is that I got involved as a businessman in the,business for sterling in the no campaign to keep the pound so 25 years ago and thank goodness we didn't join the euro otherwise I mean it'd be much much more difficult to extract ourselves.Yes and Simon Wolfson the chairman of Next we used to meet at Enderby in his boardroom and plot business for Sterling in the No campaign.So I suppose that's where I got involved. And a chap called Chris Eaton Harris, who's gone on to great things, apparently, he was an MEP.And his father had a fruit and vegetable wholesale pitch in Covent Garden Market.And since I was into washing, packing, and distributing vegetables, mostly potatoes, nothing sexy.Chris was one of my customers. I used to buy from Mark Potatoes from Mark Spencer.And Philip Dunn as well. They're farmers.So we had the whole supply chain between us, do you know what I mean?But I made most of the money. 
Which is just as well because they're not in parliament.
Just as well. So yeah, I wanted to put something back and yeah, that's where we ended up.
Obviously being a Brexiteer, there was backlash in the media, there was probably some pushback within the party itself.But I guess none of that even prepared you for the backlash whenever you addressed COVID tyranny.Is that a fair assessment? 
Well I know that the two years under Theresa May were purgatory quite honestly. I mean I was a Spartan so I voted three times against Theresa May's deal which you know it wasn't, you know, some colleagues were conflicted and there was Steve Baker crying his eyes out. Well I mean there's nothing to cry about because I've already voted against it twice, it hasn't got any better and once you've come to the conclusion, which was the correct conclusion, that Theresa May's deal was constitutionally and democratically worse than being in the European Union. I mean at least if you're in the European Union you have a chance of leaving whereas Theresa May's deal we would be in vassalage forever and there's no way of leaving. Well I mean that's not a deal, not in my name and that vote on the third time Theresa May's deal came up before the Commons I was pretty convinced that there were probably going to be 28 Conservatives in the no lobby. The rest of Parliament would vote yes and that we would have been slung out of the Conservative Party within a few days. That was where I thought we were. Thank goodness. I mean we always criticise Jeremy Corbyn but he is a man of principle and he is secretly a Brexiteer really I think and he marched the Labour Party in behind us and the rest, as they say, is history. But I mean, a politically savvy Keir Starmer would never, would have taken Theresa May's deal and consigned us to EU vassalage. So thank goodness it was Jeremy Corbyn. But he did win the Conservatives the 19th election. That wasn't, down to Boris, it was pure fear of Jeremy Corbyn. 
Yeah, no, it was, you don't want Corbyn, 100% I remember that well. 
Well, I actually had two, during that 19 election, I can remember when I was going around the doorsteps, two members, two paid-up locally members of the Labour Party came to me and said I'll be voting Conservative, I can't vote for Jeremy Corbyn. And they actually told me they were paid up members of the Labour Party locally.Well I mean if you, I mean that is your core, ultra core vote. They weren't even voting for him.Wow. On to the COVID. I've never seen anything and I mean I've loved politics, forever with Northern Ireland parties, the DUP and we've had Ian Paisley and Sammy Wilson on before and then conservatives then over to UKIP, but nothing has divided people like what we've had in the last three years with the COVID tyranny. But you spoke a step, it wasn't just on the restrictions that we had, that civil liberty, but you also saw what was happening with harms and went on that. Tell us about that, how you worked that out, because that was a big step and that was an unacceptable step. 
I think there's an element of destiny about all of this Peter. When I was 18 and I'm the only member of my family that's been to university, I had a foreground because my parents weren'tvery wealthy, they were poor. So about two and a half percent of people went to University when I went in the 80s and I went to Nottingham locally but I studied biological sciences with biochemistry specializing in genetics, virology and behaviour. Oh dear! And I don't know why, just they were things I found quite fascinating so I've tried to keep my knowledge up soI mean in February when we'd had the 19 election and then we had a sort of six weeks period and then we had then we had COVID and everything changed. Well in the February I was sent and I looked through the scientific papers for the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, its effectiveness against coronaviruses and it was compelling. They were scientific papers and because I've got, my degree a very long time ago in those subjects I mean I can read them and I can understand the papers and I sent the papers to Mark Spencer, Chief Whip, and said the government need to look at this urgently, this could be could be very useful and also sent them to Jeremy Hunt who was at the time, Chair of the Health Select Committee, and I didn't get anything back from Spencer.And I also told Spencer, I said, you realise that I've got qualifications in all the areas that'll be useful, if you want some help in the number 10, with someone who can actually read the papers and understand it and put it across politically, I'll be quite happy to help. They never, Mr Stewart never asked me to help, and I rang up Jeremy Hunt a week later, and this shocked me, Peter and it will shock your listeners. So I rang him Hunt up and said Jeremy I sent you these papers, have you have you looked at them? And he said Andrew he said don't send me scientific papers he said I don't understand them and I said but Jeremy you're chairman of the health select committee and you were health secretary for seven years. I said what? You don't understand scientific papers, and what you have no access to anyone who does understand them he could actually explain them to you and he put the phone down and that was it and so my suspicion, so I hadn't got a great deal of confidence I did support the first lockdown because I don't think anybody knew, well somebody knew what was going on it certainly wasn't me, you know was it three weeks to flatten the curve.Anyway, so, and I was, from then on, things just didn't seem to stack up. The masks, I couldn't see the sense behind the masks.I mean, those paper masks, they are to stop saliva from the doctors and nurses going on to the patient's wounds and to stop blood and other bodily fluids squirting into the medic's mouths, which they don't really like, they don't like that.That's what they're there for. So not to stop viruses and the gaps around the edges And I was briefly in the military.And if you had a full nuclear biological chemical suit, you've only got an 80% chance of keeping a virus out.Well, I mean, that's not what these paper masks are. And I guess, I hated putting them on anyway.They're horrible. So I was on that. And then the continuous lockdowns, and Northwest Leicestershire was chucked in with Leicester.And so we were locked down as much as anywhere in the country.It was completely unprecedented and unwarranted.I also really objected to the schools being closed.And I objected. I mean, they were making the children wear masks.And even some schools were making the children wear masks when it wasn't mandated.And none of this seemed right.And there are some, speaking to some scientists who were speaking out about their concerns, And the fact that they were silenced, and they said all the science is all settled, I mean we've heard that one before several times, I'm sure we'll hear it again, but I mean science is never settled. It's a bit like politics, there's always another view, and if you can't defend your position, then there's something wrong. You know, every scientific thesis is open to challenge, or should be able to challenge, and most of them, I mean half of everything that doctors are taught in medical school within 10 years will be proved to be completely wrong.That's a fact, I mean that's just a fact. So, you know, the only constant is the evolution of science and new theories to supersede old ones and saying that, you know, we're not having any debate about this and cancelling eminent scientists. Then my concerns grew and grew and grew but I didn't want to believe the worst of the government. I actually am double vaccinated. They will call me an anti-vaxxer so which is difficult when I'm vaxxed.I'm more the sort of concerned vaxxed and I had two shots of AstraZeneca, I wish I had none, and I had a bad reaction after the second jab, which really, really hurt me.So I'd bitten my tongue, that also uncovered a lot of corruption around PPE.My whistle-blower was sacked. We uncovered £860 million worth of PCR tests that had disappeared from stock at Kuehne & Nagel were the distributor. We traced some of the unique barcodes and they turned up in Berlin. They'd been resold. So nearly a billion pounds. And my whistle-blower could only go back 12 months on his computer. And he was only in one of the three channels. He was in the channel to do with bulk. So it was only sort of prisons, schools, hospitals, things like that. But 860 million pounds worth of PCR tests had gone missing the taxpayer paid for. We took it to the government and the civil service.My whistle-blowers computer was switched off on the day and he was sacked within seven days, no investigation. I was pretty annoyed. And I mean, the corruption of the Boris Johnson regime was the first one I'd, and he was the he'd been the first Prime Minister I'd actually voted for and I was feeling very betrayed. So I hadn't voted for David Cameron, obviously, I voted for David Davies, and Cameron got in and I didn't vote for Theresa May. She got in. And so then Boris turned out to be as crooked as all the rest of them. So that wasn't good. And then my pretty view on the vaccines and the mRNA technology, the messenger ribonucleic acid technology.I was working behind the scenes and obviously Matt Hancock had to go and we had, Sajid Javid became health secretary.But there are about five Conservative MPs who are qualified doctors.Well Matt Hancock, not a good man, but he had said in the House of Commons that these vaccines were for adults, they weren't for children, so no one under 18 was going to have them.I know that every one of the doctors, qualified doctors, went to see Sajid Javid and told him not to use the experimental vaccines on under-18s and he listened to all of them and then approved it.It's interesting that these two health secretaries are both leaving the Commons at the next election, isn't it? I wonder where they'll land, you know what I mean?I suspect Peter, there'll be earning a lot more money than MPs get paid, let's just put it that way. And then when the MHRA came out in November last year and wanted to extend the experimental vaccines to babies, down to six months of age, and I'll declare an interest, I've got a five-year-old and I thought now, I've got to speak out and I knew there'd be a huge backlash from the party, politically and I knew the vested interests that were involved in it but I also knew that it was probably going to cost me my position in the Conservative Party because they were so committed, but that I could win, that I'm pretty sure I thought, well there's no point doing it for nothing, you've got to win and I was pretty sure that I could put the science over that there were no healthy child of that age had died anywhere in the world of COVID-19 so there was minimal, minuscule risk from the virus but there was a risk from the vaccine. I thought even the most pro-vaccine person I could persuade that since the manufacturers still had immunity from prosecution that there had to be a risk.But there was no risk for those children. I thought I could get that message across and we could actually do some good and so I'd spoken out in a Westminster Hall debate, in I think it was October and then on November 13th I secured an adjournment debate and and blew the lid off the childhood vaccines, vaccination with the experimental mRNA.And that night, my life changed. I was basically immediately cancelled by the mainstream media.And from that moment onwards, I had hundreds of thousands of emails from around the world from people who were telling me about the vaccine harms and the vaccine deaths that they were seeing and that was it really. So after that, although the government will say that I'm a conspiracy theorist and anti-science, anti-vax, and all the people who call me anti-science and everything, I mean they haven't got any science degrees between them and the fact is that the government, our government was never able to approve those vaccines for healthy under fives, whereas all the other countries around the world did. So despite the fact that they said that I was talking absolute rubbish, they never bought the policy and every other country did. And then we got round to sort of January and the infamous tweet, which was actually, I mean, yes, so I retweeted, I actually didn't do it, but it was retweeted on my Twitter, a tweet from Dr. Josh Guetzkow of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and it's fair to say that Mr. Guetzkow is a Jewish gentleman, that he'd been told by a top cardiologist that the rollout of the vaccine was the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust, and the party seized on that, the Conservative Party seized on that, to say I was an anti-Semite, and suspended me immediately from the party.I had a meeting at that time with a Conservative Party grandee who'd clearly been briefed by the party.We had an hour together in his office and I told him all of my concerns around the vaccine harms, the midazolam and morphine, the creation of the first wave of deaths by moving people out of care homes and then putting them onto the death pathway, putting them down, treating them with respiratory suppressants to give them the symptoms of COVID-19 which will appear on their on their death certificate and they were pretty much all cremated very shortly afterwards so there was no autopsies and we had an hour of that. I also knew that the person I was meeting with, because I'd done my research and I've got plenty of informers, he knew full well all of my concerns because he'd been told them. I also know that his sister had had to go into hospital after the second Pfizer jab with chest pains, but I didn't tell him any of this. And at the end of the meeting this grandee turned around to me, obviously with the party line, I've been suspended and said that there is currently no political appetite for your views on the vaccine, Andrew. They may well be in 20 years time and you're probably going to be proved right but in the meantime you need to bear in mind you're taking on the most powerful vested interest in the world with all the personal risk for you which that will entail, and at that point I said well the meeting's over then isn't it? I'm not, don't ever threaten me and I don't like being threatened by public school boys.You know, as a comprehensive school boy, if they had been at my school, they'd have spent most of their time with their head down the toilet. It was a very comprehensive education. So we basically called it a day at that and then they just fast-tracked the investigation and found me guilty and permanently expelled me from the Conservative Party, which is interesting because in their investigation what they didn't discover is I never put the tweet out myself anyway. I've never ever had the codes to my own Twitter. It was actually posted by my association chairman who remains in the Conservative Party. 
Can I ask you about... I need to ask you about the conversations with colleagues and obviously not breaking confidentiality of that, but working with Lord Pearson I'm always amazed people come to him after a debate and says well done. I could never say that but well done you said that. Did you have any kind of similar? 
Yes, it's coming up to a year since I first spoke out so yeah I've probably had 20, I probably had 30 backbenchers have come up to me and said you're definitely onto something with these vaccine harms, keep going but that's a million miles from standing in the chamber and saying anything. I've had senior members of the Conservative Party have come to me and said that they're going to speak out. I've had a very senior MP came to me before summer recess and said he'd been approached by a constituent representing 1,100 vaccine-harmed people and he'd have to speak out, but he hasn't, and I had a very senior minister who came to me and said that they're, I mean this is all in private in parliament, no witnesses, so I mean they can deny it if they want to, but you have my word it's the truth, and come to me and said you do realize that my sister's just taken the Moderna booster and now she's paralyzed from the neck down.And I said well that's that's that's terrible news but clearly you're going to have to speak out now aren't you? and they said no, well she doesn't want any publicity and they think they're going to get her to walk again. I said well you don't have to name names I mean you know, you've got to speak out you know and the minister said I'm not speaking out and walked off.And I don't know what to go, I mean, we're supposed to speak without fear or favour, you know, I think the job of an MP is to, certainly I see the job as being to represent, the people, start with my people in North West Leicestershire, against the government and the establishment.And now what we seem to have is a lot of MPs who represent the government and the establishment against the people.That's an inversion of the job of a Member of Parliament.They said to me, you know, why are you willing to die on the hill of vaccine harms, you know, of an issue?And I said, well, because that's the hill you're killing my people on.
No completely. I want to add two things to finish. One, you're in the Reclaim Party because that seemed to be the only option.Course you could do as an independent, that doesn't really happen in the UK, but also you're continually asking the government questions. One of the latest questions is did the MHRA inform the Minister of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine had been switched? Tell us about Reclaim and I'm assuming you're yet to receive an answer to that government question. 
Well Reclaim are a political party, they didn't have any MPs but they're well funded and they've got some lovely premises and they've got great people and they're also aligned with something called the Bad Law Project, so I have access to lawyers and solicitors and so I'm taking Matt Hancock to court for defamation and we have a very strong case. I'm probably going to take the Conservative Party to court for the way they handled my dismissal from the party, which is unbelievable.I'm on my fifth subject access request to the Cabinet Office.I mean, Peter, I've put in for all the information they're holding on me, and even when I'm over four, this is the fifth one going in now, I keep cutting down the number of keywords and compressing the time, and every time they come back and say, I mean, they must have a library on me.They haven't got a black book, they've got a whole library on me.And every time they come back and say, it's too much work.I mean, the last one was about 10 key words.And I said, it's only from 1st of January, 2017. I'll publish all the papers one day and it'll be fascinating, but goodness knows what they're hiding.They're certainly not willing to release any documentation. So I think we're going to have a massive, massive, massive bust up with the government over that.And if they're doing it to me, it won't be just me, will it?There'll be. Yeah, I mean, if there is any mitigation of my colleagues, and I'm not thinking of any any mitigation at all for their inactivity when so many of them,I mean, what you've got to understand, Peter, is people say to me, So there was a lovely female Conservative MP who will remain nameless, but she was elected in 19.And she came up to me a few months ago and said, Andrew, I'm really worried about you.You speak in the chamber on your own. You have all your meals on your own.You sit on your own table in the tea room and the dining room.No one talks to you. You seem really isolated. I'm really worried about you.I said, well, that's very touching. I said, but you've got to remember, 4,000 real people work in Parliament. The cooks, the cleaners, the waiters, the security guards, the police, I said, and they all come to me and 80% of those agree with me. So I'm not really isolated at all, am I? I said, actually, you're isolated, you just don't realise it. So it's not been that bad in Parliament. As far as the Pfizer data, it was again Dr. Josh Guetzkow sent me some from the Hebrew University, sent me some evidence and he's not a scientist, he's a criminologist but he's a specialist in fraud and he went through the Pfizer papers and discovered how they'd switched the vaccines. There were two batches in the initial batch, one that they basically made a Rolls-Royce vaccine up which they gave to 22,000 individuals and they had 22,000 in the placebo group who got a saline shot and that's what they got approval for with the MHRA and every other regulator around the world.But that wasn't the vaccine, that wasn't the Pfizer vaccine that was rolled out.And the smoking gun for the switch of the vaccines is the fact that the MHRA changed the protocols on day two of the mass rollout of the vaccination in the UK, and said that everyone got to stay at the vaccine centre for 15 minutes after day two because of the risk of anaphylactic shock and you only get anaphylaxis if there's endotoxins in the vaccines and you only get endotoxins in the vaccines if they're cultured up in bacteria such as Escherichia coli and the MHRA hadn't expected anaphylaxis because that is not how the vaccine that was given approval for was manufactured, it wasn't manufactured in bacteria with all the contaminants that would go with it.Now, you can't, to get approval for a drug, you have to use the same mechanism of production.You can't change anything because then you've got a different drug with different side effects.So basically, what my allegation is, supported by 44 pages of evidence supplied to me by a doctor of criminology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the government will not answer or even acknowledge, is that the vaccine that was rolled out in the UK and around the world was effectively completely untested and it also explains why the, I mean that the harms from the Pfizer trials of the very best vaccine they could make in in a very small, basically a bespoke vaccine that they made for 22,000 doses, I mean that was horrific enough and that should never have had approval but it was nothing like the harm profile we've seen in actuality through the VAERS system and the yellow card system and the fact that the vaccine is a different vaccine basically explains that as well. If they were doing that with Pfizer, I mean I have no doubt that Moderna and the same and of course I had the AstraZeneca vaccine which which was actually that bad.It was just quietly withdrawn, wasn't it? And it's interesting that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which is the AstraZeneca vaccine is not a messenger RNA.It's a DNA strand in an adenovirus vector.So it's different technology to the Pfizer and the Moderna. It's because obviously the DNA then will code for the messenger RNA. And so it's one step further back.It's interesting also that the, I asked for an urgent question in Parliament a few months ago because the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was withdrawn in America and I saw the FDA, the Federal Drugs Agency guidelines and it said stop basically, stop injecting the Johnson and Johnson and all stocks are to be destroyed. And the Johnson and Johnson that was also, a DNA strand not a messenger RNA strand and also in an adenovirus vector to get it into the into the cell. So it's interesting that basically both the vaccines, experimental vaccines were using the DNA adenovirus vector method, they were, both withdrawn and destroyed. But it is interesting that India are still producing effectively AstraZeneca under license. They call it Covishield in India. And of course they didn't stop the Australian version of the AstraZeneca vaccine until only a couple of months ago, so there's going to be a big kickoff there as well. So that's it. I sent it to the Attorney General because one of the questions I did ask was did the MHRA tell the Minister that they'd switched the vaccines, in which case if they didn't then the MHRA are guilty of potentially a crime which is I think it's a two-year prison sent us an unlimited fine, but if they did tell the minister, then how could the minister go out and say they're safe, effective, and tested when they knew that they weren't?I don't understand why the prime minister doesn't want to come back to me.I'm afraid the letter I sent him was a bit of a, do you still beat your wife question.There isn't a good answer, because either I'm going to nail the MHRA, or I'm going to nail the ministers.And it's also interesting, I think, you know, so many health ministers are deciding to not stand at the next general election.No, 100%. Andrew, I've watched your many speeches in the Commons and followed those written questions and I think for our UK viewers and listeners who are very frustrated at UK politics, I think as long as there remains someone like you speaking this truth, then there is hope. So thank you for what you do and thank you for your time today.
Thank you very much for having me on. I'm sure we'll speak again in the future.

The Week According To . . . Leilani Dowding

We are delighted to have the lovely Leilani Dowding join us once again for our weekly trawl through the news, stories and articles from around the web and from her own social media feed.Leilani doesn't mix her words so we look forward to her thoughts as she vents on the topics this week, including...- Russell Brand: What has he got in store for us as he announces the return of his popular show on Rumble.- ‘Quit NOW!’ Calls for Caroline Dinenage to go as it emerges Rumble row MP didn't clear Russell Brand letter with own committee. - Rumble’s CEO responds to the UK Governments attempt at censorship.- Will the UKs Online Safety Bill break encryption for mass surveillance?- Zelensky asks 'Satanist' Marina Abramovic to be an ambassador for the Ukraine and to help rebuild schools.- The harrowing story of the young woman who died after a legal battle with an NHS trust over her treatment for a rare disorder has been named.- Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom expresses concern about his son’s interest in right-leaning figures like Joe Rogan, Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson.- Footage emerges from the recent Palace of Versailles' sickeningly opulent event with WEF stooges Charles and Macron.- Car firms will still be forced to meet strict quotas for selling electric cars despite the ban on sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles being delayed.
Leilani Dowding is a regular contributor to The Mark Steyn Show.Half-Filipina, half-English, she is a former Page Three Girl and was crowned Miss Great Britain in 1998, going on to represent her country in the Miss Universe pageant.Leilani had a starring role in The Real Housewives of Cheshire and has appeared on The Big Breakfast, This Morning, Celebrity Wrestling and in numerous national newspapers.She is a proud 'Freedom Fighting Refusnik' and an unmissable commentator on world affairs, with her stance against tyranny and wokeness, Leilani has found a whole new army of fans.
Follow Leilani on X...https://twitter.com/LeilaniDowding?s=20Catch her on the brilliant Mark Steyn Show...https://www.steynonline.com/
Originally broadcast live 23.9.23
*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 GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Please subscribe, like and share! 
Links to stories...Russell Brandhttps://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1705336354001813834?s=20Caroline Dinenagehttps://www.gbnews.com/politics/caroline-dinenage-rumble-russell-brand-rumbleRumble https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1704761316894765325?s=20Channel fourhttps://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1704475945334100253?s=20Online Safety Bill https://www.forbes.com/sites/stewartroom/2023/09/21/will-uk-online-safety-bill-break-encryption-for-mass-surveillance/?sh=5da1ce3840f0Abramovic https://x.com/DC_Draino/status/1705288103928164522?s=20Namedhttps://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/22/teenager-died-legal-fight-nhs-trust-named-sudiksha-thirumaleshNewsom https://dailycaller.com/2023/09/22/gavin-newsom-andrew-tate-joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-ai/WEF Charles and Macron.https://x.com/Demo2020cracy/status/1704960443435917590?s=20Electric cars https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66875554

Lt Col Allen West (Ret) - The House of Representatives: One Year of Republican Control

Show notes and Transcript
Col Allen West (Ret) joins Hearts of Oak once again to give us a birds eye view of US politics. Its been nearly a year since the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives so what has changed and have they been successful? Kevin McCarthy was voted in after a long and gruelling process but is he delivering on the concerns of American people who are witnessing an increasing power grab from every government institution? And what is happening in Col West's home state of Texas? Is Governor Greg Abbott even a Republican and why does he not secure the Texas border? With Mitch McConnell malfunctioning and Nancy Pelosi seeking re-electing does America need more politicians who have been part of the system for decades and made it their career? And finally we finish looking at the Republican Primary and Col West shares his honest assessment.
Lieutenant Colonel (Ret) Allen B. West is a Christian constitutional conservative, combat veteran, and former Member of the US Congress.Allen West was born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia in the same neighbourhood where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once preached. He is the third of four generations of military servicemen, all combat veterans, in his family.West was commissioned through ROTC at the University of Tennessee as a Second Lieutenant (2LT) on July 31, 1982. He entered active-duty service in the U.S. Army on November 1, 1983 at Fort Sill to attend the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course. He later attended airborne and jumpmaster training at Fort Benning. West’s first assignment was as an airborne infantry company fire support team leader and battalion training officer in the 325th Airborne Battalion Combat Team. In 1987, he was promoted to Captain and attended the Field Artillery Officer Advanced Course.He was then assigned to the 1st Infantry Division, where he commanded Bravo Battery, 6th Field Artillery Regiment and was a Battalion Task Force fire support officer for 2d Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment. While with the 1st Infantry Division, he participated in Operations Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm.West’s culminating assignment to his career was as Battalion Commander of the 2d Battalion 20th Field Artillery, 4th Infantry Division. He assumed command of this unit on June 6, 2002. He deployed with his unit during the Iraq War in 2003 and continued to command his battalion until his retirement from the Army in 2004 after 22 years of honourable service in defence of the Republic.In November of 2010, Allen was honoured to continue his oath of service to his country when he was elected to the United States Congress, representing Florida’s 22nd District. As a member of the 112th Congress, West introduced seven major pieces of legislation, and was the original sponsor of H. R. 1246 which reduces costs at the Department of Defence, was passed unanimously (393-0), and signed into law by President Obama as part of the National Defence Authorization Act. Congressman West voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment, and voted for over 30 different bills designed to empower small businesses, reduce government barriers to job creation, boost American competitiveness, encourage entrepreneurship and growth, and maximize American energy production.West holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville and two Masters, one from Kansas State University and another from the US Army Command and General Staff Officers College.He is the former Executive Director of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas Texas. West is an avid distance runner, a Master SCUBA diver, a motorcyclist, and in his spare time he enjoys cheering his beloved Tennessee Volunteers.
Hold Texas, Hold the Nation: Victory or Death by Lt Col Allen B West (ret) available on Amazonhttps://www.amazon.com/Hold-Texas-Nation-Victory-Death/dp/1612542980
Follow and support Col West at the following links...Substack: https://allenwest.substack.com/GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AllenWestX: https://twitter.com/AllenWest?s=20&t=xdPqNPtV13hYDp0RSja_IwGab: https://gab.com/AllenWestPodcast: https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b58w7-26cd73/Allen-West-%7C-Steadfast--Loyal-Podcast
The ACRU The American Constitutional Rights UnionGETTR: https://gettr.com/user/theacruX: https://twitter.com/The_ACRUYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/theacru
Interview recorded 14.9.23
*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 GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Please subscribe, like and share!
Transcript
(Hearts of Oak)Colonel Allen West, it is wonderful to have you back with us again. Thank you so much for your time today.
(Col Allen West)
It's good to be back with you, Peter. Thanks for having me.
No, thank you. And everyone can follow you @AllenWest on Twitter. And in case any of our viewers don't know who Colonel Allen West is, Executive Director, American Constitutional Rights Union Action, former Texas GOP chair, former Florida representative, retired army lieutenant colonel.I never know if it's left tenant or lieutenant. That's where I get my U.S. and English mixed up.Author, host of Steadfast and Loyal podcast. And I saw one of your recent guests was Mark Huck.The pro-life pastor who had his home-raided by the FBI which is a huge story and maybe we'll get touching on how the FBI have been weaponized to that extent and of course your Substack alanwest.substack.com all the links are in the description for our viewers and listeners. 
Midterms and we're now, approaching a year since the midterms ten months in. The Republican Party obviously has had control of the House of Representatives.I want to know your assessment, I think, of how the Republicans have performed within those 10 months as someone who has been an elected official and understands the ins and outs in the different levels of political life. What are your thoughts as you look on what's happening at the moment?Well, I will tell you first and foremost, the only constitutionally mandated duty and responsibility that the House and the Senate are supposed to pass every year is to create a budget.That means that they're supposed to pass 12 appropriations bills. They're supposed to resolve them and send those to the president to be signed. And so once again, we're not going to make that, constitutionally mandated goal, which has to occur by 30 September. They're already talking about a continuing resolution, which means that the fiscal calamity that we see that over $30 trillion in debt, $2 trillion in annual deficit, is just going to continue on.So I would have to grade them with an F for not being able to do what was necessary to get those appropriations bills passed in the House, because they do have control of the House, but the onus is on the Senate to do something.At least they have passed one appropriations bill in the House.The Senate has not passed any whatsoever.But I will tell you that one thing that I will give them great credit for and commend them for is what they have uncovered as far as the corruption of the President Biden's family.I don't see how anyone could dismiss this. I mean, why does this family need 20 secretive LLCs, 150 some odd suspicious financial activity reports?We know that there has been payments that have come from countries such as Romania to the Biden family members, nine different members. And so when you look at some of these connections, you know, the Hunter Biden laptop is for real. It's not Russian disinformation or misinformation. And you start to see the connections between his son to Ukraine, to China, to Russia, and of course, some of the issues we have now with our foreign policy. You just have to wonder if we do have a president that is compromised. And I think that's one of the things that they have to be commended for getting to the bottom of this or at least getting this out there to be discussed in the political sphere. 
Do you think that was a bit slow? Because I know we have had Garrett Ziegler on before, we've had Miranda Devine, here in the UK the Daily Mail will publish, regular stories of Hunter and his escapades, for want of a better word, and all the information has been there and they have got round to it. Do you think it was maybe possible to get to that point quicker or is it there just is not the support in the House to move it forward quicker?Well, there was not the support in the House under the Democrat control, but without a doubt, when you have people like the Daily Mail, Miranda Devine, the New York Post that are uncovering these things, you know, thankfully we did get the House back under the Republican leadership of control. You had to get the hearings done, and now we start to see all of these different things. We're starting to get confirmation of evidence and things of this nature.I think that where we are right now, and Kevin McCarthy coming back and saying, yeah, we got to do an impeachment inquiry, I would have said, you could have made that assessment a couple of months ago, without a doubt, before you go on August recess, so you can get your appropriations bills done and you can continue on with this.But I'm glad to see that Republicans have grown a little bit of a spine, not a complete spine, but a little bit of a spine, and they're standing up to the corruption and the unconstitutional actions of this administration.
It is quite a difficult situation to be in. And a lack of spine is something we see certainly here in the UK as well, amongst most of our politicians, but there's a lot happening, with the destruction of the country and the economy through Bidenomics. It's quite difficult, I guess, as an elected official, to respond to that, to hold Biden to account, but also to realize there is a lot of destruction being done to the country.
No, you're absolutely right. I don't even see how anyone could debate this.The facts are very clear. when Joe Biden came into office, inflation in the United States of America was 1.4%.Within no time, he had taken it up to 5%, to 6%, to 9.1%. Now I know you have a lot of people, such as the White House mouthpiece, Karine Jean-Pierre, would say that it was all because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.Well, before Vladimir Putin did that, the inflation was at 7%.So now they're touting, well, inflation is down to 4%. Well, guess what?It's still higher than it was at 1.4%. Now there's talk within the next couple of months, it could take back up to 5%.That is an unseen form of taxation on the American people. When you think about it, you look at the price of commodities, goods and services and things of this nature.It is absolutely horrific. Then you look on top of that, the Biden administration war against our energy independence and our energy sector.We were at a point where we were energy independent, producing, consuming and exporting our resources.And when Biden came in, The price of gasoline, the average price of gasoline was $2.40.Now it's back up to close to $5, $6 in some places.So I don't understand how he thinks he could go out and tout the economy.Maybe there are some onesie-twosie things he can try, but overall, the American people know that this is not going in the right direction.And then on top of that, Peter, you have allowed six to seven million people to come into the country illegally. What other country does that? What other country says, we don't care about our sovereignty, just walk across the border, come in, and we will tell the American people to give you free benefits. That is also destroying our economy as well. 
I remember back in April when I drove across many parts of the states, six, seven different states from on the east, central and over in the West, and ended up in California, realized why I'd never been to LA and realized why I never wanted to go back. 
I don't blame you.
But wish I kind of had been there through Reagan's time as governor. He kind of looked back in history and you wish you'd been there at that time. But I was even surprised at the difference in fuel prices across the country here in the UK it's more or less the same across the country and I kind of in my head I was thinking how long do those individuals who live in California put up with the fuel prices, with crime with drugs, with everything that's happening and I kind of couldn't square that and talk to people and they said yeah it's bad but yet they'll happily vote in the same institutions, the same party, the Democrats and continue that spiral.
Well, it's amazing, and you know, I live here in Texas, and I can tell you, you see countless amounts of California license plates now in Texas, and there's a big joke about how many U-Haul vans are, you know, coming into Texas.They're not going back to California, they're coming to Texas.So you do have a huge migration, and based upon the last census, California has lost a massive amount of population to the point where they lost two congressional representative districts. So people are starting to realize it, people are starting to feel it. But the problem, Peter, in America is that you have Democrat control of all the major urban population centres. And that's where you see all the greatest amount of failures. You see the poverty, you see the crime, you see the drug trafficking, and now the human and sex trafficking because of the open borders. So even in a place like California, where a good part of that state is still very strong, red, conservative, especially the Central Valley, Northern California. It's the coastal elites, and it's the major population centres. You look at a state like Washington, and everyone looks and sees Seattle and Tacoma, and they figure that the rest of Washington is like that. It's not. It's that one county and the county north of King County that causes, you know, Washington to be a blue state. And sadly, we're seeing that happen here in Texas, I live here in Dallas County, Dallas County and Dallas, Austin and Travis County, the capital, the Houston, Harris County, San Antonio, Bear County, El Paso.These are all very strong Democrat strongholds, and that's the major population centres.It is amazing to me that we cannot do a better job of messaging that shows that, look, there's a reason why the crime is spiking.Austin, Texas is now the 15th highest city for homicides in the United States of America.The capital of Texas has the 15th highest rating for homicides.Their police chief just resigned.And why is that? Because they have a communist city council in Austin that defunded their police by $150 million.So I think we've got to start stressing the one key issue, which is individual safety.You can't go out downtown Austin anymore because of the homeless situation, because of the crime situation. And I think another big issue that will play, Peter, going into the 2024 election cycle is parental rights and protection of our children.I mean, when you've got Joe Biden, his wife Jill Biden, Kamala Harris, and Karine Jean-Pierre standing up and telling the American people that their children are not theirs, they belong to all of us, that's crossing the Rubicon, as I think many people understand. I think that's what you saw happen in the last state-wide election in Virginia, when all of a sudden education became an issue, and the Democrats don't want school choice. The teachers' union is here. Rand and Weingarten is so powerful. I think a lot of these basic kitchen table, homegrown local issues are going to be very important nationally in 2024.I want to pick up on that, and I watched the Virginia elections closely, and they were interesting, that issue on parental rights.But just on Texas, you were a chair of the GOP. You had convictions.You had fight.You had issues you believed in and stood for, and that conviction politics we don't see often, certainly not here in the UK and probably the same in the US there.But how does that fit in with the governor Abbott? Because I know you were certainly critical of him and it seems as though he's put up a few floating barriers in the river and supposedly that fixes immigration.There's a disconnect there between actually as a Republican governor what he should be doing and actually what he is doing and there seems to be a huge gap.
There is a huge gap, and as a matter of fact, the Constitution of the United States of America says very clearly in Article 4, Section 4, that the federal government is supposed to protect every state in the union from invasion.When they don't do that, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 says exactly what states can do, the actions they can take when actually invaded.And then also in the Texas state constitution, Article 4, Section 4, it says that the responsibility of the governor of the state of Texas as the commander of the Texas Military Department.The National Guard and things here, he is supposed to repel invasions. When you put out 1,000 meters of big orange toys in the middle of the Rio Grande River, when Texas has a border with Mexico that is about 1,249 miles, 1,000 meters is not going to do anything.I was just a month ago down on the border in between Eagle Pass and Del Rio in Kenny County and talking to the law enforcement there and the sheriff there, he said, people just go around it.So this band aid on a sucking chest wound type of mentality, this political optic to say that, look, I'm doing something, I've got the guard down there, but no one is being turned back.And I'm sure the people in the UK know about Governor Abbott putting people on buses and sending them to New York, Washington, and to LA also.Well, you know, as I said, the governor is aiding and abetting human and sex trafficking.He's continuing to send illegals who are here illegally deeper into the United States of America.So he's actually violating the constitution as well. And furthermore, Peter, each illegal immigrant is about $1,400 for a Texas taxpayer to pay for them to be on one of these buses.I didn't sign up for that. I don't think any Texas taxpayer signed up for that.So my criticisms of the governor is that he does not, you know, stand up and do what he is supposed to do as the governor of Texas, to include some unconstitutional actions where, you know, he extended his emergency powers over the state of Texas unconstitutionally.He did not go through the legislature during the whole COVID issue.Who would have thought in Texas we'd have mass mandates and shot mandates, but we did.So that's why I say it is not so much a Democrat versus Republican issue anymore in the United States of America.It is about progressive, socialist, Marxist on one side and constitutional conservatives, and we must understand the proper role and relationship between the institution of government and the individual.And there are some people that don't get that. They want more power concentrated in seats of government, being at the federal level or even the state level or even the local level. And they usurp more individual rights, freedoms, and liberties.I mean, look at what is going on in New Mexico, where you have the governor in New Mexico saying that because of the crime issue that the policies of Democrats created in Albuquerque, releasing criminals on the streets, the drug trafficking, human sex trafficking, we're going to suspend the Second Amendment.We're going to create a public health crisis. You can't do that.So we have a real issue in America of elected officials that are not abiding by the rule of law, and I think that's the most important thing that we have to correct here in this country.Obviously, we in the UK look at states like Florida, like Texas, as bastions of free speech, as those who hold the line on the American dream, and yet you've described something different.The Governor's position, Governor Abbott, how does it fit in? What checks and balances are there on him? Because I'm assuming that Texas is still a red state in some ways.
Yeah. No, it is a red state, but I would challenge anyone to go back and look at the 2020, presidential electoral map broken down by county. You can Google it and they'll pull up.And you can see the concentrations of blue in the state of Texas.Texas has 254 counties. It's a pretty doggone big state.But when you focus and concentrate on those major population centres, it's a numbers game, because you don't have enough population out in rural counties, being West Texas, where there are some counties you may have 4,000 or 5,000 people, or over in East Texas.So that's the strategy of the left. I mean, they've done that in Georgia, where the major population centres, Atlanta, Macon, Augusta, Savannah, Columbus, That's the reason why all of a sudden you've got two socialist senators from the state of Georgia.So we really have to pay attention to that. But Texas, the governor is supposed to be restrained by the legislative branch. But when the legislative branch does not do their job and allow the governor to run roughshod over them, just the same as you can see that at the federal government level, you know, we're not supposed to be ruled by executive orders and edicts and mandates and decrees. We're supposed to have a legislative process. But too often people are allowing governors and also presidents to just, you know, sign off on something and people believe that it's law, and it is not. So we've got to get back to that blocking and tackling of understanding what it means to live in a constitutional republic.
Back to the national side, Kevin McCarthy, you talked about the Republicans maybe getting an F in the House and of course Kevin McCarthy is Majority Chair there in the House and his becoming elected was a fraught endeavour of many negotiations and votes. What about him personally And where does the position or the role or the place of the Freedom Caucus fit into his role in the House?
Well, I think the Freedom Caucus is just trying to restore what we what we call regular order up there in the United States House of Representatives to do things by the regular processes and procedures that they're supposed to operate under and not have you know bills basically be written in the Speaker's office or in the Majority Leader's office and you know, you get told a couple of days out, this is what you're going to vote for, like an omnibus spending bill, which, you know, they continue to do.And that's what gets us into this fiscal mess that we find here in the United States of America.So I applauded the people for saying that the election of a speaker is just not a coronation.There are some very serious things that we want to see happen, and Kevin McCarthy had to go through that crucible to get their support.But again, on this back side, we still don't see them getting the appropriations bills passed and things of this nature.And we don't have to sit around and wait and impeach Joe Biden on this corruption thing.What he is doing on the border is a violation of the Constitution.That's his policy. I mean, he came in and he said, we're going to allow illegals to come into this country. That's treasonous.When you are selling oil from our strategic patrolling reserve to China, to me, that's treasonous, but that's what this administration is doing.When you're undermining your country's own energy independence, to me, that's a high crime and misdemeanour. When you are restoring the Taliban back into power in Afghanistan, that's aiding and abetting a terrorist organization.So there are so many things that you can hold Joe Biden accountable for.But I think that, like I said, at least we don't have Nancy Pelosi still as the Speaker of the House there, and we would not know anything about the level of corruption we see with this Biden family.One thing I guess, people like Pelosi and maybe Mitch McConnell can say is they don't remember, we've seen...Poor Mitch McConnell has his issues, lets say....
Is that ageist?
I didn't say such a thing. No, but how does that fit because in in the UK? It's kind of a rush or a move towards, younger and younger, where America seems to be older and older and with Pelosi she's going to run again and she's what, 82 or 83? At some point you have to retire and I don't know whether that fits in with the American political model.
Well it's interesting enough, I think it was George Mason who said 17 June 1787 that nothing so greatly impels a man to regard the interests of of his constituents than the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people from whence he was taken where he shall participate in their burdens.Our founding fathers never meant for us to have a career political class, a political elite, but due to the apathy of the electorate here in America, this is exactly what we have.So interestingly enough, Peter, what you have seen because of the last couple of episodes of Mitch McConnell just blanking out.And what has been up, Diane Feinstein and her health issues and John Fetterman, I mean, who cannot hold a clear sentence.People are asking for term limits there in the House and Senate at the federal government level.There are many states that have term limits on their representatives, but we don't have that.I remember when I was sworn into Congress, there was a congressman from Michigan by the name of, I think, David Dingell.And Dingell had been in office longer than I had been alive.And so you just ask yourself. And of course, when he finally dies, who gets to take his seat?His wife!And so this is not the cronyism, nepotism that we wanted to have in America.So yes, people are starting to ask a question about mental acuity.I mean, you look at our own president, and this is not good on the public stage.What would the media in America say if Donald Trump had ever said at a press conference in a foreign country, I'm going to bed now?I mean, they'd go berserk.And so I think that Americans do want something different. And I got to tell you, this is something that Nikki Haley has been talking about.It's time for a new generation of leaders. And I think she's 50, 51 years of age.And this is something that's striking the tone with the American people.And I'll be very honest, you know, even President Trump, I think he's 77 or 78.And so the American people are sitting back saying, I mean, we got an 80 year old and a 77, 78 year old, we're gonna be voting for them to be president once again. They're not happy with that setup.Well, Sleepy Joe, he does need a sleep, I'm sure. And I wanna touch on the Republican primary, But just last thinking on the Mitch McConnell situation, obviously the Republicans in the Senate decided he was the best person for the job.Does that mean the calibre isn't as high in the Senate as it should be?Or are there others that could step into that position and be voted in?
Well, I think what they decided and voted on is this same old thing.He's been there and that's who should be the leader.And he can raise the most money.There have to be better qualifications than just that. You need someone that is sharp, that has the ability to go out there and go head to head on the debate floor with the Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer.You cannot have someone that says they're a leader and they're having these moments of blanking out.And I would think that it would be the honourable thing for Mitch McConnell to say that, you know, I'm not up to this anymore.I'm going to step aside and let someone younger, John Thune or whoever to step into this position.So, but again, it comes back to the American people now starting to ask, should there be term limits?Should there be mental acuity testing on individuals there in the House and the Senate or maybe in the Supreme Court.
You mentioned Nikki Haley and obviously the Republican primary and I watched the first debate.I was over there in Virginia and I watched it. The main candidate, obviously Trump, was not there.I thought Nikki Haley did well. I thought Vivek did well, although I'm not sure exactly where he's come from.Obviously, I've watched DeSantis, has been a very good governor.What are your thoughts on the field? Because my initial thoughts were, if someone like Donald Trump is running, then you don't even get in the ring.It's not your time.But these individuals have chosen to put themselves up against the gorilla in the room, in effect.What are your thoughts as you look from the outside at the campaign, at the primary?
Well, I will tell you very simply, and I've said this publicly on many interviews, is that Donald Trump has to change the narrative.Donald Trump should be on that debate stage, because right now the media is painting him as someone, a former president under indictments, several different states.What he has to do is be the former president that is running to be president again.And the only way you change that is to go on offense, to be on the debate stage, to defend your record, to talk about your record, to talk about where you are now.And if you're going to be, I'll use your metaphor, if you're the gorilla, well then you got to beat down all the chimpanzees, but you can't run away from them.And I think that that's the important thing that he has to do.So if he continues to skip debates, my concern is he makes himself less and less relevant when it comes to talking about the issues.And you can go on Tucker and everything like that and have what, I don't know, 10, 12 million people check it out, but still you were not on the debate stage.And I think it's a little disingenuous to the American people to say that, I'm leading in the polls, I don't need to show up, I'm gonna win it.Well, I'm a big college football fan. And I will tell you that every year you have your preseason ranked number one team, and It just so happens it's Georgia, and Georgia, of course, they've wanted to last national champions.But even being a preseason number one, that doesn't mean they skip all of the games in the season.It doesn't mean that they say, well, we're only going to play teams with a winning record, or we're only going to play our home games. We're not going to go travel to anybody else's stadium, because we're the preseason ranked number one.Every single weekend, Georgia has to go out and validate their ranking.And every team has to do that.So I think that President Trump should not sit back and just say, hey, look, I'm ahead. I don't need to go.You got to show that you are the gorilla. You do deserve that ranking.You do deserve that polling support. and get that narrative changed.I watched my first football game when I was over there, USC against someone else, and after three and a half hours, I had lost the will to live. So yeah, sometimes I need to be educated on the ins and outs of American football. 
Peter, let me tell you what, one of these days, I graduated from the University of Tennessee. I'm going to take you to the good old-fashioned South-eastern Conference football game. You're absolutely going to love it. I'll walk you through and talk you through everything, but the best part is all the tailgating, man.
It was confusing, but I will take you up on that offer, definitely, someday.You mentioned parental rights, and I've just actually written a piece for Our Church magazine on this issue, which we are facing a hugely hot topic, currently debated in Parliament over the last few weeks even. I was at a demo yesterday outside Parliament on this very issue. We've watched those debates with parents, those school meetings, and the frustration of parents even getting access to materials and this has certainly been a huge topic here and over there. How is that playing out in the political sphere with many organizations trying to educate parents to what is happening, getting parents more involved, trying to wake up politicians to what's happening.Well, I will tell you again, let's go back to what happened in Virginia. And you saw a state that had just gone for Joe Biden in the 2020 election by 10 or 11 points. And then a year later, they lose the governor's mansion and they lose lieutenant governor, they lose attorney general. Why? Because all of a sudden, Tara McAuliffe gets on the debate stage against Glenn Youngkin and says the quote that the left has always believed secretly and in private, but he said it in public.Parents do not have a right in deciding what their children are being taught.That unified people, R&D didn't matter. It was just parents who want to have the best opportunities for their kids and the best opportunities comes from a great education.And when you start to look now at the schools and our kids that are failing, not reading and not doing math at grade level across the country, but yet, you know, everyone is saying everything's fine in our schools.When you have school choice that got passed in a Republican legislature in North Carolina, but the Democrat governor, Roy Cooper, comes out and declares a state of emergency, against school choice.No, this has really lit a fire under a lot of parents.No one has ever really paid attention to school board meetings.People are showing up to school board meetings. People are running for school board.They wanna make sure that the right educational policies are there.They don't want these filthy books that are showing up in school libraries.In California, they're out there saying that if your child, a little boy, wants to be a little girl, you have to go along with her or else the state of California is going to take your child away from you.This is huge, man. I don't know what the left is thinking. Having this drag queen exposure of our kids. That's contributing to a delinquency of a minor.You can't take a kid to a strip show, or they talk about this gender mutilation surgeries.If you're under the age of 18, you can't even get a tattoo. But now we're supposed to believe that an 11, 12-year-old can decide that they want their bodies to be mutilated, and parents are supposed to go along with it or else lose their child. This is a huge issue going into 2024. And when you have an organization called Moms for Liberty, that really is out there, you know, standing up for parental rights, and they're designated as a hate group. I mean, the FBI is classifying parents as domestic terrorists that are going to, you know, school board meetings. This is lighting a fire on a lot of people here in the United States, American parents and grandparents, and I think it's going to play hugely in the 2024 cycle.Yeah, we've had Tina Descovich on twice, talking to her about what Moms for Liberty are doing, and extremely jealous of the success they're having, and we need something like that here. But I'm wondering, what about churches? What's the church's position and role and engagement in this protecting children issue. 
I think churches are waking up, as a matter of fact last week I was up in Ohio, you know they have this ballot initiative coming up in November which which will basically codify murder.It says in the Bible of Deuteronomy 30 and 19, I sit before you, heaven and earth, and life and death, and choose life so that you and your descendants shall live. I mean, it's very simple.Psalms 121, verses three through five, talks about children are a blessing from God, and the man that has more of them is like arrows in the quiver. Jeremiah chapter one, talk about I knew you before I formed you in the womb. So I think you're going to see a lot of the churches standing up against this, because this is infanticide. This is not just about, okay, I'm a victim of rape, I'm a victim of incest. This is about murdering unborn babies all the way up to the time that they're born. Even in some states—California, a couple others—they're talking about, if you don't want the baby after it's born, still kill it.Now, to me, I don't understand how you justify that.This is also going to be a huge issue. The left, I think, believes that they could win on this, but when you really describe it, what they stand for, and Planned Parenthood, and Margaret Sanger, who was a white supremacist and a racist, people aren't going to go for that.It's been a destruction of the Black community. I want everyone to understand, since Roe v. Wade in 1973, over 20 million Black babies have been murdered in the womb. And in any other sense, people would say that's a genocide.So it's those simple bits of information and education we've got to get people out there.But yet, 70 to 73 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are located in black communities.So this is targeted.This issue play out in the Republican primary itself, the issue of pro-life, which some candidates are certainly much more, some are afraid of engaging, and on the issue of parental rights and responsibility of children, which are two huge issues, but obviously quite separate issues. How do you see that playing out in the Republican primary itself? 
I think Republicans need to go on offense, and I think that people are looking for someone that is strong on those issues. Lots of times Republicans will, and these are the establishment Republicans, say, don't talk about the life issue, don't talk about social issues. Well, they're here.You're talking about a group of people that believe in murdering children up to the time of birth. You're talking about a group of people that want to expose our children to sexual deviancy and perversion. You're talking about people that want to mutilate the bodies of our children, and they don't want our kids to get a good quality education. So I think that there's an incredible opportunity here for strong constitutional conservatives who just happen to have an R after their name to go against the Democrats and say, why do you hate children? I mean, that's the question that we should be asking. Why does this party have such an angst against children? They want to kill them in the womb after they're born, if they allow them to be born, they want to mutilate their bodies. They want to expose them to sexual deviancy and perversion. You know, we've got this thing in America now where the left is saying you can't say paedophiles anymore, Peter. You have to say minor attracted persons. Well, let me tell you something. I've got a two year old grandson, I got another grandson on the way.You will see someone come down on you like Thor if you mess with my grandsons.And so we've got to protect our kids. But with all that being said, they still don't want to educate them. They have a good future. I mean, it's appalling what is happening in the system of education in America where our kids can't read and do math at grade level. So yes, I think that this is an issue that should be talked about. It's an economic issue, because the more that you have future generations dependent upon the government, you know, who's going to pay for that? So we are dwindling our economic opportunities by way of lessening our educational opportunities. 
Can I finish on something a little bit different? Your background is military and here in the UK we've had that with the royal family, we've had the military connection, we've had originally, traditionally, many serving the military going into public service in politics and I know you've also had that in the States.Is that becoming less so with military shrinking, with less influence? The route you've taken, is that not really as viable to others?
Well, I will tell you that I come from a military family. My dad served in the Army in World War II in the European Theatre.My older brother was a Marine infantryman in Vietnam. My dad challenged me to be the first officer in our family when I was 15.And so I went through college ROTC and was commissioned in 1982, served 22 years.My nephew is a lieutenant colonel right now in the Army.My father-in-law did 24 years of service, two combat tours of Vietnam.Both of my son-in-laws are soldiers. And so that sense of generational service to the country, I think we're losing that.And as a matter of fact, it was about a month and a half ago, the current Secretary of the Army, Christine Wormuth, said that she doesn't want to recruit future soldiers from families that have generations of service to the country.Wants to look at a new and different type of recruit. Well, first of all, what a slap in the face to families that have had a lifelong commitment to this country of service and sacrifice and commitment. And I think everyone knows that the recruiting and retention in our military is down. Why? Because they're focusing all these social pet peeves and ideological agendas of the left. You cannot have an effective military fighting force if you're instituting cultural Marxism that says, well, you know, Peter, since your skin colour, you're bad, you're an oppressor, there's nothing you can do about that. Alan, because of your skin colour, you're a victim, you're oppressed. So how are we supposed to get in a foxhole together, Peter? How are we supposed to trust each other in a situation called combat? But yet that's what's happening in our military, and this whole emphasis on gender dysphoria, and how we're spending taxpayer money to allow, you know, soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines to take paid leave.To go and murder future generations of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines in their womb.We have got to change things in the Oval Office because the most important title for a president of the United States of America is Commander-in-Chief. Right now, when you think about what Joe Biden did with that debacle in Afghanistan, where 13 Americans unnecessarily lost their lives. Many others were wounded at Hamid Karzai International Airport, but the story is not told about the other Marines who have committed suicide because of that fateful day, and how so many feel that they were abandoned. I spent two and a half years in Afghanistan. So we have got to change things with the leadership of our military, especially the civilian side. When you've got a Secretary of Defence that's writing letters to females in the military saying that you just need to go ahead and be prepared for biological males to be in your shower and latrine facilities, that's not what the American people want to support in our military.Because the military in the US has been an institution that has united the country traditionally. You have much more respect, I think, for your military even than we have in Europe.And I kind of see that, as a foreigner looking in, as slowly unravelling.Is that a kind of fair assessment?
It's a very fair assessment. And the thing is that it is not that the trust and confidence is lacking for the individual, the young troops, soldier, sailor, airman, marine.It's the lack of trust and confidence in the leadership of our military, be it the civilian leadership or the senior military leadership that is lacking.So until there are changes there, that lack of trust and confidence is going to continue.Colonel Allen West, I appreciate you coming on today and obviously the viewers can get more of your own steadfast and loyal podcast over on Rumble and elsewhere. And I will certainly take you up on your offer of understanding college football. I will sometime, but thank you so much for coming on and sharing your expertise and understanding what's happening stateside.
Thank you, Peter. It's a pleasure and God bless you and God be with you.

Joe Allen - DARK ÆON: Transhumanism and the War Against Humanity

Show notes and Transcript
Joe Allen has just written a book that is a warning to humanity. In Dark Aeon he has unpacked the uber complex issue of Transhumanism and shown how this move towards merging human with machine is the biggest threat humankind now faces. Joe returns to Hearts of Oak to show how this is about control and not simply technology. He points to the main actors in this frightening plan who now operate in plain sight. And he ends, as he does in the book, by looking at the spiritual side of this. Not only numerous end time warnings from the bible but also how personal faith and trust in God can guide us through this assault on our very soul.
Joe Allen is a fellow primate who wonders why we ever came down from the trees!He has written for Chronicles, The Federalist, Human Events, The National Pulse, Parabola, Salvo, and Protocol: The Journal of the Entertainment Technology Industry. He holds a master’s degree from Boston University, where he studied cognitive science and human evolution as they pertain to religion. As an arena rigger, he’s toured the world for rock n’ roll, country, rap, classical, and cage-fighting productions. Joe now serves as the transhumanism editor for Bannon’s WarRoom.
Dark Aeon: Transhumanism and the War Against Humanity with foreword by Stephen K Bannon available from Amazon...https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dark-Aeon-Transhumanism-Against-Humanity/dp/1648210104/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Connect with Joe ....Substack: https://joebot.substack.com/GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/JOEBOTxyzX: https://twitter.com/JOEBOTxyz?s=20War Room: http://warroom.org/
Interview recorded 11.9.23
*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 GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more...https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Transcript
(Hearts of Oak)Joe Allen, it is wonderful to have you with us here at Hearts of Oak. Thanks so much for joining us today. 
(Joe Allen)
Good to be here, Peter. Thank you very much. 
And we're obviously going to go into your, book, which is just out, which is Dark Aeon, Transhumanism and the War Against Humanity.We will delve through that, and I have read most of it. It is a book you can dip in and out of chapter by chapter. We will go through that and it's always good to have a book that's, different than the norm. It doesn't fit into the normal books I think often we come across on the conservative side. It's a completely different subject and subject that most people are probably afraid to even engage with but we'll get into that. Obviously follow Joe @JoeBotXYZ on Twitter, joebot.xyzonline. He is Transhumanism Editor War Room Pandemic. And maybe Joe, we can first jump in. We've had John before to talk about this and this book obviously 400 plus pages goes really into depth on this subject from different angles. But Joe, your background was in the entertainment industry. As a rigger, you worked behind the scenes piecing venues together literally.How did you get from music concerts in the entertainment industry to be a technology journalist?Well, you know, I think journalist might be pushing it. Journalist might be pushing it, but I've been a writer ever since I was a child and I began writing professionally.2007 was my first published article. And so as a writer, the goal has always been just describe reality in as smart-ass of tone as I could possibly muster.As I've gotten older, it's gotten a bit more serious, a little less smart-ass.Not entirely. If you've read the book, you can see that there's plenty of smart-ass left in me.But well, I spent most of my adult life between the arena and academia.So when I did my undergrad, I needed a job. I went down to the arena at my school, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and began working as a stagehand.Quickly noticed the guys climbing both in the rafters in the arena and also on the stages.Thought that might be a preferable gig to lugging boxes around.So very early on, I pushed my way into the climber, the stage climber and then rigger world.And that was where I stayed for about 15 years, give or take.And I would dip back into academia, that lifestyle, that job gives you a lot of time off.And so I would audit courses, I audited courses in Asheville, North Carolina, audited courses in Portland, Oregon, and then eventually took my master's degree at Boston University.So in many ways, the rigging gig was a way to accumulate money that I could waste on a useless education.So that was really my entire life until the pandemic was between those two worlds.And once the pandemic hit, not only could you not just simply walk onto a campus to ask questions of a professor or visit a library, obviously the work of stagecraft was completely destroyed.And even when it came back, it came back with masks and vaccine mandates and all that stuff.But, you know, once the hammer fell in regard to the COVID pandemic, I knew that I would also have to change in order to stay sane.I packed up a survival bunker on wheels.I began traveling cross country.I watched the race riots and I watched the the mask holes versus the naked faces.And spent a lot of time out in nature. And at that time you could spend a lot of time in nature by yourself. There weren't hordes of people everywhere for the most part.So, it was during that time that Bannon discovered my work at The Federalist, and once I went on The War Room, he hired me almost immediately.I've been there for two and a half years.So, for two and a half years, my brain has been completely saturated with transhuman doom.It's quite interesting, because in the book you mention, I think in the introduction, that you weren't really interested in politics that much, and you end up being on one of the most political shows online, one of the most popular political shows online.It's weird how COVID has taken us and dropped you in that environment.
You know, Steve has always had an interest in transhumanism.He's always been a bit freaked out by it, and I think anyone who understands the full implications should be.Even if you're excited about it, you should be freaked out about it.So it was always something that was bracketed from the rest of the show.Now, arguably, conservatism is all about preserving that which was handed down traditionally, and to some extent, that which was handed down familially.And so there's really nothing more conservative than wanting to conserve Homo sapiens.You know, the title of the book has a double meaning in both the title and the subtitle.The title Dark Aeon is a reference to a period of time, but Eon, actually, this has been a war between, this is the real war between me and Steve, is it Eon or Aeon?It looks like he's winning, but Dark Aeon is a reference to a period of time.It's also a reference to Gnostic entities, which we can go into in more depth if you would like, but there is definitely the element of Gnosticism is very, very important in the book.The idea though of transhumanism and the war against humanity, that also has a double meaning.On the one hand, it's the war against what it means to be human.The very identity of human being, that the notion of transhumanism is that the human being is something to be surpassed, something to be ultimately transcended by way of technology.On the other hand, there are strains of transhumanism which predict that the technologies we are developing right now are in fact developing a life of their own.They will eventually, through evolutionary processes, that they will eventually come to dominate and replace us, if not destroy us outright.And so, whether it's the gentle version of transhumanism, which seeks to transform the human being irrevocably, or whether it's the harsh post-human world, which is envisioned as one in which humanity goes extinct or is completely destroyed, just like that, and is celebrated, it is undoubtedly a war against humanity.So the notion of conservatism, to conserve, to preserve what we have, it does really fit with any sort of resistance to, or conflict with the transhumanist worldview.It would be very difficult to do so from a liberal point of view, I think, if you are a true liberal, because a true liberal is all about freedom.And it's all, you know, the true liberal does not want the constraints of tradition.The true liberal does not want the constraints of even the body in many ways, right?You can see it in the trans movement. You can see it in many of the sorts of sexual and transracial and crossracial sorts of culture.So, yet, at the same time, and I know that this is probably going on too long and getting too complicated, at the same time, there are a lot of left-wing arguments against transhumanism, but primarily they revolve around the idea that billionaires are in charge of human evolution at this point, that billionaires are directing the very fate of the species.So it's a complex landscape, and I hope that the book captures that.Well, I just want to take two, one quote which is on the back of the book, but the few lines I think certainly on Amazon says, like a thief in the night, artificial intelligence has inserted itself into our lives. It makes important decisions for us every day, often we barely notice. As Joe Allen writes in his groundbreaking book, Transhuman is the great merger of humankind with the machine. And then there is a Naomi Wolf writing on the back, which is high praise and makes me very jealous. And she says, Joe Allen's Dark Aeon is the first comprehensive critical analysis of the planned post-human future. It will give you great clarity as well as nightmares. Allen has long been our most thoughtful authority on this ill-understood catastrophe and no one who wants humanity to survive should ignore his warnings here. I feel like we should just finish the interview at that point. I mean that's enough. When you're people saying that, you must realize, and you do realize I guess, the importance of this topic and the importance of getting this information into people's hands to ready them for what's coming. 
Yeah a lot of people I think even in the War Room crowd, they see a topic like transhumanism is very abstract.It's very much in the future for them, right? Like it's not something that's relevant for today and therefore it's not worth paying attention to.I think that misses a lot of the ways in which the transhumanist ideology is poking through into our reality already by way of various technologies, not least of which would be say the MRNA vaccine or the chat bots, which have rapidly begun to flood educational systems, corporate environments, and of course the internet itself.People don't necessarily link that to the transhumanist view, either because they're not familiar with it or because those don't seem as dramatic as the predictions and the prescriptions of the transhumanists.But I don't see it as being necessarily the most important issue, it just depends on how these technologies pan out and of course how people accept them and use them.But without a doubt, if you look at the various problems that face the West, as a series of layers, whether it be demographic integrity, whether it be sexual and gender propriety, whether it be the preservation of religious tradition or familial traditions, with clan traditions, for you Irishmen out there.I think all of these, basically what we see in the 20th century is an invasion of every border, just ramping up, ramping up, ramping up, whether they be national borders, whether they be the borders of the body, the borders between genders, the borders between races, the borders between language groups, and of course the borders between religious groups.All of these have been shred in an attempt to create some sort of multi-culti homogeneous, just grade out Borg.Riding on top of all of that is technology.And it would be crazy to say that transhumanism is driving all of this.I don't think so. I think that it's more of the kind of thing that sits at the pinnacle of it.The ultimate border between human beings and machines is being dissolved, first conceptually, and then in actual physical reality. It's very subtle, not unlike what amounted to a very rapid demographic transformation of America and more and more so the UK. It was something that wasn't noticed at first. It wasn't really noticed until it was too late, at least not by enough people.I fear that the same is happening with technology. People are already melded to their smartphones.Their personalities have become, like the most relevant aspects of their personalities are imprinted on the digital field.And so as we move forward into whatever future lies ahead of us, I think that the alarm bells, they tend to go off momentarily.Oh my God, there's nanobots in the vaccine.And then when none of that pans out, the more slow, subtle role into the merger between man and machine takes place without really any sort of resistance or oftentimes without anyone noticing.One thing I came across, transhumanism is, as you so often present it, has been about technology and the robot side.But throughout reading your book and right at the beginning, you also bring out the side of power and control and certain individuals and it seems to be as much as that element of control as it is about that element of technology.
Absolutely. Various modes of control. So at its core, transhumanism is about the individual being able to control themselves by way of technology and technique, about being able to control nature, of course, be that clearing land for a new data centre, or be that controlling the weather itself directly by say seeding ice nuclei into the clouds.It's also about controlling other people.That rarely ends up being something voiced explicitly, but it's implicit, occasionally it is, but it's implicit.The idea that one's will, one's will to power will be expressed through technology, well, that's also going to include the social sphere.Whether or not that is the stated intention, undoubtedly the technological system that we live in right now.If you think of the cyborg as a relationship between the animal or the organism and the machine, and the cyborg is a two-way control system so that the organism has control over the machine and therefore over nature, society, so on and so forth.But the machine also has input into the organism.And the ratio of control, whether or not the organism is the primary mover in the system or whether or not the machine, and that varies.And what I see in the current technological landscape that we live in, there is an illusion that the average person has control over this technological system.But nobody's telling you what to order from Uber Eats.Nobody's telling you where to buy that plane ticket. Nobody's telling you who to friend on social media, nor are they telling you what to say on there.Not necessarily, but what is happening, aside from the barriers, you are not going to do this, is that by and large, propaganda, both subtle and overt, has put the desires into people's minds as to what they want from these systems.And so very often you see that people are chasing their desires within that technological structure, and these are desires that were put into them by the corporations or even the governments that these systems serve.So as far as control goes, these systems, whether we're talking about social media itself, the tight relationship between the human mind and the internet, which has become just insane in the last two and a half decades, it's astonishing how much people just take it for granted that the internet really is a secondary piece of our cognition.But the control system itself, what you see, again, whether it's the internet, whether it is the digital currencies that surveil everything that we do, and eventually will most likely be used to stop us from doing what we are not wanted to do, to the digital ID systems, all of it amounts to a control system in which the participant in the West has the illusion of control over the system, when in fact, it's corporate and government power exerting control over us en masse and individual by individual, then of course in China, it gives you a real good idea of where it could go in the West, where it's just simply overt.You have the city brain data centers that gather all of the surveillance data, and it's just obvious that the entire purpose is for social control, a kind of cultural eugenics, or the smart eye system connected to it, so that everywhere in China there are surveillance systems that the common understanding is if you run afoul of the state, then the state can get you no matter what.That's implicit in America, and I think anybody who's paying attention knows that's also the case.But in America, maybe it's even more dangerous. There is the illusion that you have control over the system, that the system is going to respond to your desire.But I see it very much as top-down.There's more technocracy than transhumanism, but I see those as, as Patrick Wood so aptly said, you know, technocracy and transhumanism are really just two sides of the same coin, one being related to the social structure and the other being related to the worldview. 
At the beginning you gave statements from two world leaders, Klaus Schwab, you say, our life in ten years from now will be completely different and who masters those technologies in some way will be the master of the world. That was a recent one. Then you also give Putin from 2017 and he says whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world. You mentioned China. I'm wondering in the West, have we come to the point where there's just simply too much faith and trust in our leaders?
Uh, yes and no. I think that, um...There is a lot of cynicism in America, both left and right. So it's very interesting to see so many people that really don't believe in the system anymore and yet have become tools of that system, very much so.In fact, I don't know how intentional or not it is, but the sort of dissident movements both left and right in America, and perhaps in Europe, you would perhaps be able to educate me on that.But those dissident movements have, I am very much in awe of and appreciate the energy within them, but I really do wonder where we end up from here with this degree of just rampant cynicism and atomization and social discord.You saw it explicitly during the pandemic.Everybody who was a mask hole, everybody who was a vax maniac, they wanted to see the other side die.Not everyone, okay, everyone's pushing it, but there was a very strong and oftentimes voiced desire that we are the smart ones, we are in line with the science.We can't wait to watch you all rot in the streets like we're in Stephen King's The Stand.Then it was quite interesting When the vaccine rolled out and you started seeing all the cases of myocarditis, you started seeing the heart attacks, the people who died suddenly and all this, and a lot of things that I think are hooey, but undoubtedly the damage done, that cannot be argued against in my mind.You saw the same desire on the side of the anti-vaxxers, the anti-maskers, right?That all of these people, occasionally you would hear people trot theories out that everyone who got the vax would be dead within two years, and now that we're three years in, everyone will be dead of cancer in five years.And then I suppose once we get to that point, those who keep pushing it along, this desire to see the other side disappear.This desire to see the whole thing come down, come crumbling down, I don't know where it goes, but it's obvious that it's very strong.And I fear oftentimes that we're being maneuvered into these psychological states, that perhaps both sides will get their wish. Perhaps both sides will get to see the other side disappear.So, I don't know if that answers your question, but I think that those who cling to the normalcy of the Democratic leaders or any more, those who cling to the cult of personality around Trump in America, they're hanging on to anchors that I don't believe will hold.The Democratic Party, obviously, that's a shit show. And Trump, I just simply, I want to believe that he'll be able to come in and make greater impacts than he did before.I'm not holding my breath. As for all those who are completely disillusioned with those two, you know, very old white men, right?I sense that we're seeing the beginnings of a crack up. And so where does technology sit in all of that?I think one of the real ways in which technology will affect this, aside from being the medium through which these struggles take place, that if you end up in a point where your society is totally balkanized and where many of the people in the society are atomized, they become that much easier to control, especially to kind of craft digital realities around their minds.And with the advent of artificial intelligence as it exists now, we really are facing an era where each individual mind or each sort of in-group can be easily manipulated.They can be easily monitored, their sentiments, their thoughts, their opinions.And then you can craft messages using AI or do it by, you know, in a sense manually, but such as say Obama's rhetoric that was built off of mass data mining.You can, right now, GPT offers the ability that if you can lure people into a relationship with an AI, in the future, I believe, and not too distant future, they won't even know that it is an AI.But at the moment, it's just, it's more of the kind of subtle crafting of rhetoric for any given group or any given person, made much more efficient by these technologies.You can just crank out propaganda without really any limit.And if you have any sort of access to the monitoring systems, if you pay a third-party company in order to monitor certain crowds online, to monitor certain communications, or if you are the corporations such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, or if you are the federal government with back doors into these, You can monitor, and this has been true for two decades now, you can monitor groups, and it's much easier, like if I could sit and watch you in your house day in and day out, it'd be much easier for me to manipulate you.And that is the future that we're facing, and the more balkanized we become, I think the easier it will be to create control systems, even as it looks like opposition.100%. I was intrigued that right at the beginning of the book, I mean you don't hold back, you say early on humanity 2.1, 2.0 will be transnational, transcultural, transgender, transracial, transspecies, and at its extreme edge transhuman, the merger of man and machine, they're ready to create heaven on earth, digital currency will be life's blood. Hard-hitting, I'm wondering, how did you manage looking into this vast subject, which is rapidly changing and advancing, how did you manage to look for the truth and expose what was happening whilst at the same time, I guess, keeping you sane and the reader sane?
I hope the reader stays sane. I'm not sure that I've stayed sane.Really, the two main projects of the book are to look at the ideas of what the future will be and to look at the ideas of what these technologies, how these technologies should be used and of course looking at where these technologies are right now, and imagining the possibilities. All transhumanism is in essence, is it's a response to a rapidly evolving technological society. You have all of these radical technologies and the question of how do you use them. So this has been true from the plough on, right? And if you've looked at comparative agriculture, different societies have done it very, very differently. And with the advent of trains, planes, automobiles, especially automobiles, if you look at the difference in how LA is set up compared to New York City or Mumbai, how these technologies are used are very, very, very different, both because of the quality of the technology and just the organization.That changed everything about the human social structure. What we're facing right now, just as over the last two or three centuries, industrialized Nations have been able to terraform the earth around them to just completely alter the habitat in which human beings live not only within the cities But even without right literally moving mountains without the faith of the mustard seed, What we're facing now is a moment in which you have technologies that can be turned inward that can begin to terraform the human being itself So, the transgender movement is oftentimes pointed to as an example of this.I think that it is one aspect of it, without a doubt, sometimes explicitly declared by various transhumanists, in some ways, maybe even just symbolically, kind of a canary in the coal mine, but you see this radical and oftentimes very disturbing use of technology to completely alter the human.I fear though, Peter, that again, as people focus on these extreme cases, they don't realize that their minds are already being terraformed by the digital environment.Whether it's something good, whether it is Jesus Christ coming to you through your preacher in the screen, or whether it is the devil himself coming through the various sorts of satanic entertainments that have, for decades now, enamoured the youth, it really ultimately boils down to the human being creating a relationship with the machine so that whether you are left or right, whether you are a Christian or atheist, whether you are fascist or communist, I think that the pre-technological way of life, the pre-technological state of mind, say, from let's just pick a random date, the 20s, okay?You've barely got movie theaters at this point. Automobiles are kind of a novelty puttering around. They're not common. The first planes have gotten off the ground. It is very low tech. You're just now starting to understand at that point where these technologies are going to go, but the human being has been left basically intact.Whether you have the kind of proto-fascist or the fierce nationalist movements or whether the communists, yes, the ideologies make a big difference as to the social structure and the direction of the nation, but insofar as the actual quality of the human being, the way in which the human being lives, the type of human being we're talking about, I think that people of that period, just to pick one, you could pick any one of them, people that period have more in common with each other.And we have more in common with each other by virtue of this new technological way of life than we do across, right? So that the fascist of 1930 is really more similar in the ultimate way in which the human being is expressed, more similar to the communist of that era than he is is to the fascist of our era, or whatever.Just pick any ideology, any sort of Christian, Hindu, Muslim, whatever, any mode of being.I think this is really, really important because what we're talking about is a civilizational transformation by way of technology.And conservatives are oftentimes pushing these technologies saying that this is going to empower us, this is going to allow us to win, we'll finally be able to win, we'll use AI, we'll be able to send out messaging and we'll be able to analyze the landscape, we'll be able to create war bots, we'll be able to do all these things.Yeah, that's probably true. But ultimately, when you look at the transhuman vision, the vision that human beings are intended just by virtue of the laws of nature herself are intended to create and merge with and perhaps to give up their own existence to machines that whether it comes from the left, whether it comes from the right, whether it's libertarians, whether it's the communist, capitalist hybrid in China, it really doesn't matter.All of these different facets are just ratcheting it up and ratcheting it up.
And conservatives, oftentimes I think that they have some sort of delusion that we'll be able to go just this far and no further.But that's never happened.And I don't see any reason for it to now. I'm actually, insofar as staying sane, I don't think that, one thing that reassures me, it's you've never seen a global transformation that was equally impactful across the board.So, you have certain centers of power, certain centers of influence, you have certain areas that are gonna be transformed more than others, that have been transformed more than others.Silicon Valley versus a farm in Kansas.So, I don't think, like, when people talk about the future, they oftentimes talk about, like, they talk about it as if every single human being will experience the same thing all at once.I think it'll be very, very different.It'll be very different in rural America than it will be in urban America, just as it is now.It'll be very different in present-day First World nations than it is in Third World nations, just as it is now.But at the same time, at the bleeding edge of that, you are going to see just the same transformation we've seen both socially, psychologically, spiritually, culturally over the last, pick, three decades.That transformation, barring an EMP or barring technical difficulties that no one could have foresaw, we are going to see an even more rapid transformation.The question is, do you belong to that transformation? Do you go along with that?Do you resist it? And if so, what the hell are you going to do?How are you going to live?How do you live outside a system that is completely digitized?If everybody uses digital currency and you say no, how do you buy things?If everyone uses digital IDs and you say no, how do you get the goods of society?How do you be, how are you a person in that society?And of course, you're thinking of the radical technologies such as artificial intelligence, or even the more minor noninvasive brain computer interfaces which undoubtedly do confer certain advantages.If your competitors are making use of these tools and you're saying, no, I'm a Luddite, I'm not going to do it.How do you compete?These are very, very difficult questions. And I can't say that I offer any definite answers, but I hope to at least give some hint that it doesn't have to be the same for everyone all the time.But if you are going to drop out of the system, If you indeed are put off by the notion of merging humankind with machines, you had better figure out some fucking way to live in this world.And as you say, conservative thinking go certain point and no further and this is not about a just about a possible dystopian future, it is about what is happening today and with Amazon and palm payments with Alexa listening to all we say to make our lives easier, with tesla discussing self-driving cars would not have the bother of driving, WorldCoin from open AI.It's all a kind of a vision of the Jetsons, a golden age made possible by technology to make our lives easier.There is a great PR campaign going on that this is all about, we can sit back and just do little and technology will live our lives for us. And many people are happily on that travelator.Yeah, that dream is, again, that's the central thrust of the book is what are these dreams?What do they dream of?And not just the intellectuals, but also people like Elon Musk, people like Larry Page, people like Jeff Bezos, what are their dreams? Because their dreams are going to guide and shape the course of human history.They already have.That's going to continue. Money, wealth, power, political pull, that is always going to shape the world.But you are never going to actually see the full realization of those dreams, right?They're always going to be half of what was dreamt. Material reality will always drag it down to some extent.There's always some sort of glitch.But some version of them are already coming to pass. And as you just mentioned.You've already got the rampant use of digital currency. Most people, most of their purchases are done via digital purchases now.So you don't need a chip in your palm. You don't need a palm scanner.You don't have to be completely plugged into the system biologically in order for all of the desired effects of using digital currency to be realized. They track everything that you're doing, that you're spending, and of course it leaves the option to shut you off, to debank you, and we've seen just a few instances of that.I imagine that since nobody has really stood up and done much of fucking anything to stop it.That will continue. The political enemies will be punished in this way, and I suspect that if our side returns to power in any meaningful way, those same methods will be used on the other end. So when you think about the ultimate trajectory of all these, though, you just mentioned the classic list, it's really like people do not realize where this is going unless they see the mentality behind what kind of person would put in place a system in which you would pay with your palm.Clearly someone who has no respect or caution about the prophecies contained at the end of the Bible, because it's so on the nose. It's crazy. You'd almost think that they're doing it just to mess with the Christian mentality. It is so clearly resonant with the mark of the beast. That includes also the sort of, you'd mentioned world coin, the biometric system that scans the iris and gives you cryptocurrency and allows you to prove that you're human on the internet, and then of course you have Clear, the company that is set up in every airport in America for the most part and across the world I believe, but you've got Clear that you're tying your biometric, your body to your digital identity.It's obvious that it allows for convenience for you. It's also obvious that it allows for total control from the top.One last example that you just mentioned, and it's a really, really critical one.Autonomous vehicles. People have oftentimes said, kind of like with flying cars, which have yet to manifest, well, if AI is so great, why don't they have self-driving cars? Whatever happened to that?A lot of people who aren't paying attention are going to be very, very surprised at how rapidly those will roll out. Already, Tesla and Google and various other self-driving companies, their cars, even though it's a smaller sample size, their cars are actually safer than human beings driving.So that statistically, there are fewer accidents and certainly fewer fatal accidents with these machines.The problem is that when they do happen, like when one of them freaks out and starts running somebody over, or when you hear a story about the car swerving off and hitting a bicyclist or something like that, there is this instinctive reaction to the idea of a machine doing it rather than a human, there's nobody to be responsible for it, there's nobody who could control it, that is really the barrier to these things being rolled out. It's really not a matter of the technology improving, although they will continue to try to improve them, it's really a matter of public acceptance and how do you craft the policy to prove liability in the case of an accident. And once you end up in a system in which you have, let's say you have a dramatic shift in the same way that nobody wore a fucking mask in America until 2020.You you get this dramatic shift in which people suddenly think okay. Well, these autonomous vehicles are much much safer and I don't have to worry some crazy redneck in a truck trying to run me off the road or some ghetto mama, you know, menacing me with her who ride. You just simply turn the entire infrastructure or at least some vast portion of the infrastructure into an autonomous system. And at that point the trucker convoys are a very very good example if you just imagine forward to a world in which everything is autonomous or at least most vehicles are autonomous and the trucks would probably be among the first to convert in that direction.You don't have trucker convoys in that world because it's just a matter of flipping the switch and it's done. There is no individual choice in that if they decide that you no longer have that choice. And it's very, very important going forward that people realize that even if old tech, the rather inconvenient tech, or the older, more traditional arrangements do have their disadvantages competitively, that is really where a lot of our freedom comes from. The organic provides for much more freedom than the digital, at least ultimately, Because the organic cannot be controlled directly, the digital can.I want to just end off on, you mentioned about the biblical side, and that's kind of part three of the book, Reflected Inversion.But just the book itself, it's what, 450, 460 pages, and that might put off people on a topic like this.And yet, I certainly found it that the 13 chapters read like maybe 13 different essays, 13 ways of maybe looking at the problem we face.Is that kind of what you wanted to bring out in the book, that kind of style to present to the viewers so they could dip in and out?
Absolutely. You know, there's an arc from beginning to end. You can see the clear progression, but let's say that you are curious about the origins of this movement, say Ray Kurzweil.There's chapter two for you. Let's say that you want to understand the evolutionary paradigm and how it bleeds over into the technological.That's chapter four.  The people who have, the more astute observers who have noticed the ways in which the great reset or just the entire pandemic phenomena shifted people towards a more digital existence.There's chapter five for you, you know, so on and so forth, the satanic elements.Chapter seven is a comparison of Yuval Noah Harari with Elon Musk.Probably my favorite chapter to write is the eighth chapter, in praise of mad prophets. The real thesis of that is that being insane and being correct are not mutually exclusive. It's pretty astounding how spot on in a symbolic way.People who are schizophrenic or acid casualties, that they were really able to tune into the kind of technological nightmare that was coming towards us, even as far back as the 1700s.So, every chapter is its own little world, but each one bleeds into the other.And for those who are really interested in the religious side of it, the third part is entirely focused on the religious side.The first, the ninth chapter, Images of Jesus is looking at these technological developments in light of what we can glean from the Bible.And virtual gnosis, on the other hand, is looking at that Gnostic element, that Gnosticism being an inversion of the Christian mythos, but then transhumanism being a subsequent inversion of the Gnostic mythos.It's really, I don't think you can understand the deep impulse behind transhumanism, the deep impulse to overcome the body, to transcend the biological by way of technology, without understanding Gnosticism.And I don't think that they're one in the same. I'm not an everything's narcissism kind of person, but the connection is very obvious. It is, in fact, like I say, it's yet another inversion.So my hope is that any reader could pick it up and browse through at their leisure or start from the beginning.I mean, you'd be a better judge than I, but I hope that I used colloquial language and enough fart jokes to keep you moving along.But yeah, and just so that people aren't too intimidated, it's 400 pages minus the meticulous citation.I did, there is a lot of citation at the end, mainly because I don't want anyone to be able to accuse me of making any of this stuff up.Everything in the book is me trying to channel the possible futures that these people are dreaming up.And by the end, I hope that you understand how they connect to the actual technological system that we live in.And I hope that you have the wherewithal to come up with something better, because there's not really any way for me to tell people how to live their lives in the face of this, but I do have hope that plenty of people will be able to chart their own courses through this future.And I have every hope that barring some planet-wide extinction-level event, that human beings, that traditional humanity, that religious humanity will in fact endure, Although I'm fairly certain that we're facing a dark eon, so to speak.
Oh, yeah. Just for the viewer, I read it with one of these, going through and marking it.I often wish that when I have guests on, that the book would be just, you kind of switch your mind off and you can read it.And it usually isn't like that. It's usually wow, wow.And certainly, this is a book, and I think the viewers and listeners will find it when they get hold of it.As it is one that that makes you think. But let me just touch on that last third part before making sure people know where and when they can get it. That third part, I mean as a Christian I found it intriguing, the third part, and you said you start off part three, reflected inversion, the book of humanity has an unshakable herd instinct. Fall on the wrong side of the race debate and you risk being condemned. Fall on the wrong side of the tech debate and you'll be accused of controlled opposition, fall on the wrong side of a religious debate, and you'll be mocked as superstitious. And yet, Joe, you bring not only the Bible and end-time theology into it, into the last part, but you also refer numerous times to your own personal faith and struggles in accepting who Jesus says he is, what the Bible teaches. And I find that intriguing, that you personalized it. Was that a thought at the beginning on how you fit that in to the book, or did that come out as you begun to write the book?It came out fairly early. My main motivation was that I'm writing about all of these different religious ideas, and I thought that I wouldn't want someone to think that I believed those ideas, but I also wouldn't want to convey the impression that I believe exactly what they believe.I sense a lot of times in religious writers, popular religious writers, an attempt to, use the cross as a selling point. They kind of use the cross as a billboard for the value of their work, and so I myself am a Christian, but certainly, one reason I entitled that chapter, Images of Jesus, a Confession, is to give the reader an idea of where I'm coming from on this, whether they find any value in it or reject that perspective entirely, just so that there was, I don't want people tobe under the impression that I'm coming from coming at this from a place that I'm not.And the hardest thing to me in Christianity is the demand for a certain magnanimity, a certain peaceableness, for forgiveness and charity. These things are very easy to put aside when we are amped up in tribal warfare, which we are. But that is in fact, as I see it, the core, not only of Jesus's message, but of many other religious figures across the planet. And it's a mystery to me as to why, but there's one thing I believe, it is that the message of Jesus in the gospel, that you cannot serve two masters, God or mammon, in the message that one must turn the other cheek.I know there's like a million different ways you can wiggle out of that using various linguistic turns, but it's pretty clear as a whole that what Jesus was talking about was a kingdom not of this world and therefore a kingdom whose tactics are not involved with this world.And because that's so difficult, I'm oftentimes averse to calling myself a Christian because I am an asshole.And so the idea of running around waving a cross while continuing to be my manimal self, this is more than I can bear.But yes, the religious element, transhumanism is a techno religion and you can't understand it's religious contours without understanding traditional religion.And so again, my hope is that there is at least enough in there to give you a sense to contrast the two and hopefully, you know, it just either validates or inspires you to explore these things more on your own.I truly do believe that traditional religion, that the spiritual impulse and humanity really is the only thing that will save us.And so it would be impossible for me to leave that out.I think the Apostle Paul, I'm sure one of his verses in some translation was, I am an asshole, but Jesus. I'm sure that is a translation.Let me bring up, for those watching US, probably 25% of our audience, the book is available now.For those in Europe, UK, it's coming out 9th of November. Is that correct, Joe?
Yes. Unfortunately, at least with Amazon, maybe you could get it from Skyhorse Publishing.I'm not sure. Right now, it's available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, bookshop.org and skyhorse.com among other places.So it's possible you could get it from there, but yes, unfortunately the Amazon UK will not have any until November.
I've been blown away by realising the back catalogue that Skyhorse have.I hadn't come across Skyhorse until a year ago.Of course, this is jointly done with Skyhorse and War Room. Just final thought, Joe, what do you want to leave with the viewer when they get the book?What did you thought, did you want to leave with them as they read through it?At the risk of repeating myself, I really think that you have to understand the contours of this transformation that we're under. It's not a conspiracy, or at least as far as I can tell.There are too many parties and there's too much inter-infighting and opposition between them in competition. It's worse than a conspiracy.You just have a tendency in humanity, ambition, the lust for power, the lust for control, that is present across the human race and technology empowers that.When we're talking about transhumanism, the development of artificial intelligence, the development of robotic systems to replace human beings and devalue them, the introduction of brain-computer interfaces or genetic engineering, all of these are about power.If you were to destroy the World Economic Forum today, it would continue in Silicon Valley. If you were to destroy both, it would continue in Shenzhen in China or Beijing.These are mushrooms growing up from mycelium that is pervasive in humanity.In that sense, as this civilizational transformation takes place, I don't think that you're going to do well going forward, if everything is hitting you in the face like a wet fish and you're completely knocked off guard, I think that it offers an opportunity to feel out the future that they are dreaming and that has already been partially realized and hopefully allow you to dream up your own world.What world do you want your children to inhabit and how do you want them to approach the new world that we're facing. That's the key. It is a religious transformation. It is a technological transformation and I think that the only two elements that we have at our disposal are the affirmation of the deepest spiritual qualities that we have access to, and also the, steadfast and just obstinate to insist on saying no.Because more and more these systems of compliance are going to impose themselves on us.You've got a lot of practice during the pandemic and when to say no and how to say no.I think that skill will be very useful going forward because more impositions are on the way.
Joe, thank you so much for joining us. I'll just leave the viewer and listener once again with Dr. Naomi Wolf's recommendation. Joe Allen's Dark Aeon is the first comprehensive critical analysis of the planned post-human future.It will give you great clarity as well as nightmares. Allen has long been our most thoughtful authority on this ill-understood catastrophe, and no one who wants humanity to survive should ignore his warnings here. And people can get it everywhere. The links are on the description. Joe, I appreciate you coming along and sharing the book, which is, congratulations, it is a fantastic book and certainly should be read by everyone. So thanks for coming on and sharing insights from the book.Peter, I really appreciate it, man. Thank you very much.
Please subscribe, like and share!

The Week According To . . . Lewis Brackpool

Lewis Brackpool returns to Hearts of Oak to give us his analysis of the past weeks doom and gloom in the news, articles and we have a look at what he's been up to on his social media. There is plenty to get stuck into including...- No meat, no dairy and three outfits a year: Welcome to Sadiq Khan’s plan for London.- Cash payments in the UK rise for first time in 10 years.- Lewis' recent interview with Matt Le Tissier.- Update on Andrew Bridgen MP's letter to PM Rishi Sunak regarding the Pfizer vaccine.- People injured or bereaved by Covid vaccines ‘speak in code online over censorship fears.- 'A cavity is not a vagina': Trans woman refused healthcare in France.- Police officers and social workers raise fears that more than 500 children from Oldham were being sexually abused last year.- Trans activists try to cancel Richard Ayoade and Jonathan Ross over support for Graham Linehan. Lewis Brackpool is an independent journalist, broadcaster, commentator, reporter and co-founder of GritNews.His writing focus is politics, freedom of speech, news and current affairs.Here he discusses his journey into journalism."I’ve been in the alternative media for a couple of years. I was previously with another company, a Canadian-based company called Rebel News.I started there after being made redundant from my previous job as a flight attendant - or a ‘trolley dolly’ as they say!After that, I thought, ‘Right, I want to get back into politics’. I used to study it for a bit, but my views were completely different to what we were being taught back in the days of 6th Form, with all the programming that they were pushing on people, so I decided to make a YouTube channel.I did that for a year, built up some contacts, networked, really pushed out my viewpoint on various subjects, and then applied for a course to report on Rebel News."Lewis is a rare thing among journalists as he brings uncensored, unbiased and unique information all delivered in his own imitable style.
Lewis interviews Matt Le Tissier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOpHUcNdlF4
Connect and support Lewis and GritNews...Substack: https://lewisbrackpool.substack.com/GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/lewis_brackpoolX: https://twitter.com/Lewis_Brackpool?s=20&t=ugH3aHz8n6Su4agPZJouqQGritNews: https://twitter.com/Grit_News?s=20TELEGRAM: https://t.me/lewisbrackpoolGritNews: https://t.me/gritnewsYOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/@Lewis_BrackpoolGritNews: https://www.youtube.com/@Grit_News/channelsBuy Lewis a coffee! https://www.buymeacoffee.com/lewisbrackpool
Originally broadcast live 16.9.23
*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 GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and morehttps://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Links to topics discussed this episode.....Plan for Londonhttps://x.com/Lewis_Brackpool/status/1703030156397326635?s=20http://web.archive.org/web/20230916060445/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/15/sadiq-khan-green-london-net-zero-ulez-c40-mayors-2030/Cash paymentshttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66796263Matt Le Tissier https://x.com/Lewis_Brackpool/status/1701253448266608795?s=20Andrew Bridgenhttps://x.com/ABridgen/status/1700887503928975394?s=20People injured Covid vaccineshttp://web.archive.org/web/20230913220848/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/13/people-injured-bereaved-covid-vaccines-fear-censor-inquiry/'A cavity is not a vagina'https://www.euronews.com/2023/09/15/a-cavity-is-not-a-vagina-trans-woman-refused-healthcare-in-franceFears raised https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/fears-raised-more-500-children-27701295Linehanhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12517239/trans-activists-cancel-richard-ayoade-jonathan-ross-graham-linehans-book.html

Senator Malcolm Roberts - One Nation Australia Have the Guts to Say What You’re Thinking

Show notes and Transcript
We have all witnessed the complete collapse of freedoms under the Covid Tyranny that enforced in Australia. Shockingly only one political party speaks out against this new authoritarian regime and that is the One Nation party, led by the irrepressible Pauline Hanson. Senator Malcolm Roberts, along with party leader Pauline, has been a thorn in the side of the establishment throughout the last 3 years. The media have tried to silence them. The courts have tried to silence them and they have been jeered and mocked each time they speak in the Australian Senate. Yet this attempt to censor them has only emboldened them and increased their stature amongst the public. Senator Roberts joins Hearts of Oak to explain how One Nation have the guts to say what many Aussies are thinking.  
Malcolm Roberts' passion for freedom, responsibility and service are his guiding principles for his work as a Senator for Queensland.  He was first elected as a Senator with One Nation in 2016 and returned to the Senate again in 2019.The early years of Malcolm’s life was spent in India before moving to Central Queensland with his family as his father worked in the coal mines, then later to the Hunter Valley and finally settling in Brisbane.  Malcolm and his wife Christine have two adult children.Malcolm has extensive experience and success from within the corporate sector and as a business owner.   His background in engineering and mining started before graduating with an engineering degree (honours) from University of Queensland. After graduation he worked for three years as an underground coalface miner.  Malcolm rose through management ranks to lead and bring about significant profitability and production improvements at underground coal mines and coal processing plants.A keen interest in business leadership and economics led Malcolm to a Master’s degree in business administration from the University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business. He led the operational development of Australia’s largest and most complex underground coal project that successfully set many industry firsts.  He then established an executive consultancy specialising in leadership and management services for Australian and international clients.Malcolm brings to the Senate a thorough, practical and analytical approach to examining issues and is deeply committed to listening and thoroughly researching the facts.  He is enthusiastic to work with Queenslanders to understand people’s concerns, connect with people’s needs and work to bring about helpful solutions.Australia’s capacity to embrace its riches and talent has been slowly eroded over time.  Malcolm is committed to optimising our productive capacity by removing excessive government intervention and halting the slow march towards the centralist approach that undermines our ability to take responsibility and have freedom in our lives.
Connect with Senator Roberts...X: https://x.com/MRobertsQLD?s=20WEBSITE: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/
Connect with One Nation Australia...X: https://x.com/OneNationAus?s=20WEBSITE: https://www.onenation.org.au/
Interview recorded 10.9.23
 
*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 GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Please subscribe, like and share!
Transcript
(Hearts of Oak)Senator Malcolm Roberts. It is wonderful to have you with us today. Thank you for your time.
(Senator Malcolm Roberts)
No, you're welcome and thank you very much for the invitation, Peter.
Not at all. We've had lots of US, European, UK politicians, so we haven't had one from Down Under, so it's great to have you with us, giving us a little bit of an insight into what's happening in your part of the world. People can obviously find you at, there is your handle on Twitter, and they can also find your website which is there at malcolmrobertsqld.com.au it is all there on your Twitter feed. Senator Roberts, you, Senator Queensland with Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and we have certainly watched what Pauline has done there as a voice of reason in Australia. You've been there since, well really since 2019, But if we could go back a little bit, your background is not politics, it's coal mining.Do you want to just touch on that, because often we see career politicians and your story is quite different.Right, my roots go back to Wales, in the valleys around Wales, the town of Bedlenog.And my grandfather was a coal miner and my father followed him into the mines.And at a young age he got a scholarship to a grammar school, I think it was called, and he did very well and he became a mine manager at a very early age.And then he, to a credit, as a credit to him, at the age of 23 the British coal mines were nationalized, and he knew at the age of 23 that that meant they would be ruined.And so he left and went to India, which took a lot of courage, And he helped set up mines there, he helped manage mines, and then he started selling equipment over there for a very large British company at the time.Then he moved to Australia. So I grew up on mine sites, and I used to go underground with him, with dad sometimes, and I just loved the environment, loved the atmosphere.And so I studied mining engineering and graduated with a Bachelor of Mining Engineering honours degree. And then I decided, Peter, I better go and learn something. So I've worked as a coal faced miner for a few years, and different mines around the country because mining is unlike most other engineering fields. What we're dealing with as an engineer is constantly varying and it and the different approaches to different conditions varies enormously across the sector.And the other thing that's very important in the underground mining sector is the importance of people. Well, it's important in everything, but particularly important in coal mining because workers, very small teams, remote from each other, sometimes kilometres away. And of course, lives depend upon us doing our jobs properly. So I love the underground coal mining and that's where I got my experience and then I worked then briefly, sorry after I left, after I finished working three years as a coal face miner, I went overseas to America and worked for two very large companies and then I came back to Australia, got into management, sorry, got into engineering.I never really wanted to be an engineer. I like the logic of it, but I like working with people.So it was a shortcut for me to get into management. And I moved rapidly through the management ranks and was appointed a mine manager.And then after getting tired of the bean counters telling us what to do, I went to the University of Chicago.And graduate school of business and did a, it's now called the, oh, I've forgotten what it's called now, but it's got a new name.And then I came, I was offered a job in the States and then a large international company headhunting back to Australia to set up a large new underground coal mine where we did a lot of things new in the way of leadership.And that was a lot of fun. And then I formed my own consulting business and I worked overseas and Australia.And I came back from 12 months overseas with my family in New Zealand.And I heard all this rubbish about carbon dioxide causing global climate change, you know?And I thought, this is rubbish.
When was this? 
Sorry?When was this? 
What year? 2005, 2005. When I got back, it was early 2006.And I thought, this is complete crap. And so I did the research, because I won't speak up without knowing the facts.And it was crap, and it is crap. And so I then started holding politicians accountable, journalists accountable, academics accountable, frauds accountable.And Pauline Hanson heard me speak one day and she said, I want you to sit on the ticket with me for getting into the Senate. So that's what happened and I got in.Tell us, because obviously being a climate change denier, that's one of the worst sins, COVID actually is now one of the worst sins, denying that. 
I'm both, I'm both.
I love it, I love it.But how does that, because in Australia you've got a big mining industry.We've seen the US shoot itself in the foot massively by pushing towards net zero, we've seen the UK shutting down their oil fields out in the North Sea, How does it kind of work for Australia in the public? Because that's an industry that employs a lot of people, and yet it's punishing yourselves, punishing your own citizens.
Well, it's insane, Peter. It is absolutely insane, because China produces 4.5 billion tons of coal a year, every year, and it's heading for 5 billion. That is, you know, 20 years ago, it was around about 1 billion, under 1 billion, and then it rapidly moved to 3. And I got caught out by, when I was working with a client in India, and he said, no mate, it's up around 4. So 4.5, now billion, and they're heading for 5, and they're importing our coal. They want more of this stuff because they've got to get steel to make wind turbines to sell to us and to sell to you, and they've got to get coal for making solar panels to sell to us and to sell to you.And they don't put many of them up because they recognize that coal is high energy density, and that's what gives us its remarkable efficiency and its cheapness of electricity.Australia once had the cheapest electricity in the world when we used largely coal.Now we're one of the most expensive, and we've got the highest level of per capita subsidies in the world for solar and wind.And so we are destroying our industry.And get a load of this. We flew over the Gladstone, the port of Gladstone, which is a major port in our state of Queensland. And there I could see, off the port, I could see 38 coal ships ready to be loaded. You know, this thing that's going to be stopped mining.It's complete rubbish. Everyone's wanting our coal. And so, then we flew over the port itself, and there was a coal ship, an overseas vessel, loading coal from Australia to take overseas, probably to China. And there were wind turbine blades stacked up on the wharf.Importing. What we're doing is we're subsidizing the Chinese to make these things.We're subsidizing the Chinese and other foreign companies to install them.Then we're subsidizing to run them because they're so inefficient, they can't work without subsidies.So we are raising the cost of our electricity, which is now the number one cost component in manufacturing. So we're destroying our manufacturing sector, exporting our manufacturing jobs to China.Exporting our coal to China, but we can't burn it in Australia.I mean, it is insane.And, they're so destructive to the environment as well.So, we are killing our industry, killing our future, killing our security, killing our human environment, and killing our environmental environment.It's just nuts what's going on.How did you actually get in to the politics? You talked about, Pauline, seeing you.Politics can be brutal. On one side you can have the recognition, that level of fame.On the other side, I know the media can be absolutely brutal. You're not a career politician.What kind of persuaded you to leave an industry you kind of knew so well to actually enter into the public sphere of politics?
Well, my dad was from Wales, my mother was from North Queensland in the tropics.And they both valued honesty very, very highly.And that was ingrained in me. And I just couldn't turn my back on it.So what I started to do when I first realized it was a scam, this climate change rubbish, I started to write to politicians and journalists and held them accountable.And I just couldn't help myself, but I had to get the data first and do the research.So I did a lot of research, a lot of reading, contacted the most eminent scientists around the world on climate.And I realized that it was complete crap. So, that wouldn't stop me then, you know, it didn't matter.That was far more important because I could see where this was going.The number one protector of the environment.The whale's best friend, the forest's best friend is coal. Because back in your country in the 1850s, people were burning whale oil for lighting, now burning timber for cooking and for heating.And coal came along and changed all of that. And then we didn't have to hunt whales, we didn't have to cut down timber. And we've now got whales back in growing numbers.They're no longer threatened with extinction. And we've got now, I think in the developed continents, the figure I saw was 30% more area in forests than 100 years ago.Why is that? Due to coal. Coal has also been a huge benefit to humanity.Our lives along, you know, I can summarize it this way.A king or queen 200 years ago did not live as well as someone on welfare in our country today, because of the high density energy efficiency of coal, oil, and natural gas, and now nuclear.So that's the stumbling block for wind and solar. They're just so low in energy density.And Peter, we have spent the last 170 years getting away from being dependent on nature for so much.And we finally made it so that we're almost independent.What do they wanna do? Take us back to being dependent on the sun and the wind and the vagaries of nature.It's just insane. 
Tell us about Australian politics, obviously in the One Nation party you're one of two, Pauline being the other, a senator in the Senate there, 76 in the Senate. Tell us about what has been like during that time because COVID tyranny obviously hit soon after you were elected within a year, year and a half. How have you managed to be kind of the voice of reason and how has that gone down in the country?
Initially, it didn't go down to well at all, you know, but as I said, we can't back away from it.And so, if I've got the facts that show a certain position is correct, then I will speak it.It doesn't matter what it is. There's only been one or two things that I've delayed and not on COVID, that was always an urgent thing to get out.But on a couple of other issues, I've delayed to have better timing because we can get savaged.But those things are out.Out in the open now, those things are out in the open too. So it's really simple for me to just tell the truth.And I don't give a damn what people think. And the Greens, who are the most inhuman party there is, anti-human party, they're disgraceful for what they do, what they're doing to children.Families, humanity itself, and to the environment.Their policies are really hurting the environment. The Greens would yell at me and carry on and insult me and interject, but I have never, apart from once, taken an interjection.I just talk my way through it, just keep going. So they know that they won't upset me.And so in the early days, you know, the climate denial business, the COVID denial business, That didn't stop me and it never stops Pauline.They use an even worse tactic with Pauline, they call her racist, but she comes back at them now and just says, criticism is not racism.For me, it was a matter of just telling the truth, having a really strong woman beside me and me being strong beside her, having the facts to back us up, knowing that they're wrong and that I've got duty to protect people's lives.My first speech in the Senate, and every speech that I have over about two minutes, I start with the words, as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia.When I first uttered those words in my first speech, members of the Labour Party laughed.You know, but that's their job. So I take that very, very seriously. So it doesn't bother me, being slagged by the media. What is more difficult is that the media won't come near me now, because I've embarrassed a few of them, because I have the facts at hand, and they won't touch me.I know that even Sky News, which is the only semi conservative channel in this country, my name is on a list of politicians banned from Sky News, because I was calling them vaccine shills basically and pointing out their errors in what they're doing.We've had the same thing here, all the media on the right have done that and taken the money for pushing the jab. In the UK, I remember my many years in UKIP where we fought for Brexit, it was a single-issue party and therefore we had kind of the support of the media because they were happy to push a single issue which wasn't a wider threat necessarily against the establishment parties, but it ended up being a threat. 
A threat that came to reality. 
I know. 
You guys did really well. Brexit, that was wonderful for the whole world. 
We just wish, others actually, the wish is that we had politicians who knew how to drive this new thing that they have. They've been given a vehicle, they've been given freedom to do whatever they want and our British politicians are looking at each other scratching their heads thinking what do we do with this thing? That's the frustrating thing.If only we had politicians who knew what they were doing with it. But over there.One Nation is a party that has policies on everything and I've watched the attacks of populists, to use a term I guess, across Europe, parties that care about the national interest and put that before the wider interest and they've all suffered hugely. Tell us what that has been like for One Nation, what has been the kind of attacks you've had from the media?Well, as I said, Pauline has been called racist, which is the worst thing you can call an Australian woman. It's very hard to get around that. But she is remarkable. She just does not worry about it.If the truth is there, she goes for it. And as I said, now she comes back and says, criticism is not racism and she's, people know, you know, the first couple of days after I was announced as successful in 2016 and my first stint in the Senate, I was approaching our head office and in Brisbane and three black people from the Northern Territory came to me, Aboriginals, and they said, where's Pauline's office? And I said, follow me, just walk in. And they said they were from the Northern Territory, which has got a large proportion of Aboriginals.And they said they'd come down to Pauline because she's the only one who understood them and the only one who's willing to get off her arse and do something about them.So Pauline has never uttered a racist word, but she has called out racism, and for that she's been labelled a racist.So it's just a matter of.Just being strong in our self, because it doesn't matter what we get called on the media, it doesn't matter what we get called in Parliament. And now, it's very interesting, because when we first started talking about the reality of the COVID mismanagement and deceit, Peter, we were getting called out. But now, starting in about February, another senator walked up to me and said, did you see what happened when you asked your question about the injections? And I said, no, I was too busy focusing on the question and the answer. And he said, well, the Labour Party, who's now in government, at that time in February, they did their usual catcalls and jeers about as soon as I mentioned injection, I don't call them vaccines. Normally, I just call them injections because they're not vaccines. They're an experimental gene therapy based treatment. And he said, after they got over the initial slagging of you, their heads dropped, and they were silent the rest of the time. And now what we're finding is, everyone, all the major parties are now endorsing our call for a royal commission into the mismanagement of COVID. And they're just saying, two of them are just saying, not yet, after the states have finished their inquiries. And so we're getting a big change, the big issue that confronts us now is that we still haven't got recognition of the excess deaths.We've got deaths, 40,000 excess deaths above normal, 40,000.It's more than two Boeing 787 Dreamliner's crashing each week and no one's interested.No one in the government, I mean, if one Boeing crashed and everyone was killed on board, there'd be an inquiry starting straight away.But now we've got two a week on average for a year and no one's really interested.Because they are interested, but they're scared of digging into it.Now we can start seeing, people are starting to talk about it in the communities.Some of the ministers are starting to get defensive about it, because the most important thing I think in this country is we've ceded our sovereignty to the UN policies, to World Economic Forum policies, and probably an even more important thing is the fact that our politicians don't use data.As a business person, I was trained to use data. That's what I did at the University of Chicago.I learned in most statistically sound college in the world, probably, known for its hard use of statistics, and they don't use data, they just use bullshit, basically, make up whatever they want, and we come along with data, and a lot of the issues are coming to us now because we just got the data to start with, and we knew it would eventually work.Well, we have one single MP, that's Andrew Bridgen, and he is simply on the side of of vaccine harm. He actually is further to go I think to getting it but simply on vaccine harm. What is, is that not even being discussed there?Are there politicians who are willing but privately? Obviously Andrew Bridgen was kicked out of the Conservative Party. Is it putting career first before country?Well, my hat's off to Andrew Bridgen, and I've had a talk with him.He seems a very down-to-earth sort of person, no nonsense, so I admire him enormously.We have two parties, your equivalent of Tories who we call Liberals and National Party, and your equivalent of Labour Party who we call Labor Party, without the U in it.We've got the American spelling for some reason. I don't know why.They've both been reluctant to talk about it and the policies right across the whole, the mainstream of politics, they're almost identical.They're not an opposition. They pretend to be opponents, but they're not really.However, there is one enormous difference between the Liberal Party and the Nationals and the Labor Party.The Labor Party, if someone has a different view, they don't dare raise it.They don't raise anything that contradicts their Labor Party hierarchy.In the Liberal Party, most of them, most of the time, are reluctant to speak up or to cross the floor or vote against their party, but there are a few who will, just a few, and no more than three or four, depending on the issue, and it's very, very rare, but they still do it.That's the only difference between the two parties, so it's that ruthless party discipline.It's called discipline. I call it cowardice.And it's also, I call it, betrayal of the people, because they were elected to represent the people, not to put the party first.And so we're starting to see some people in the Liberal Party opening up and talking about the deaths very strongly too. There's no one in the Labor Party, no one.And the Greens, the Greens used to be opponents of Big Pharma.The Greens now are Big Pharma's little play toys and foot soldiers.The Greens are just hideous.
I've seen that. But again, I guess when you look, you thought having Scott Morrison, you thought someone who, kind of, when I look at that, conservative Labor, so the Liberal Party maybe being on the right traditionally at some point, maybe not now, but you kind of thought well he may have actually stood up for something but he was one of the biggest proponents for the tyranny. I mean we in the UK looked down at you guys and really worried, were concerned. I talked to Australian friends and it was heart-breaking that limitation of even travel across state lines, people were being punished. I mean, and then now he's out but he presided over that for for four years. Tell us more about that situation, because it was anapocalyptic situation that you'd see from some dystopian movie. 
Oh yes, you know, to give you one, Morrison lied. He was a notorious liar, control freak. He seemed to change dramatically under COVID, and so many other things in other areas, in climate. He became a climate alarmist. But under COVID, the federal government cannot issue mandates for injections, but it did. So Morrison issued mandates for the Department of Defence, the Australian Electoral Commission, Age Care, and several other agencies.He's the one who bought the injections from Pfizer and Moderna and AstraZeneca initially.He's the one who bought them with federal money, taxpayer money, gave them to the states.He indemnified the states.He shared data from the federal health department with the states, which if he hadn't shared that, there's no way the states could have put the mandates on.So, what was the other thing he did? That's right, the state premiers who put the mandates on in their own states, they injection mandates, forcing people to get injections or lose their jobs.They said that the decision to inject people through the mandates was done at the National Cabinet. Now, National Cabinet was a furphy. It was created by Morrison. It's not constitutional.It's a very closed shop. They don't release anything to the public scrutiny.And National Cabinet is a bogus entity.And Morrison headed the National Cabinet. There was one other thing.He bought the injections.Oh, that's right. He provided them with lots of cash to indemnify them if anything happened.So there's no way the states could have done any injection mandates except for Morrison enabling it to happen.And then Morrison, every day for two weeks early on, said there are no injection mandates in this country.He was driving it, and he knew it was on, he had to know it was on.And there are so many things that Morrison did. And Greg Hunt, you know, Greg Hunt, the federal health minister, said, the world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial.You do not mandate trial, trial drugs that didn't even go on, you're probably aware of it.But we just could not believe what was going on.And so we just called it out. But the press was enthralled and I think their allegiance is to Big Pharma.The public were absolutely terrified.We recently exposed the fact that this goes back to 2008, 2009 with APRA, our Australian Health Prudential Regulatory Agency.Which has been belting doctors, threatening doctors, suppressing doctors, bullying doctors, intimidating doctors, so that they wouldn't report incidences of vaccine deaths and injuries.And we've also found out that the Medical Countermeasures Consortium was the British government, Department of Defence and Health, and the British government, the American government, the Canadian government, the Australian government.That's what drove the injections, the development of the injections, as well as the implementation of the injecting.And so it was, so, you know, we've been calling this out and bit by bit things are coming out.So we'll push every week we give an update on this.
Well, tell us about that, because here in the UK, we've had a COVID inquiry, which probably could be better summed up as a COVID whitewash.It's simply going through the motions. No one really wanted it.We don't have a party in Parliament that's actually pushing it like you have there with One Nation. And the media are slowly beginning to change their tune slightly, although you can go back to the articles and prove they were forcing the COVID jab on everyone, but now they're pulling back from that. What is it like, in Australia with politicians maybe slowly waking up, changing their tune and with the media, is there a slow change happening?
There is a slow change happening in both politics and in the media, Peter.We've had some fairly strong journalists but they've been throttled by News Corp, Rupert Murdoch's outfit, but they're at least a little glimmer.They were a little glimmer all the way through. They'd have little articles about the masks being ineffective and questioning things.They weren't really coming down strongly against things, but they were questioning.The ABC and the other commercial media, Channel 9, Channel 7, and Channel 0, Channel 10 on the commercial TVs, the radio stations, they were horrific.There were people who would call in on talkback radio stations to 2GB and give an alternative view from the mainstream.And they would just be smashed by the announcer. So that was definitely very strong in the media.They were all bought, they were all paid for advertising the injections.They were all part of the hype, which indoctrinated people.But as the injection started getting worse, in terms of their effect, people were starting to wake up.And now, we've got a couple of News Corp journalists from Rupert Murdoch's stable who are doing a good job. Adam Crichton, I singled out, he has done a marvellous job.I don't know if you're aware of him.He's a fairly young economist, very good writer, factually correct all the time.He's their Washington correspondent, Adam Crichton, C-R-E-I-C-H-T-O-N, I think or G-H-T-O-N.He's very, very good.And of course, we've had a lot of people spring up as what I call independent, truth-seeking, truth-spreading, freedom people's media.And the podcasters and Avi Yemini, you know him, Rakshan and others following in the footsteps.Footsteps of Ezra Levant and so on from Canada.They're doing a really good job.And now people do not believe the mainstream media as if they ever did, but now they definitely don't believe it.They question everything. And that's been a wonderful silver lining to the dark clouds of COVID because, well, no, not COVID, the silver lining to the dark clouds of COVID mismanagement.COVID was virtually nothing, really, and it was the mismanagement and the fear and the intimidation, and the wonderful benefit of that, the side effect of it, has been people are waking up and they're questioning things and they're saying, hang on a minute, that COVID, that was a lot of crap in that.They're using the same tactics in climate as they used in COVID.I think the climate change might be crap too, and of course we know it is.So it has been a wonderful awakening, but still we've only got, where we used to have five people awake, five percent, we've probably only got about 15 percent now.So we're badly needing to get to 30 percent. It's growing, but not quickly enough.
We had Avi on six weeks ago, for the second time, and I love watching Avi.He is a firecracker, and I know Ezra, I've met Ezra many times, and I love what he does the Rebel. Without actually probably setting Rebel Australia up you wouldn't have that and I think Avi is absolutely essential, no fear. How does it, with the One Nation Party, how do you put yourself forward because the last three years, I guess any individual or party or media outlet that sees themselves on the side of freedom have had to understand what's happening, understand that actually the government don't want the best for us and that relationship I think has changed. I think in the West we've had a general understanding that government actually want the best for people. I mean talk to people in the ex-communist country and it'd be a very different understanding. So how do you One Nation go out and engage with the public, put yourself forward?We go out into the regions and into the communities a lot more than the other parties. And I think that it's easier for us, Peter, because we can actually go and listen.The others have to pretend to listen, because they've already got their minds made up. They're following instructions. So we can be frank and open with people. And Pauline and I have a reputation for being honest with people. And if someone asks us a question and criticizes us on their policy, we'll listen to them. And we'll do facts. The other thing is we use facts and hard data to back up our policies, but we get a lot of our ideas from the people.So we're in touch and we are able to listen and show that we listen.So that's what we do.I know that I've met Nigel Farage a couple of times, just briefly.He said that he didn't get much media and actually someone told me that's not correct because you actually got a lot of media because of your stances, but they didn't come looking to you, I think looking for you was what Nigel meant, that you weren't readily accessible. But because your policies were so strong at the time, they actually did report them a lot, but he told me that you didn't have a lot of social media back in the early days, not Brexit, but UKIP.It was basically going from one community to another, and just having town hall meetings and getting the word out like that.That's remarkable. I recently did two months or six weeks in the regions of our state, just setting up forums and evenings in pubs, and so it works.We only get, I guess we get more than the mainstream parties actually to turn out, but we might only get a hundred or so people.We know that they talk to other people and they like the fact, people love the fact that we just call it as it is.Some of them say, look, I don't really agree with you, but I like what you're doing.You know, so we use social media, we're very strong on social media, we have the highest engagement of any pages in the country, Pauline and I generally.We're really beaten in terms of engagement and our reach is pretty strong.As James Ashby in our party said, he was the first one to introduce our party to social media, he said, our reach is sometimes far better than the highest circulation paper in the country or far higher than Sky News broadcast reach.So and we've got good equipment for doing live stream and also live crosses to some of the TV channels.But they haven't even got our equipment so, you know, but we make a very important stand and just being honest, data-driven, factual, and telling it like it is.And as Pauline says, her slogan is, I've got the guts to say what you're thinking, and that's correct, and people know that.
Yeah, yeah, they like that honesty. And you mentioned, I mean, Nigel, for 25 years, through UKIP, it was those town hall meetings, it was those one-to-one encounters in the world before social media.But I think today, few people realise the work that is involved on building something up from a grassroots. They expect a tweet to change things overnight.And what you're describing as town hall meetings, that's what it's all about, isn't it?About meeting the public face-to-face and engage with them and understanding those local concerns, which is something that the major parties just don't do.That's correct. As I said, I don't think they can do it because they can't afford to do it because they have to go through the motions of pretending to listen, Peter.They can't listen because to listen, you have to then do something about it and you take it back, and they know they cant.You know, their best senator, without a doubt, their best senator, well, no, that's not true. There's another one in South Australia who's very effective.Certainly one of their top senators has just lost pre-selection.He won't be pre-selected for the next election because he's too damn good.He doesn't cow-tow to the party line, you know. He's more in our mould.They're just afraid and the Labor Party. people know that the party, their party hacks and they just, they just, they're controlled by the party machine in the Labor Party and to some extent in the Liberal Party. So people don't trust politicians, it's just, and yet that's what stuns me, people don't trust politicians and rightly so, but they run to politicians and because the, it must be because we're descended from, most of us descended from convicts because we run to authority, I guess. We need a few more Irishmen over here.
Can I ask you how you kind of build on what you have going forward? When I look at the UK, we were under the control of the EU. As I said, we've got out but don't know what to do with that freedom. What is it like for Australia and Australians? You're far away from many things.You're not under that same kind of economic power base that we had under the EU. Does that mean you're freer to make decisions? How does that kind of fit into that national sovereignty issue?In our early years, we were captive of the British. There's no doubt about that. The British used us to provide food, to provide raw materials, and market for their products. You know, not a big market, but nonetheless a substantial sizeable market.That's been taken over by the Americans because the Americans supposedly defend us.Now I question whether they will or not if push comes to shove and we get into a war, because Britain gave us a lot in terms of our parliamentary representative system, systems of government. The British gave us enormous benefits, but the British only looking after the British. And that's the same with everyone. And the Americans are looking after the American, looking after America when they come to managing us. I recently read a book by Clinton Fernandez, which for anyone interested in Australia, he called it sub-imperial power.Title is sub-imperial power. And he points out that our manufacturing has been suppressed in this country because they don't want us to be a manufacturer.They want us to stay dependent. We've got wonderful resources. We'll be a quarry. Thank you very much.And the Americans control what we do. And we have become their little foot soldiers, a sub-imperial power in Timor and in certain areas of the Pacific.And so we do what the Yanks tell us.And Peter, I've got a huge admiration for America. I worked over there for three to five years.Sorry, worked and studied over there, went to one of their best universities.I then travelled for 15 months. I've been through all 50 states of the United States, and I absolutely admire and love Americans.I detest their government. Their government has become a globalist dictatorship.It's the number one form of terrorist. It's the world's worst terrorist organization.They've killed so many people, destroyed so many governments.So it's the American government that I've got issues with, apart from Trump.He seemed to be a breath of fresh air.But the American government on both Republican and particularly Democrat sides are just tools of the globalist predators.We know that now. So that's our biggest problem, that I think, that we're still, if the Americans wanted to dethrone someone in another regime, we seem to follow them into the war.Just gullible.You know, our foreign minister at the time of 9-11, Alexander Downer, retired a few years later, and he said, when John Howard, our prime minister at the time, came back from the United States, And he was there when the Twin Towers came down.He walked into cabinet when he got back and said, well, we're off to Iraq.No, no, no, no conversation, no, it was just, we're off to Iraq.And I wonder where he got his orders from.They're the kinds of things we've got the guts to ask, but we have to ask it because we're just pawns of the United States. And I love the Yanks.I'm married to one, by the way, and I've got two children who are dual citizens.So don't accuse me of being an American hater. I'm not such an admirer of the United States.I think I've been over there seven times in the last 18 months.So I share your love of the US.Just to finish off.... 
I'm very worried, though. It's declining very quickly.
Oh, it is. It is. 
Terrible.
And I talk to a lot of my US friends, and it is concerning, heart-breaking to see, what is happening over there. So yeah. Just to finish off, can I ask you just what gets you up?Shared about servant, having that servant heart, serving the nation. Obviously the the climate change mantra that's coming is a huge threat to all of our nations.What kind of gets you up in the morning and you kind of, I'm sure there are times when you think, is this worth it? This is just too much of hassle and yet every day. So what kind of drives you personally to keep serving the people in the senate.I love to set people free. I remember when I was a mine manager, when I was a coal face miner I thought, this bloody management is half the problem, the union hierarchy, union bosses with the other half of the problem that many mines. And so when I was a mine manager, even though I was the boss and had supposedly and had five hundred fifty people, working for me in the traditional language. I never said that they were working for me.My job was always to help them get coal out of the ground and get it out safely.I never saw 550 people working for me. I was serving 550 people.That didn't mean that I let them run the show. I was responsible, so that means I ran it.But I would involve them a lot and listen to them a lot because I've recognized from very, very young age, that people are incredibly talented.And the thing that gets to me is how much the globalist predators, the parasitic globalist predators, BlackRock, Vanguards, the United States administration are suppressing people.The anti-human theme, the anti-human, the belief that humans are a pest, the belief that humans have to be controlled.I have never seen that. So wherever I've gone on the mine side, I've gone in there and I've seen people who just don't give a damn because the previous manager lied or the previous manager was incompetent or and you look at them and they won't take responsibility, but you start giving them, because responsibility meant punishment.And so you start giving them authority to do things and say, you know, what would you do about it?Or you put the responsibility back on them. At first they run from it because they've never had responsibility.And they love it, and they're so free.And I can remember walking out of one mine, one late one evening.This is back in 1980s, late 80s, thinking, why am I so happy?What am I feeling good about?And I turned around as I was walking away from the mine, and I saw huge piles of coal.And I thought, well, it's record coal production, but that's not what's making me happy.Safety figures are much, much better.That's not what's making me happy. It's the fact that we're setting people free.And when I arrived at that mine site, the evening shift, who was never in touch with the main mine management, they would always have a stop work meeting, literally every night.Because they're so pissed off with what was going on. What I realized was evening shift, came to work, went underground, came up, went home.We were having record production because the people were free.Now, we also brought discipline in, so it's very important to have that discipline because you can't let everything go to hell.You've got to have discipline for those very, very small minority of people who can't provide their own self-discipline.So it's that sense of freedom. I can see our country had 120 years ago was the number one in terms of income per capita in the world. We had a tiny population of 5 million. We built a lot of the infrastructure we now depend on with those 5 million people. Now we're going backwards, and our people are getting choked. And it wasn't just with COVID, it's before COVID because we're working for the globalist predators. So what I would like to see is Australians set free again, because we're wonderfully talented people, and all we need to do is set these people free. If we got the government out of people's lives, we would have such a marvellous country again.100%. Senator Malcolm Roberts, thank you so much for joining us today and letting us know how you and Pauline are being a thorn in the side in the Senate to the system. I love it. So thank you so much for sharing with us today. 
Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you very much for the invitation. Happy to chat with you, Peter. I've enjoyed it.

Richard Poe - Are the British Destabilising Africa Through Economics and Intelligence?

Show Notes and Transcript
New York Times bestselling author and award winning journalist Richard Poe always gives great context and depth to news stories so he returns to Hearts of Oak for a leftfield conversation concerning Britain and Africa. Last year, Italy's Prime Minister, Georgia Meloni suddenly started denouncing French neo-colonialism, blaming them for keeping Africa poor and forcing the inhabitants to flee to Europe. Richard asks if she is focussing in the right direction, is it not the British who are destabilising Africa through economic levers and intelligence operations? We have seen African governments falling like dominoes with 7 coups in just three years. What lies behind these and are they connected or just purely random?
Richard Poe is a New York Times-bestselling author and award-winning journalist. He has written widely on business, science, history and politics.His books include The Shadow Party, co-written with David Horowitz; The Einstein Factor, co-written with Win Wenger; Perfect Fear: Four Tales of Terror; Black Spark, White Fire; the WAVE series of network marketing books; and many more.Richard was formerly editor of David Horowitz’s FrontPageMag, contributing editor of NewsMax, senior editor of SUCCESS magazine, reporter for the New York Post, and managing editor of the East Village Eye.
Connect with Richard...WEBSITE: https://www.richardpoe.com/TWITTER: https://twitter.com/RealRichardPoe?s=20SUBSTACK: https://richardpoe.substack.com/BOOKS: https://amzn.eu/d/18lNMtpInterview recorded 8.9.23
*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 GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more...https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Please subscribe, like and share!
 
Subscribe now
Transcript
(Hearts of Oak)
Hello, Hearts of Oak, and welcome to another interview coming up in a moment with Richard Poe, who re-joined us. He was last with us when we looked at his book, The Shadow Party, looking at George Soros and his control, power, and influence. And today we look at something completely different, and that is a thread that he put up on Twitter titled, Are the British Destabilizing Africa?And this is from a video that Giorgia Meloni, the Italian PM, put up denouncing French neo-colonialism and I often think well the Brits did good in Africa but maybe the French and the Belgians and the Germans and they were a bit naughty. But Richard brings his deep understanding, his delves deep into this subject and, exposes maybe why that thinking is not necessarily correct, how the British have been closely involved, look an economic side of it but also the intelligence services and how they operate and look in some of the recent coups, maybe what lies behind that a little bit.So much to pack into this huge subject.
Richard Poe, it is wonderful to have you back with us again.Thank you so much for joining us again today.(Richard Poe)
Thanks, Peter, it's great to be here. 
Great, and we're going to go through quite a bit.Just before we jump in, I'll just say to the viewers, that Richard is well worth following because his tweets actually bring something quite different.Bring the historical side to a lot of what happens and I think the conservatives movement can often be guilty of kind of in your face what's happened that morning and by the afternoon it's old news and just for our viewers and listeners I think Richard brings context often to stories that are happening but whenever Richard is last on we look through his book The Shadow Party. How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and the 60s radicals seize control of the Democratic Party. That is in the description for you to go back and have a look at and delve deeper into that topic. But he is a bestseller on many other books but that's what we stuck on and of course former editor of Front Page Magazine and we've had David Horowitz on with us before. But Richard there, people can obviously find you @RealRichardPoe, richardpoe.com, the website, and Richard Poe on Substack.Everything is in there for the viewer and listeners to take advantage of.Richard, one tweet that caught my eye, and we will delve a little bit into that, is on Africa and the Brits. And as much as I like blaming the French for everything as a Brit, that is our national pastime, sometimes the British have been at fault over history for a few things. If it hasn't been the French, it's probably been the Brits or the Belgians maybe. But there was a statement I think by Georgia Meloni, the Premier of Italy, and she had started denouncing French neo-colonialism and you had put up about the British destabilizing Africa. Do you want to maybe just begin with that and set out why we can't point the fingers solely at the French?Right. Well, basically, I knew something about, let's call it the neo-colonial infrastructure of Africa, because I was actually hired by a think tank, oh, more than 10 years ago to do a paper on that subject. And for various reasons, it was never published, but it was extremely eye-opening. What I basically discovered, to my astonishment, was that the EU, and in particular Great Britain, France as well, but really Great Britain more than anyone else, had essentially continued their colonial relationship beyond the date when these various African countries supposedly became independent, that what they actually did, they being the various European colonial powers, is they simply set up alternate structures through various kinds of diplomatic channels and the UN system as it was being set up.So that the UN today.Really is a neo-colonial structure. And that's really what I discovered in this research, which again, never saw the light of day.A topic I may write about someday in my memoirs. But so I had studied this in some detail, these NGOs and international treaties and such that had been set up for the very purpose of making sure that those European countries which had formerly owned colonies in Africa continued to maintain that relationship.So specifically the Anglophone colonies that were English speaking, maintained their relationship with Great Britain.The Francophone colonies maintained their relationship with France and so on.And in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, establishing the European Economic Commission, or community.This relationship was actually formalized, whereas the countries which had been former colonies, and I think the way they put it in the treaty, they didn't call them colonies, but they said countries in Africa having a special relationship to members of the EEC, would have a certain kind of membership in the EEC.I think they were called associated members.And they would have a special diplomatic and economic relationship with the EEC, trade privileges and so forth.So maybe because I researched this so deeply, I don't want to bore your viewers with so many details, but the bottom line is, so in the last few weeks on Twitter, we've suddenly seen an uproar from, especially from certain influencers with these coups that have been happening in Africa.In particular, there have been six coups in three years.In a number of countries, most of which are former French colonies.In fact, all of which are former French colonies except Sudan, and the cry has gone out that at last the freedom-loving people of Africa are getting on their feet and overthrowing the yoke of French colonialism. This map has been getting wide circulation and all this enthusiasm from people on Twitter about overthrowing French colonialism. So I thought this was remarkable for a couple of different reasons. First of all, I thought French colonialism was overthrown a long time ago, or at least that's the official story. I remember as a kid, you know, in the 1960s, that was the big thing. The end of colonialism. It's all over. And, you know, these nationalist leaders in Africa who had become, you know, the first presidents of the newly independent countries. These were big pop culture heroes in the 60s. And so now so many decades later to say, finally at last French colonialism is being overthrown. So on the one hand I thought that was interesting because it broke with the pop culture narrative that we were all brought up with that colonialism ended decades ago. All of a sudden it's here, it's now, and it's being overthrown in the year 2023. But the other thing that caught my attention is that they were specifically referring to French colonialism, when in fact there were several colonial powers, in Africa. There was Great Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, the list goes on.And in the case of Italy and Germany, their colonies were taken away because of world wars.But still, there were several colonial powers that remained, which still considered themselves officially, quote unquote, responsible for their former colonies, which meant, especially in the case of France, that they would intervene militarily in those countries when they felt there was some need to do so.And the French in particular have done this probably more than any other quote unquote former colonial power, but the British do it too. They just have a more subtle way of doing it.And so this is what I discovered that think tank research had done more than 10 years ago.So that was the second reason that I was, or the third reason that I was surprised by this sudden enthusiasm for throwing off the yoke of French colonialism, because I knew that in fact there was such a thing as French colonialism, and there was in fact such a thing as EU colonialism.The EU itself as a bureaucratic entity has directly involved itself in the management and admin of the African continent.And so I knew all these things, but most people don't.And it just was surprising to me to suddenly see this acknowledgment of that colonial relationship which in the past had been very controversial and hushed up and denied.Can I ask, because I've been reading a book on tax havens and delving into that world, understanding about money flows, and the book basically starts with the French, takes Gabon as an example of how the French set up the president there, and the coup has supposedly removed his son Ali Bongo and they use this as an example of how the French control large parts of Africa and I read that as a Brit thinking you see France have been really bad we're actually Africa should be thanking the Brits for what we've done for education roads and is is that a very simplistic view of Africa. 
Well, when you say simplistic you mean the view that Africa was actually better off under colonialism? 
Yes, because I know I've seen stuff and I've seen even you retweeted the thought that actually what Africa needs is for those colonial powers to go back and to fix it once again. That obviously would not be a popular view in many parts of Africa with the whole conversation about payments, colonial payments, repatriations, all of that. But my simplistic view is, well, Britain could actually fix that, build a few more roads, a few more hospitals, a few more schools, and life would be good again. Is that view extremely simplistic?Well, I would simply have to confess that I don't know, in answer to that question.The fact is, what I'm learning now, excuse me, the research that I'm doing now about the American Revolution and the economic and financial reasons for, the reasons why our founding fathers wanted independence from England in the first place, I'm really learning a lot about the colonial system and how it works.And you know, there are people in America who say essentially the same thing.We're not quite in as bad of a fix as Africa yet, although we seem to be headed that direction pretty quickly.There are people in America who are monarchists and who are questioning whether we were better off under the British, as strange as that might seem to you.And you're seeing that more and more. I think it's being pushed a little bit on social media in some quarters as a kind of PSYOP, and the fact is, you really have to dig to some extent to try to figure out, you know, why did the founding fathers feel so strongly that they needed to get away from England?And there actually were some really compelling reasons, most of which had to do with an extremely oppressive economic system that was enforced by law, in particular by the so-called Navigation Act, whose effect was basically to keep the colonies by force of law in a situation where we had to produce raw materials, food, crops, tobacco, cotton, things like that, and to sell them very cheaply in England and then to get all of our manufacturers from England, where they were beginning to have their industrial revolution and we had to buy them more expensively. And this is the heart and soul of the colonial relationship. The colony produces raw materials and food and sells them to the, very cheaply.The mother country then sells us, the colony, everything that we need in terms of manufactured goods, but they sell them quite expensively. And so there is a permanently enforced balance of trade, which is wildly disadvantageous to the colonized state.And this system is enforced by local corruption, because in order to make such a system work, you have to get local people to support the colonial relationship, and you make them very, very rich, but at the expense of the majority of people.And the best illustration for that in the United States is the pre-Civil War South, the Antebellum South, where you had a cotton-producing economy, which was almost entirely run for Britain.Almost all the cotton was sold, I think more than 80 percent, was sold to Great Britain, which was, of course, at that time the leading producer of cotton textiles in the world.And so some people, like our little Harris family in Gone with the Wind, got very, very rich selling cotton to England.But the way they did it was by enslaving people and making them work for free as slaves.And it was argued at the time of the American Civil War and in the years leading up to it that this colonial system, that essentially the American South had been recolonized by England and that slavery was the result of that. This was argued by certain economists at the time who were sympathetic to the Northern position. They were saying that the institution of slavery in the South was a direct result of the elite southern planters whose livelihood depended on Great Britain, on trading with them.Always having to try to please their British buyers by keeping the price low because the British did have other places where they could go. They were constantly trying to develop other sources of high-quality cotton in Brazil, in India, in Egypt, in other places.And so the southern planters who were what modern scholars would call a colonial elite, they were a small portion of the population who enforced essentially a British colonial system because it made them rich personally, but it was at the cost of everyone else, where the black slaves and the poor whites as well, essentially there wasn't much left for them at the end.And they weren't allowed to develop an industrial economy because that's not what the British wanted. They wanted the South to remain an agrarian society that devoted itself to selling cotton.So this situation actually led directly to the American Civil War, which was the most terrible episode in our history. And I wrote an article about this called How the British caused the American Civil War.What happened is the North started to, trying to impose tariffs on overseas trade for the specific purpose of discouraging the southern planters from selling to England and the British did what they do when their colonial interests are threatened. They sent in their secret agents and their provocateurs and one in particular named Thomas Cooper, who was a British, apparently, intelligence agent. He had first gotten his start going to France and helping to stir up the French Revolution. Then he moved to South Carolina.He became a very prominent, respected person. He was a judge. And in 1828, he delivered a speech calling for secession of the South. And this speech is widely recognized by historians as having been the beginning of the Southern secession movement. So because of that and various other manoeuvres, including material assistance, which Great Britain gave to the South during the Civil War.It is very clear and in fact undeniable, although it's been scrubbed pretty much from our history books. It is undeniable that Great Britain caused and instigated the American Civil War and did everything in their power to help the South win. And you can see British newspapers and political speeches by British statesmen. There was no question that they were on the side of the South and they wanted the South to win and they tried very hard to intervene, including having the French put a very large army into Mexico, putting a lot of British troops into Canada.So, what I'm saying by this, Peter, is that when you look behind the scenes, when you look at the surface, you might think that colonialism, or British colonialism, is seemingly benign, and that it actually helps people who are in a lower phase of development to develop infrastructure and trade and education and health and all these things, that it brings in money, it brings in expertise, and all of that. But when you look a a little deeper, you realize that the intention of the colonializers or the colonizers, whatever.Is not fundamentally a good intention. That what they want is to set up economic relationships that are actually disadvantageous to the colonized country in the long run. And to maintain those relationships, even if it means tearing apart a country in civil war, and in our case a country of people of European and British and Irish stock, especially at that time.It wasn't even a matter of race, you know. It's just when those economic interests are threatened, the colonizing power becomes very ruthless and the colonial elites become loyal to a foreign country instead of to their own country, which is what happened in our South.So, on the one hand, yes, I would agree that this question of were certain parts of the world under colonialism, I don't want to answer with a knee-jerk response to say, oh, out with the colonizers, it's racist, it's sexist, it's homophobic, it's whatever.Yeah, I just threw in homophobic just for the heck of it. Actually, I don't even say that.But I mean, what I'm saying is I hear what you're saying, I hear your question and I absolutely don't go with the knee jerk.Woke or politically correct, autumn idea that colonialism was totally bad.I don't go with it. I think it's a complicated question.But I also think that my research into the colonial past of my own country, the United States shows that our relationship with England was in fact terribly damaging to our country.Even though there were good aspects to it as well, because our own industrialization of the building of the Great American Railroads, all of that was funded by British capital.So it's two sides of the same coin. But if you have a foreign country meddling in your affairs and doing things like causing secessions and civil wars, that's a very serious matter.So what would, what would Africa really be like? The narrative now is, well, look, it's in a hopeless condition.The dictators, genocides, wars, constant military coups, and so forth.And if the colonizing powers came back, maybe everything would be better and nicer.But it's not always in the interests of the colonizing powers to make everything nicer and better.And I guess that's what I'm saying. And I also would raise the question as to what extent, these troubles that we're having today are actually caused by covert interference, by the West and by the former colonial powers.And, I think in this case that we're talking about now with these former French colonies, there's some kind of psy-op going on where, for reasons, let's say reasons unknown.Whoever controls the political discourse on Twitter is pretending to be all excited about these military coups and pretending that it all has to do with some mass movement from the ground level of people who want to throw off the yoke of French colonialism. But the fact is, first of all, these countries, most of them have had many, many coups. It's not at all unusual. They're showing this map, they're saying, oh my gosh, six coups in three years. That's actually not so unusual, for those countries or others in Africa. And the other thing that's kind of weird about it is, are these really French colonies or former French colonies, or are they just nominally French colonies and actually some other countries among whom is Great Britain are actually calling the shots there. And so it gets into this, and so I guess on one level I'm saying yes it is it is simplistic if we assume that whatever the news tells us is correct that once upon a time there was colonial Africa then the colonial powers all left for some unstated reason, which is never really adequately explained. And then supposedly these African countries were on their own and then supposedly all hell broke loose and they all started killing and massacring each other. I think it probably is a little naïve to accept that narrative at face value. I am not at all convinced that that's exactly what happened.And what instead appears to have happened is that the old colonial system was replaced by a new colonial system, basically run by the United Nations system, and that these disorders were allowed to go on.And in fact, in some cases, encouraged to go on for all kinds of reasons.I'll give you one example. 
Yeah, give me an example and then I'll bring up another piece you had up, so go with your example.
One famous example, of course, was the Rwandan genocide in 1994, where now Rwanda was a French colony and, in fact, while the genocide was happening, there were French troops there who were supposedly trying to stop it, and they were very sharply criticized for being strangely ineffective in not being able to stop it, especially since they were modern troops with modern weaponry and these people who were committing the genocide were supposedly armed with only machetes.So there were questions about the French handling of it. But even beyond that, the result of this genocide was that Rwanda, was subsequently taken into the British Commonwealth.Whereas before it had been in the French sphere of influence.And the normal traditional rule of the Commonwealth is that countries who are admitted to it are supposed to be former British colonies, but Rwanda wasn't.It was taken as a special case because the French had supposedly done such a terrible job of not protecting their people that it passed into the proprietorship of Great Britain.And so, I'm not the only person who has to raise an eyebrow and ask the question, qui bono? I mean, if Rwanda passed from French control to British control, and if the pretext for that passage, was the Rwanda genocide, would it be out of line to ask, what caused the genocide in the first place?And to what extent was it possibly even instigated by some foreign power, as was the American Civil War, as we're now learning more than 150 years after the fact.So that's one example. I could give others, but you said you had a point you wanted to make.
Well, because you obviously, in a lot of the information you put out, you're talking about the intelligence services of the West and how they work behind the scenes.But then also there's the economic side.And this was, this is kind of the article I was touching on, let me bring up, this was a Daily Mail article, Recolonize Africa.And you said that it seems to be saying, and this is an old article, 2005, but it gives historical context once again, says it appears to say that Africa's become so violent and lawless that most African countries will welcome, kind of the West, colonial powers coming back in again. But then you mentioned the kind of colonial economic side, I think, when you look at the EU and how the EU keeps a lot of the countries poor through their tax and tariff systems is, yeah.I'm wondering where does, again, the fault lies at the economic side?Is it still the intelligence services working very much within those countries?Is it a mixture of those two?Yeah, what are your thoughts on that? 
Well, I would go so far as to say that I don't believe that the colonial powers of Europe specifically, ever let go of their colonies, especially France and Britain. I think they simply found a different way to administer them and actually a cheaper and more efficient way where they didn't have to physically occupy these countries anymore and they didn't have to be held responsible for things like mass murders and genocides and coups and so forth, that they could have a more rough and ready kind of environment and they didn't have to worry about looking good in the face of world opinion.So in some ways it's actually a better situation for them than the situation they had before where they really had to make everything look good because their flag was flying over these various countries and if they committed terrible atrocities or allowed atrocities to be committed there would be consequences. Other European countries would criticize them and would take advantage. And we see that, for example, in the ruckus that the British propagandists made at the turn of the century over the Belgian Congo, where terrible atrocities were committed by King Leopold II in thepush to harvest rubber, and he basically enslaved the whole people of the Congo and subjected them to terrible, inhumane practices.And the British, for their own reasons, made a huge, big deal about that.This was back in the turn of the century, of the 20th century, in the 1900s.And they made a huge ruckus about it and said, oh, how terrible, look how badly he's treating these people.The part of that story you never hear about is that the British themselves, British interests were heavily involved in the rubber trade in the Belgian Congo and were taking partin all of it.That part is never mentioned. Likewise, there was a similar ruckus in Peru, again over rubber harvesting.Now Peru was officially never anyone's colony since its independence from Spain, but in fact a lot of people don't know that the British basically exercised an informal control of Peru and some say that they still do to this day.And there was another big public relations ruckus over cruelties related to the rubber trade in Peru, which again British missionaries and human rights activists were leading.And it was somehow effectively concealed that the British themselves were deeply involved in committing these atrocities.So it's really a world of smoke and mirrors, where propaganda and psychological operations have really been part of the wholetoolkit of colonialism really since the very beginning, and I believe that the reason the British became the greatest and most successful colonizers in the world is specifically because they are the best propagandists and the best at psychological operations. They basically invented modern psyops, and they're the very best in that field to this day, and that's really what it's all about.It's all about how to do things in foreign countries without seeming to be doing them, or to blame other people for doing them, such as blaming King Leopold II of Belgium for all these atrocities, and he certainly was guilty of them, but leaving out the part that British financial interests were in there very heavily, helping him to commit them.So this continues to go on today, where we have now a very fluid situation, a neo-colonial situation, as the left, as the Marxists named it decades ago, where the colonial colonizing countries are still there, and they're still probably just as much in control as ever were, but no longer held responsible to keep order in the same way they used to be.So it's really kind of a better situation for them.They can get away with a lot more. Now in these, the interesting thing in that article by Andrew Roberts, the British historian, he wrote that article in 2005.A lot of people in our, as you pointed out, in our social media culture think 2005 was, you know, like the last millennium or something. But actually, it's very important to understand what was happening then because,what actually happened is that the EU was in the process then of setting up an elaborate neo-colonial structure which basically controls Africa to this day.And now I mentioned that in the original treaty of Rome setting up the EEC back in 1957, they already had a formal relationship with past and present colonies in Africa which they recognized in that treaty.They call it a special relationship.And in the 1990s, some strange things started to happen.Which is that as the EU became activated and the Maastricht Treaty and the Eurozone, and it started becoming a reality, this thing that people have been talking about since the 1890s and before, It started becoming a reality in the 90s and immediately the cry went up to form an African union.And there was a strategy developed called the Joint EU Africa Strategy.And the motto of this EU Africa group was one Europe, one Africa.And what they wanted was a United Europe dealing one-on-one with the United Africa.So they wouldn't, that is so the European countries would not have to negotiate separately with each little country in Africa.They would have one authority controlling the entire continent with whom they could make their deals and their treaties, whatever those were.So interestingly, Muammar Gaddafi, the late dictator or president of Libya.He came out in, I forget what year it was.It could have been, it was around 19, in the late 1990s, I think.He made a very controversial speech in Libya where he said that the Arab Maghreb Union was a farce.That now the Maghreb is basically all of North Africa except Egypt.And in 1989, I think they had come together to form a regional economic structure called the Arab Maghreb Union. And Gaddafi had been one of the leading people pushing that.It was actually his brainchild, supposedly. But then, I think it was 15 years later, he gave this speech saying, let me tell you the truth.The reason we formed this Maghreb Union was because the EU forced us to do it.They said, we're not going to do business with you anymore because it's too burdensome dealing with each country unless you, unless all the Maghreb countries of North Africa come together in a union, we're not going to even talk to you. So on that basis, Gaddafi got up in circa 1989, and using the language of third world-ism and the non-aligned movement and Arab nationalism.Said that what we need to do is form this union so we can all be strong, all us Arab-speaking countries in Africa together. But then 15 years later, he openly and publicly confessed actually the EU is the one who wanted us to get together, had nothing to do with Arab nationalism, and they basically forced us to do it. And so then he said, let's dissolve this union, let's get out of it.Oh, it was in 2003, I just remembered. It was in 2003, so this was post 9-1-1, it was after Afghanistan and Iraq had been invaded, so things weren't looking too good for Arab nationalism at that moment. And so Gaddafi, getting with the spirit of the time, said the Arabs are finished, they're a laughingstock, and we want nothing to do with Arabs anymore, even though we're Arab speaking. We are now African. And then he came up with a new idea. Let's have an African union, he said. Now, actually, he had already proposed the African Union. It came into being in the year 2000, and supposedly Gaddafi was the one who thought of it and was the founding father of this African Union. But, you know, in 2003, he confessed that the last time he pulled that manoeuvre with the Arab Maghreb Union, it was the EU forcing him to do it.Should we imagine that on the second go-round with the African, that he suddenly became the third world Nationalist that he always claimed to be or was he simply like Scarlett O'Hara and all those southern planters in the United States in the antebellum South, was he simply, lining his own pockets by doing business with the colonizers and going where he thought the power was.Well, it looks like the latter.And that's how colonial elites work. You know, people are not that idealistic, unfortunately.I wish they were, but let's face it, they're not.You know, people will go where the money is, and that's just how it is.And so they formed this African Union to the cries from the EU of one Europe, one Africa, And they started signing all kinds of treaties and putting forth all kinds of policies that were completely mysterious and unknown to the African people who have enough of a struggle trying to get democratic government as it is.But now all of a sudden, whatever democratic structures had been set up at a national level in the individual countries had suddenly become obsolete because now the EU was talking directly to these officials in charge of this thing called the African Union.And the African Union was empowered to make treaties that could be enforced on all African countries. Imagine that.So, now that we've had the African Union since the year 2000.And one of its rules, supposedly, is that you're supposed to have free elections which are monitored by international authorities and absolutely no military coups.Military coups are strictly not allowed.And yet, since then, we've had the Arab Spring.These colour revolutions and civil wars in the Western powers, and now we're having these, continuing to have these coups, which everybody is cheering about on Twitter.All of this is supposedly, supposed to be impossible and illegal under the African Union and should trigger military interventions by the African Union.I think they call it the African Union Peace and Security, something or other, which basically mobilizes peacekeeping troops and also arranges to have European troops to come in, in order to fix problems, whatever they are.And so the mechanism actually exists in Africa probably better than anywhere else in the world where you have a transnational authority, the African Union, which actually has the real power and the real willingness to bring in heavy military force whenever they like, to stop things like military coups from happening, and yet they're still happening.Why is that? Why is that?I'll pick up on one thing as we finish. Realizing the Gaddafi started African Union changes my whole concept of it. That blows me away. But the fact that when you look at the EU, the EU, European Union, has been hugely successful at control within Europe economically.There are lots of questions that the EU has never been able to rise above and be a economic bloc, I guess, to rival the US, which was always the dream, probably, of the EU and the European Economic Community before that. But it's full control of EU members and if the EU can punish and has done with those in Eastern Europe for many violations on tax, on faith, on immigration.But the African Union, you don't hear of it as having that much say or power.It hasn't brought together those countries.Can we just finish just maybe touching on that, that kind of comparison between one bloc in Europe that has worked certainly for control, the African Union, is that by design or are there other reasons behind that?
Well, I think it's by design that the African Union is weak. Is that what you're saying?That it really doesn't exercise the authority it's supposed to. I think it's by design.I think it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do, which is to create a central authority for European powers, especially Great Britain, which really masterminded the whole thing, in my opinion.And if you, I would just like to leave your audience with one point, which, is that article you showed by Andrew Roberts, where he said it's time to to recolonize Africa. That was in 2005.That was right after Tony Blair had done his African, Africa commission and they had mapped out this whole plan for basically re-colonizing Africa through the African Union and through other regional structures.Now in that article, Andrews actually says, he actually states that the French and the Germans will not be allowed to re-colonize Africa, that only English speaking countries.He actually says the United States and Great Britain, and with the support of New Zealand, Canada, and Australia, will be the ones to make this happen.The French, because of their cruelty in the past and their mishandling of all kinds of colonial situations, will not be allowed to have anything to do with it, nor will the Germans, because look what they did when they were colonialists back before World War I.You think 2005 was a long, long time ago, but he, Roberts actually evoked what the Germans did before World War I as a reason why they will not be allowed to take part in this great project of colonizing Africa.So now all of a sudden we're getting all this propaganda from Giorgia Meloni of Italy and from big influencers like Ian Miles Cheong.I don't mean to single him out, but he wrote this extraordinary tweet saying, yes, the people of West Africa are rising up against French colonialism.We're going towards a multipolar world. Hooray. Some words to that effect.He linked it to the whole idea of multi-polarism.And what is that all about? That's about overthrowing the global hegemon, the USA, which is supposedly the cause of all evil in the world.Overthrowing the USA, stripping us of our power, so then power can be decentralized among various countries. And so certain influencers such as Ian Miles Cheong is out there celebrating and saying, yes, out with the French, out with the French. Is it just a coincidence that Andrew Roberts, when he first publicized this recolonization plan, he expressly said the French are out.We will not allow the French to take part in this now, all of a sudden, so many years later we're hearing that cry again that the French are out. And some of these French countries, French colonies, so-called, one of them Guinea, maybe on another, we don't have time to talk about it now, but I have massive evidence that the British are really effectively in control in that country, Guinea, and running things in an extraordinary way, quite openly, including Rio Tinto, the mining company, the Anglo-Australian mining company, and Guinea has more than one half of the world's bauxite deposits, aluminium ore.And Rio Tinto has been trying to get in control of that, working with the Chinese.And it's interesting that, you know, the cry goes out, you know, from all the usual sources, the US State Department and what have you, oh the Chinese are taking over in Africa, that's one of the reasons why we have to go back in there and otherwise the Chinese are going to take over everything. But I notice whenever the British get involved with something, they somehow bring the Chinese with them. I'm not sure why they do that, but it's a little strange, what can I say?
Well, we'll leave it on a cliff-hanger, that, about the British involvement there, and we'll pick up on that. Richard, I really do appreciate coming on. As I said at the beginning, I love reading your tweets and how you expand on so much. So thank you for joining us today and going through that Africa tweet, which is one of your latest ones. Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Peter. Always a pleasure.