Hearts of Oak Podcast

Kingsley Cortes - MAGA 2024: The Supreme Court Swallows the Red Pill and Lessons Learned from Trump 2020

Show notes and Transcript...
Kingsley Cortes is someone with a deep understanding of the political and social  media world. At GETTR Social Media she was integral, along with Jason Miller, to their incredible rise and Kingsley also served on the Trump 2020 campaign. She joins Hearts of Oak to share her experiences from that campaign and what lessons were learned that will make the Trump 2024 campaign a completely different beast.  We discuss how 'The Don' has been able to mould the party in his image and make MAGA so much more than just a political slogan. Then there is the revelation of the Supreme Court. We are now a year after the overturning of Roe vs Wade, how has it suddenly been red pilled with 3 huge decisions in one day?  Then we end up discussing voter demographics looking ahead to 2024.
Kingsley Cortes is the Digital Media Manager for 'Center for Renewing America', she is a political communications and marketing professional with experience in journalism, presidential campaign strategy, and social media. Kingsley most recently worked as Director of Operations at GETTR Social Media.Prior to GETTR, she served on President Donald J. Trump’s 2020 Re-election Campaign as Executive Assistant to the Senior Advisor for Strategy. Kingsley graduated in 2021 from the University of California Los Angeles with degrees in Political Science and Classical Studies.A Chicago native, she now resides in Arlington, Virginia.
Connect with KingsleyTwitter: https://twitter.com/KingsleyCortes?s=20GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/kingsleycortesCenter for Renewing America: https://americarenewing.com/
Interview recorded 5.7.23
*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 Kingsley Cortes. I got to know Kingsley through my time at GETTR. She at the moment is working for the Centre for Renewing America and was on the 2020 Trump campaign, and that's where we start, asking her about her experiences, what that was like, then looking ahead to 2024, whether Republicans have actually learned the games the Democrats play and whether they've learned how to more effectively play the game. And then we go on to so many things. MAGA, how MAGA has become much more than a slogan, how it is literally a way of life. Putting America first. Game-changer. The Supreme Court, how they've been red-pilled in the last few weeks and back overturning Roe v. Wade decision a year ago. How that has happened, how their Court has become so conservative. Part of it, of course, we discuss is in Trump's three nominations to the Supreme Court, which is huge. And then we just end up talking about the demographics, voting demographics, looking at 2024, the youth vote, and how that will play into the elections. 
Kingsley Cortes, it's wonderful that you could join us today. Thanks for your time.(Kingsley Cortes)
Thanks so much for having me, Peter. 
Not at all, and obviously we, well I knew you from back in the GETTR days. We'll maybe touch on that, but people can find you @KingsleyCortes on GETTR, Twitter, or those are the two main places.
GETTR, Twitter and Truth Social as well. I've opened an account on there.So yeah, you can find me, same username on all of the platforms.Please give me a follow. I put out a lot of content that I think is engaging and fresh. So check it out.
Definitely. And obviously you're heading up to digital media at Center for Renewing America.We'll touch on that. You are part of the leadership team of Washington, D.C. Young Republicans, and you obviously were part of the Trump 2020 campaign, which we'll delve into as well.I mean, tell us about Centre for a New America, because I love watching Russ Vought on War Room.And I hadn't come across, being a Brit, I can always make excuses.So I've enjoyed watching him there.But tell us a little bit, you've only been with Centre for a New America for a short time.
That is correct, yes, and you'll see a lot of our fellows or our president, Russ Vought on War Room frequently.I think we have, you know, someone at least from our office on there almost every day, which is fantastic.But at the Center for Renewing America, we're basically a Washington, D.C.based think tank, but we are kind of different from the establishment think tanks that have existed for years in you see in that I think we really have our finger on the pulse.Of the issues that the base cares about, right? Gone is the GOP of endless foreign wars, tax cuts, and gay marriage. We are here to fight the culture war. We're here to fight for American communities across this country. We have a large grassroots operation. And we're just here to fight for America, right? I think becoming proud of America's founding has really kind of devolved into something that people see as evil or as something that one shouldn't strive for. We want to renew that pride and that patriotism. So that's really our mission as an organization.And I run their digital media operation. So I'm putting out a bunch of content every day.We have a lot of folks that are on TV every day. I'm putting out clips of those, and we're really just kind of trying to shift the narrative, right? Shift from this Old Testament GOP thinking to the new kind of America first Republican party that we're seeing emerging here.So I'm really excited about the work that we're doing at the center. I think it's incredibly important. We're small, but we punch above our weight class. So please check us out on all the platforms as well. We're @amrenewctr for Centre. And give us a follow. And you know, if you like what we're doing, feel free to sign up for all of our email lists and things of that nature. But we're really trying to push forward this America First agenda. I think that is the bottom line.That is the only way we are going to save this country from decline. 
100%. I know you've just celebrated. We didn't celebrate, obviously, Fourth of July. Maybe you need a Centre for Renewal in the UK. I think we need something like that to challenge the, I guess, so-called conservative groups and parties that have absolutely failed on any engagement in the culture wars. 
Right, yeah. I think your Tory party maybe makes our GOP, which I complain about, look, you know, radical. So you guys have a bit of the same problem we do, that's for sure.
We really do. So let's get... Trump. Obviously, we have a Trump 2016, Trump 2020, and Trump 2024 is just around the corner.You were very much part of that 2020 campaign. Let us know how that happened and how did you find it? Most people have no idea what it's like to be in a political campaign of that level, so give us some kind of insights on what that was like for you.
Yeah, absolutely. So I kind of started out my career in politics when I was in college.I wrote for the National Pulse, which is a publication of Raheem Kassam, who you know, and that's kind of how I got my feet wet in this movement. I just applied, you know, online to do a free writing fellowship, and I was able to kind of explore how to frame a narrative, how to research political issues, and all of those things. And a couple of my articles did very well and I got to do a couple of war room appearances here and there. So through that I met Jason Miller who founded War Room Impeachment with Bannon and with Raheem Kassam.So you know, great network there and he ultimately dragged me on to the 2020 race and I worked with him there kind of as his deputy and we did a lot of marketing and communication strategy.But no, a presidential campaign, I mean, is all hands on deck. It's exhausting, you know, long hours for sure. It's high stress, it's fast paced, but I really enjoyed it because I believed in what we were fighting for.I believed, you know, that Trump was ushering in incredible wins for the American economy, for the American people. We were respected abroad again, right? And unfortunately, the election didn't go, you know, as planned. It was stolen. And, you know, I think that in the aftermath of that, we quite didn't have the litigation or the lawyer kind of strength to fight it wholeheartedly. But I think, you know, that election in many ways was a wake-up call.Not just on the election integrity front, but also on the big tech front. They censored the president of the United States. This was a totally unprecedented move. And I for one never thought, you know, the Silicon Valley oligarchs would be so bold. It was shocking to me that, you know, they would totally de-platform a duly elected president of the United States.And if you remember as well, it wasn't just him. The New York Post was, they had their account locked for a number of days for posting a story about the Hunter Biden laptop. I mean, the way that the media in many ways stole the election with big tech, colluding with our government was just absurd. It was unlike anything we had ever seen before. So I think for me, you know, being on that race at a high level, I realized exactly what we're up against, because I think for a long time, conservatives have kind of felt that we can work with the Democrats, right? We can reach bipartisan conclusions and bills. But I think this Democrat Party that we're dealing with in the modern age is totally unrecognizable to a Democrat, you know, of my grandpa's generation. These are radical neo-Marxist ideologues that are hell-bent on destroying the fabric of American society.So ultimately, you know that big tech kind of brazenness in censoring the president led me to really take an interest in pursuing big tech and free speech issues and that's why I wound up with Jason Miller at GETTR and we really tried to create a platform where all speech was allowed. You could engage in the exchange of ideas. You could have debates. So that was something that I think is really important to strive for as we continue. Whatever we do, whether that's working in politics or whether that's working, you know, in business, what have you, we all need to be embracing of ideas, right? We can't be afraid or be shut down by the leftist kind of mainstream thinking. We need to stand up for what we believe in and know that what we believe in is something that is foundational to America, right? It's embedded in our history and our heritage. So kind of a long answer for you there, but I just think, you know, the campaign in 2020 is a lesson and looking forward to 24.I think that there are a lot of things that we can take from 2020 that maybe we didn't do so well, or maybe that we did great.And I think we're going to really see in 2024 a clean, well-oiled machine.I think, you know, this Trump group, they know exactly what to do.Trump knows exactly what to do. He has his kind of marching orders.He has his mission. He knows how to take down the deep state that is aimed squarely at him and aimed squarely at the American people.Oh, 2024 is going to be so different. But about 2020, because looking at it as a Brit where our issue is tribal voting and people saying, I don't agree with that, but I'm going to vote for them anyway, because I've always, that's our kind of stuck in the rust. We don't have the mess, I guess, which you have. I've watched the voting regularly at many elections and the rush to get the paper ballots, you physically watch them, you can check everything, there are piles of them, everything is there. I'm wondering how it took until 2020 for Republicans to, wake up and think something's not right, because this obviously had been building up to then.Yeah, no, I mean, it's a fantastic question. As a Republican Party member, it's one that frustrates me greatly, right?How underprepared we have been for a lot of the tactics that the leftists have pulled, you know, just in the past 10, 20 years.I think that the Democrat Party kind of had a leg up because they've owned a lot of these kind of city operations and controls, right? They have a lot of institutional power when it comes to blue cities.So I think those kinds of environments gave them time to perfect their craft in a way.And I think a lot of Republicans, sadly, were just asleep at the wheel.I think Republicans, because we are good natured, because we are honest and we truly want the best for this country, we don't think like our enemy, right? We're not devious.We're not trying to cheat, of course, but what we've come to realize, I think, with Trump is that he's really pulled back the curtain, right, and shown us who these people are.He's shown us the Swamp's true colours. I mean, for so long, you know, we didn't know just how much the people in, you know, the D.C. Beltway despised those of us outside the Beltway, those of us who have traditional American values, but Trump kind of showed us who they are.And I think that's a wake-up call, right? we realize now that we're sort of playing a game of poker, one side's cheating, and we haven't been cheating this whole time, so we're wondering why we're losing, right?We need to get off the deck, right? Play a totally different game.We have always kind of tried to beat the Democrats at their own game, at their own kind of methods and ways of doing things, and we need to break out of that kind of mental matrix, I think, and I think Trump, because he was such an outsider, was able to do that.He was not in this typical, you know, DC pipeline where you go from the RNC to a different think tank.And then, you know, you become a lobbyist and you cash in and you don't really care about what Americans are thinking and you're not in touch with the issues that matter to them.And I think because Trump was totally outside that world, it allowed him to bring that different perspective.And of course there was backlash, right? The traditional kind of Republicans, what I like to call the establishment Republicans were fearful of that.They don't want someone to come in and kind of shake things up.So I think you're always gonna see those elements with Trump even in the 2024 campaign.You're gonna see folks at the RNC that aren't totally on his side that are maybe even kind of trying to hurt him in ways that are underhanded and things of that nature. But I think that what we need is someone who is an outsider. We can't have someone fix it from the inside, right? The system has become so entrenched, so corrupt, we need kind of a bulldozer to go through it and to just blow it all up and rebuild it as something that is really for the American people. And I think that person is Donald Trump in 2024. I think, you know, it's always been Trump. He has started something that cannot be put back in the bottle. You know, the genie can't be put back in the bottle. The America First movement isn't going anywhere, even after Trump. I think a lot of people in the UK as well with Brexit, I think you saw a lot of people wake up to just the way things had been done.It wasn't working for them. It didn't represent them. There was this cabal of global elite that that didn't have their national interests at heart. And I think the American people and perhaps the British people know that and they're ready to fight.They're not gonna forget.I remember at CPAC, listened to one and a half hours of Trump and it was pure theatre, loved it.We'll get into that and I won't talk about clashing the Republican establishment and what Trump brings in, but you mentioned about playing the game.And one of the things that Republicans are playing catch up is how you vote, getting people to vote.And again, in the UK, so different. We have, well, probably well over 90% is voting on the day.We don't have your drop boxes, your collect as many bits of paper and fill them in.We don't have that. We don't have weeks and weeks of voting.We have one day from seven in the morning till nine at night.Playing the game means understanding how the other half are doing it and coming up with a better attack. And on the voting, on the getting out early, I've heard a lot of conversation about that, certainly in the War Room, Bannon talking a lot about Republicans having to wake up. Does that mean the ground game is better on using the system and getting those votes out early?Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, you talk about War Room, they mention this all the time, we need to be ballot harvesting, right? We need to be going up to individuals' doors, asking them to vote just as the Democrats have done. Republicans, again, because I think they're good-natured and honest, they want to vote typically in person on election day. They want to see their vote, you know, go in the machine. They want to present their ID. And there's no problem with that, right? Of course, that's a fantastic way to vote. But unfortunately a lot of the rigging that's happening is through the mail-in. So we can't shy away from the mail-in.And I think this is a mistake that we made on the 2020 campaign.We really went back and forth on the messaging, right? We said, oh, mail-ins are unconstitutional.We can't push for this, even with COVID. And then we also said, oh, wait, but if you do want to vote, you know, mail-in.If you do feel kind of, you know, it's a danger to your health going to your precinct, then please mail-in.So there was kind of a lot of back and forth.I think going along with our campaign messaging, I think we should have been much clearer on that.And I think you see President Trump being much clearer on that in his 24 race.But yeah, we can't shy away from mail-in voting.We have to have grassroots activists engaged as well. I think, you know, a lot of Republicans, they go to their day job and, you know, they follow politics as a hobby, but they're not really actively engaged in it.I think, you know, Democrats, all of them, it's basically their hobby, right, is politics.They're knocking on doors, they're protesting.They really have kind of cornered that activist market, especially for young people.So I tell people, you know, in DC all the time or outside of DC, just get off the side-lines, right?Run for your school board, become an election poll watcher. There are so many different things that you can do, even at small local levels that will make a change in your county, in your state, and ultimately in your country.We can't afford for anyone to be sitting this one out. I think this is truly the most pivotal election that we are going to have in American history. We are truly fighting for the future of our country.So we all have to be a part of it.We can't have any single person, you know.Just checked out or leaving it up to the professionals everyone has a role to play everyone has a vested interest in this country, too right, if you have kids if you have grandkids you want them to grow up in a nation as great as the one you remember. I talked to so many older folks or the boomer kind of generation. They have such fond memories of Reagan's America, right? It was such a wonderful place to live. It was safe. The economy was booming. We were kicking the Soviets butts. It was just a wonderful time and I think, you know, they see what our country has devolved into so quickly and they're disheartened but it really needs to kind of be a kick in the butt in many ways. They need to realize I need to fight for my children's future because I want them to have all of the freedoms and opportunities that I had as a kid and I think sadly those are slipping away. We are truly devolving into a radical Neo-Marxist kind of country with an ideology that is just pure evil. So we need to all be standing up and fighting against this and that starts at the ballot box, absolutely.Yeah. You talk about the establishment side and Trump, probably like no other, has shaped the party in his image to an extent, and probably even further shaped the Republican voter base in his image. I think that's probably more. And you mentioned Reagan. I don't know whether it's just people looking back and thinking it wasn't a great under Reagan. I don't know actually if at the time that it was seen as his party. So I think Trump's done it in a way that's never been seen before. Is that a fair enough comment?
Yes, absolutely. And again, I think it's just because he is that brash outsider, right?You can't fit him into any box.He doesn't fit a mould. And I think traditionally, republicanism has really represented states' rights, small government, few taxes. That's always what we've thought of as right wing in this country for decades.And I think Trump came in and he said, no, we have big government.It's not going away. I'm going to use it.I'm going to weaponize the government powers that I have to protect the American citizens and to go after this woke bureaucracy that we're seeing entrenched in DC.He's also pretty populist, right? We've seen a lot of economic policy advancements from him, that aren't, you know, your traditional, we just want tax cuts and that's it.He wants to give people a chance, particularly young people.He's talked about it on the campaign trail with his, you know, freedom cities idea, building different freedom cities across national parks in the country to give young people the opportunity to realize their American dream, right?Because I think so many young people in this economy today, they're crippled with student debt.Inflation is just hitting them really hard.The idea of someday owning a home, owning a car even, raising a family, paying for college, it all feels so out of reach.Young people have been really, really tarnished by the economy that Biden has largely created.But even just the Democrats have largely created for years, right?They've shipped all of our manufacturing jobs overseas to China since basically the 90s, And they've essentially ripped off the American worker so much that, you know, the notion of having wealth or being able to accrue wealth just totally feels, you know, like a fantasy. It doesn't feel like something worth doing anymore.I even think to, you know, my parents' generation, my dad was able to have a home, purchase a home, own a home.On one salary, right. Now, that's almost, you know, unheard of. Two parents have to be working to be able to to be able to purchase a house.So I think that the kind of populist bent that Trump gives the Republican party is definitely why it is kind of in his image now.It's something totally different than Republicanism we've seen before.It is something that is new.It is something that's for the people. It's engaged with the base.I think too, a lot of Republicans for years haven't been engaged with their voters.They've been listening to, you know, pollsters in Washington, D.C.Talking to New York stockbrokers about what they should do. They've never quite been as in touch with the average American as Donald Trump is. So I think that's the difference. I think that's why this is truly his party. But like I said before, once you know this Trump saga is over, after his 24 presidency, once we're done with Donald Trump, I think this America First movement is here to stay. I don't think it's going anywhere. 
Well, I remember in 2016, I remember looking at Ben Carson. I thought Ben Carson was the best choice and then looking at Ted Cruz. And then when Trump got the nomination and then had a MAGA slogan, which wasn't a slogan, it went far, usually elections have slogans, but I think it went far beyond a slogan to actually a way of life, is, are we going to put America first or not? And that really struck me because now politicians aren't supposed to say they'll put their country first.That's bad in a global system, but Trump said, like, screw you.I'm going to put America first. That's the priority.And how, I guess, has it taken that long? Because there hasn't been a priority and the slipping away of US influence, US manufacturing, jobs on US oil has been slipping away, not just under Democrat, but under Republican. So, I mean, tell us about that and how that's changed things.Yeah, so a lot of people don't know this. This actually really largely started with Joe Biden.In 2001, Joe Biden advocated for China's inclusion into the WTO.And after that, in the next decade, from 2001 to 2011, the Chinese took 2.7 million jobs from Americans.So I think in many ways, Biden has actually kind of been the chief architect of this offshoring to China and elsewhere, to India and various places.And I think that because Republicans started to put GDP kind of above the interests of their countrymen.All they cared about was GDP. All they cared about was trade deals, right?And Wall Street numbers and things of that nature. They kind of just went along with it.They said, oh yeah, a global system, you know, it's great for our stocks.It's great for the millionaires on Wall Street, on K Street, they're all making bajillions.They have no kind of reason to stop this globalization because it's serving them.So I think Republicans and Democrats together really kind of created this crisis.And it has accelerated like crazy. I mean, I certainly didn't think America's decline would be so swift, but in the past, I mean, 20 years, you have just seen our economy totally tank.You have seen communities across this country be ravaged by economic crises.They are no longer able to enjoy the things of life that their grandparents did.They are leasing cars, they're leasing apartments. I even saw the other day Apple was offering some sort of lease an iPhone deal.It's kind of the WEF model of, you know, you will own nothing and you will be happy.We've been sold this totally false bag of goods.And it's totally contradictory to our identity as Americans, right?Americans care about ownership.We're very individualistic. You know, we're rough and we'll fight for what we want.And that's always been our identity. And unfortunately, this kind of global identity that has superseded America's identity in the eyes of our beltway and coastal elite has really been one that doesn't align with our founding.And I think it's really just been a disservice to the American people as well.I mean, over 50% of Americans today say they are living pay check to pay check.I mean, that is just something that would be unheard of in the Reagan years or even earlier than that. So I think that we're seeinga truly economic crisis. And for young people especially, I think it's just going to be immensely difficult, right? It's just such a barrier to entry now that you can't even, you know, get rid of student loan debt, that your salary can't even pay for somewhere nice for you to live. It's just what they have totally done to young people and to just people in general across this country, I think is really sick. And Trump is the only one who really kind of brought it to the light. He was the only Republican who said, Hey, these trade deals, they're not working for you. They're not in our interest. Why are we pursuing them? Why are we kind of just for, you know, Oh, this is the way we've done it. Why is that our approach? We need a totally different mindset. We need to completely decouple from China, bring all of our manufacturing and jobs here. You even look at the situation in Taiwan, right? The reason that we're kind of so hesitant to get involved in Taiwan or wondering if we should get involved is because our semiconductors are there, right? Of course we want freedom for the Taiwanese, but that's a big part of it, right? And we're in this situation where all of our semiconductor manufacturing is over there and we're in kind of a pickle because of the establishment Republicans and Democrats, because they've shipped all of our jobs overseas, all over the world. And they've just, they've really kind of tarnished the American working class in doing so. So I think, you know, Trump is really at the forefront of bringing those jobs home. I think that is one of the only things that can revitalise this economy because unfortunately, it has been on a downward trajectory for far too long.
Supreme Court. They seem to be red pilled recently, like very recently. But stepping back, I mean Trump had nominated, was it, three Supreme Court judges and I was looking back andI mean, you look at Obama and Bush and Clinton, they did two in two terms.And I don't think, I mean...Two-thirds of our viewers are UK, about 20% are US, so most of our viewers won't realise the, I guess, importance and power that the Supreme Court has in US society in the law-making process.So tell us about it, because three Supreme Court judges is huge, that is a massive legacy, and who knows what will happen 24 to 2028?Yes. Right. No, absolutely. It is a massive accomplishment of the Trump administration.There is no question.And I think these three opinions that we've seen have been really encouraging for conservatives across the country. And of course, you know, we already see leftists now pushing ideas like packing the court.They're kind of flailing. I think they didn't think that, you know, conservatives would be able to fight back in this way using the court.And I think part of that is really an accomplishment of Trump.And I think it's a wonderful one.The affirmative action case in particular, I think is incredibly important. I mean, selecting individuals based on their race, not based on their merit or their skill set, is just totally backwards. And it's antithetical to every Western value that we've ever held, right? If you are able to do the work, if you are the most qualified candidate, then you should be selected, whether that is for a job promotion, for entry into a university, whatever it is. But unfortunately the left has totally turned that on its head and it's twisted it into this idea that race is all that matters and that we should judge people on the colour of their skin. And I just think as Americans, we have to stand up against that. I'm so encouraged to see the courts stand up against that. The other case, this student loan issue in particular, Biden's order using the COVID policies as leftover policies to justify his student loan cancellation of debt was completely against our American Constitution. There is no doubt about it. I will say, you know, I think conservatives need to come up with a creative approach to handle the student loan issue.So many of our young people, as I mentioned earlier, are saddled with debt. They've been kind of sold a false bill of goods. These universities have, you know, told them they need to attend in order to get a job and that they should major in something like gender studies, or even if they did major in something useful like engineering, the school has only taught them leftist indoctrination, right?That was something I experienced at my American university. I went to the University of California at Los Angeles.So, you know, it was totally in the lion's den there. And I was taking political science, which I wanted to be in politics. It was something that I thought would really prepare me and equip me, and boy, it did not.All I was told is that America's founding was evil, is that what it meant to be an American is to kill Native Americans. I mean, I was just totally, just faced with this radical leftism. I had professors who were openly Marxist. So I think, you know, in some capacity, we need to hold these universities accountable, right? They have large endowments.They should be paying at least a portion of the student loan debts that are just saddling and crippling our young people across this country, because what these institutions are doing is truly evil. They're jacking up the prices of college. I mean, I think when I paid my tuition, I was paying for green initiatives on campus.You can't say no to that kind of stuff. It's all wrapped in.I think these universities are really up to no good and we have to hold them accountable.And then the other case with the individual, the woman who didn't want to be conscripted to make the LGBTQ website, I think that's a massive win for social conservatism as well.I think that we've seen this kind of LGBTQ cult of indoctrination really forcing their hand on a lot of American institutions.You almost can't go anywhere in America in the month of June without seeing a rainbow flag or without being told you need to post that you stand in support with LGBTQ Americans.I mean, it's totally become in many ways a religion, right? We've always said in America, we have this separation of church and state.We don't anymore because our new state religion is this gender confusion.And we are exporting it across the world as well. We're sending money all over the world.We're funding pride parades in Prague, LGBTQ movie nights in Australia.I mean, the way that this group has been able to kind of co-opt the American government and American institutions is totally ludicrous.And what they are doing is really engaging in grooming, especially of young people, right?One in five Gen Z Americans now identifies as LGBTQ. It used to be, you know, they just kind of pushed forward this born this way narrative.And it was a very small subset of the population that kind of stuck to themselves.And, you know, no one really cared what they did in the privacy of their own bedroom, but it's not in your own bedroom anymore. We're seeing this out on the streets.We are seeing these marchers parading in front of kids, largely naked.It is just devolved into total degeneracy. So I think pushing back against that as well with that decision is a massive win for Christian or socially conservative individuals.And I'm really encouraged to see these wins from the court.I will say the Democrats are of course going to try to fight back, right?We already saw these universities with the affirmative action case say that they're going to consider race in things like the essay.So we have to be sure that we're enforcing these rulings, right?I think the Supreme Court makes the ruling and then it's up to congressional leadership to, in many ways, pass legislation that will enforce and strengthen that ruling.So I think that's something to watch for in the coming months here.
Yeah, all three surprised me. The LGBT one is probably the one that surprised me most and we've just struggled through Pride as well. And it's interesting because the church has not, really, really have collapsed in actually speaking truth and opposing that taking the rainbow and completely changing its meaning. But what is that, because here a lot of conservatives are so scared to even go against, because I think the aggression from, especially from the trans movement. What is it like, because MAGA seemed to be fully hardcore on these, in a way the Republican Party as a whole should be. And how is it that you've got a subsection, MAGA, actually willing to stand against the nonsense of Pride and everything it brings, but yet, if you look at the more established Republican who you'd think, I mean, you look at Fox News and they were promoting LGBT Pride Month. How has that happened?Right. I think that, you know, the kind of new right, this America First movement that Trump started, has really realized that the Christian conservatives we kind of mocked during the Obergefell decision that said, oh, you know, gay marriage is legal now. This will be a slippery slope. We mocked a lot of those people back in the day. And I was one of those, you know, I was a little bit more libertarian in my youth. I thought, you know, what you want to do is your business so long as it doesn't affect me. But I think those Christian conservatives who sounded the alarm were really right. Once, you kind of open the floodgates to a lot of this perversion, to a lot of this degeneracy.It sinks its teeth into almost every aspect of American life.You can't watch a children's show today that doesn't have a gay character.You can't, you know, walk into any university without being, you know, shown an LGBTQ flag or centre or things like that, right? It's absolutely ridiculous. So I think people have become so frustrated with how it's been shoved in their face because we were told, you know, oh, just be tolerant. They won't bother you. It won't affect your life. It affects everyone's day, every single moment now. So I think that realization that you can't just live and let live, right? There is always going to be some orthodoxy that is enshrined in the public square, and it needs to be an orthodoxy that is one of tradition, right? That is one of Western ideals of man and woman and marriage and things of that nature that are important and have stood the test of time. I think if our founders woke up today and they saw all of this craziness around us, they would be just shocked to the core. I mean, the way that the social decay has accelerated is absolutely nuts. So I think the new right and conservatives are kind of against the old Republican guard that think, oh, if you want to do that, that's fine. It doesn't affect me.Now it's in your kid's school, right? You're seeing teachers across the country that have gay books in their libraries or they're switching their child's pronouns without the knowledge of the parents.It's absolutely insane. And what they're doing is they're preying on children because those who cannot reproduce, they recruit, they groom.So what they're doing is they're targeting different opportunity demographics and that's largely children. And they're preying on a child's imaginative kind of creative point in their life, right? Because when you're a kid, you obviously you have no concept of your sexual self and you shouldn't until you reach puberty. That's very normal. That's how biology works.But unfortunately, the left has kind of gone after that period of maybe, you know, awkwardness. You had a growth spurt.You don't feel totally at home in your body.They're using that kind of growth and that period in a child's life and they're they're targeting it.They're twisting it and they're morphing it into something that is wholly evil.I mean, how awful is it to see trans violence across this country, too?I think we have truly sick, mentally ill people walking around.You have the Nashville shooter, for instance. There was a shooter just last night who police are saying was a cross-dresser.I think we have individuals who are really hurting, whether they have a mental illness.If that's body dysmorphia or something else.And what we're doing instead of giving them adequate care is we're just chopping off their fully functioning organs and injecting them with a bunch of foreign hormones. It is totally a recipe for disaster. And if we keep going down this road, we're going to have a population that is largely unstable and that's not conducive to societal success. That's not something we want to strive for. So we need to go after also a lot of these institutions that are pushing this stuff. I mentioned the universities earlier. They're a big portion of it. I think, big pharma is a big portion of it. They see these people as lifelong patients. They want to get them hooked on, you know, certain chemically castrating drugs, things like that. So we need to be really fighting against this stuff. And I think the new right, the America First Trump movement understands that, they know that this has gone too far, it's gone over the line. And we need to get back to our roots to our traditional concepts of gender, man and woman. 
Couldn't agree more. Keep it simple. There's only two. You're looking ahead to 2024. How does the, voting demographics break down? When you look at the youth vote, there are so many ones, but specifically looking at the youth vote. How do you see that working out? What are your thoughts on that?Yeah, so I think, you know, you'll hear a lot of Republicans say that Gen Z is a persuadable demographic. I'm not so sold being a member of that generation myself. As I mentioned, one in five Gen Z Americans identify as LGBTQ. I think this is truly the most radical generation that this country has ever seen. I think that these kids are Marxists. They've totally drunk the Kool-Aid and a lot of it too is largely not their fault, right? If you go to college apolitical in the United States, you are going to be a radical leftist by the time you get out. You have to go in with strong conservative values or you're just going to be indoctrinated, unfortunately, because your teachers, using their position of power, will espouse this radical left ideology that is just totally anti-American. It's not embracing of any other ideas or contrary views. So I think, you know, Gen Z is really going to be a problem for the Republican Party unless we start to shift narratives, right? Unless we start to really get ahead of issues that matter to young people. As I've been hitting home, you know, the economy is a major one. I talk to so many young people who just feel totally disenfranchised. They feel like their birth right has been stolen from them because they can't accumulate wealth. I'll give you an example. In 1998, which is the year I was born, millennials, Americans under 40, they held 13% of all national wealth.Today, that same age group, they hold just 5% of national wealth.So in almost 25 years, that's been cut in half.Young people are being totally wrecked by this economy. So I think starting to put issues at the forefront, like the ability to have a family on one income, you see Blake Masters talk about that a lot.JD Vance talk about that a lot.I think that's something that's huge and going to attract a lot of young people, a creative student loan approach as well. I mentioned, you know, thatI think colleges should be partially held accountable for it.I don't think it should just be up to the student to pay those off.A lot of times, traditional Republicans, they say, oh, you know, you took out the debt. It's your responsibility to pay.Absolutely. I think we should, you know, hold them accountable for at least some of it.But I also think these universities need to be punished.And then I think, you know, we need kind of a dual-pronged approach to that issue.I also think the social issues matter a lot to young people.I think the loudest voices in the conservative youth movement, sadly, are kind of the radical kids, you know, the pro-choice or the LGBTQ mafia. But I tell young people all the time, remember, there are so many young Americans across this country, in middle America, in the quote-unquote flyover states, that believe your values, right? They go to church, they prescribe to a two-gender viewpoint of life, they want to start a family someday. So I think just being loud and voicing your opinions if you are a traditional kind of conservative-minded American is so important because the left wins when we feel alone, when we feel like I'm shouting into the void, no one shares my opinions, I'm totally on an island here, I'm all alone. And I think that when we realize that there are so many voters out there that agree with us, I try to remind myself just every day, you know, how many people support Donald Trump. When I look at pictures of his rally in South Carolina, I think, oh, wow, I live in D.C. where I'm behind enemy lines and I'm surrounded by swamp monsters, but there are people in South Carolina that believe in this message and that believe in this president.So I think, you know, young people, they're out there.They're kind of a silent majority. They just feel like they've been silenced and they can't voice their opinion.They need to get loud.We need those people to come off the side-lines.With a campaign, obviously, I've heard DeSantis speak when I was over in Florida in February.Then heard Trump speak at CPAC, and I know I've talked to so many people, I know you've experienced different viewpoints in family, I'm sure it'll be across the country, and as much as I think DeSantis is brilliant for what he's done in Florida, if Trump's in the ring, you don't even get in it. I mean, Trump is Trump. You don't, you just cheer him on. And I'm perplexed why anyone thinks they should go up against Trump. 
Mm-hmm. Yeah, and I agree with you, you know, I am not a DeSantis hater by any means I think what he's done for Florida is absolutely incredible particularly, you know during the COVID pandemic his leadership. He really was at the forefront of a lot of stuff pushing back against, you know Fauci and all the lunacy we saw coming from the CDC and HHS. So he has been really a fantastic governor for the state of Florida, but he's young, right?I think that you know, he certainly has a bright future maybe as our president someday. But I just don't think that time is yet. I don't think the Trump saga is over. You watch Trump on the campaign trail now. He is not missing a beat. He's totally 2016 Trump he looks as if he hasn't aged, that Florida Sun has been rather kind to him. His golf swing still just as strong as ever. So I think you know, we can't count him out he needs to finish what he started. I think too, there's always a learning curve with presidents, right? You get into the White House, you kind of have to get your bearings and assess the administrative state that's around you. That's what so many people don't realize is when you become president, you're kind of in charge of a lot of different agencies that are filled with individuals who aren't on your side. They didn't support your presidency. They've been working at, you know, the Department of Justice for the past 20 years. And they're totally, you know, a swamp creature that's radical and hates you and your platform and everything you ran for. So I think that can kind of be a difficult issue for a lot of presidents when they try to get things done.And I think Trump, he's used to that. He knows exactly who to fire. He knows where the bodies are buried. He kind of had that first term as a way to assessthe deep state, just how entrenched it is, where we need to go after it. I think he knows better than anybody how to totally disrupt this woke and weaponized bureaucracy, and that's why I'm behind him 100%. I think you also see the media freaking out about him. He is absolutely the most hated individual by the DC establishment, by the mainstream media, by the global elite, and that's why I love him because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Completely. Kingsley, thanks for coming on. Actually, I was wondering how you survived university and how you survived California. I think someone sent me a meme, stop complaining about your life. There are people literally living in California. How did you survive, it?
Oh, it was very difficult. It was tough. Luckily, I had Raheem Kassam's National Pulse as a way to creatively have an outlet, but it is, those kids are wacky over there on the West Coast.Well, thanks for joining us. I'm looking forward to, obviously the viewers and listeners can watch your content throughout the campaign and of course follow Centre for Renewing America.So thanks for joining us today Kingsley.
Thanks so much for having me, Peter.

The Week According To . . . Kate Shemirani

Welcome to "The Week According To . . ." Join us as we take a meander through some of the news, articles, stories and social media posts that have piqued our interest or made our blood boil this week and we are excited to welcome back a previous guest, the irrepressible Kate Shemirani.Kate does not hold back so buckle up as we hear her thoughts on the topics this week including...- The Lancet: The most damaging paper of the pandemic, published as a pre-print, shows 74% of deaths post-vax due to the jab.- The Lancet and who funds it.- Still Clapping? NHS trusts have committed to financial plans without properly considering their consequences.- France set to allow police to spy through phones.- COVID Vaccines: Has everyone that took this injection been part of an experiment?- China: In 2011, the Chinese government directed companies to buy up foreign food producers' farmland, and that's exactly what they did.- An NHS trust has apologised to hundreds of families whose relatives caught Covid-19 in hospital and died.- NHS Chief blames the worst sickness rates on record on the 'extraordinary' response to the pandemic. - The number of athletes suffering sudden cardiac arrests and related issues has soared to alarming levels.- Military families given just one week to leave homes to make room for migrants.
Kate Shemirani is a Trained and Qualified Nurse of 36 years, a trained and qualified independent nurse prescriber, holds a diploma in personal Nutrition and is considered to be an authority in ‘avoiding and reversing disease naturally’. She is a Co founder of the British Nursing Alliance, Health Advisor/Nurse on Sons of Liberty Radio USA and Host of The Kate Shemirani Show on Unity News Network.Kate was once labelled ‘The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain’ for opposing the Lockdowns and COVID clot shots.
Connect with Kate at....Twitter:  https://twitter.com/KateShemirani?s=20TNT Radio:  https://tntradio.live/presenters/kate-shemirani/Unity News Network:  https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/unn-team-shows/
Originally broadcast live 8.7.23
*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! 
Links to topics this episode...Lancet paperhttps://kirschsubstack.com/p/the-most-damaging-paper-of-the-pandemicThe Lancet https://twitter.com/KateShemirani/status/1677249401880756226?s=20NHS financehttps://twitter.com/KateShemirani/status/1677243455079084033?s=20France spy phoneshttps://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/07/06/france-set-to-allow-police-to-spy-through-phones_6044269_7.html#:~:text=French%20lawmakers%20agreed%20to%20a,through%20phones%20and%20other%20devices.Vaccine Experimenthttps://twitter.com/KateShemirani/status/1676915661212114947?s=20Chinese farmlandhttps://twitter.com/KateShemirani/status/1676913912170573830?s=20COVID NHShttps://twitter.com/KateShemirani/status/1676912065976442881?s=20NHS chief https://twitter.com/KateShemirani/status/1676112610222022657?s=20Athlete Cardiac Arrests https://slaynews.com/news/1884-athlete-cardiac-arrests-in-2-5-years-1310-dead/Military Families https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/07/02/military-families-given-just-one-week-to-leave-homes-to-make-room-for-migrants/

Dr Brooke Miller - US Cattlemen: Anti-Farming Pressures and the Benefits of Being a Carnivore

Shownotes and Transcript
We have reached peak insanity as it appears that agriculture and farming are under attack from the left because they see food production as a bad thing.  We are joined today by Dr Brooke Miller to discuss this and more. Brooke is a doctor but is also a cattleman, he served as President of the US Cattlemen's Association until recently and knows the pressures on the industry. Brooke explains what goes into looking after cattle which parts of the US are known worldwide for and talks about the impact that COVID had. He discusses the regulatory and political pressures and how multinational's control the industry before sharing the benefits of a carnivore diet.
D. Brooke Miller, MD graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Virginia Tech Magna Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Science in Biology in 1982. He was a National Champion, beef cattle judging , and member of the Livestock Judging Team at Virginia Tech. He graduated the University of Virginia School of Medicine in 1986. His Residency was in Family Medicine at the Medical College of Virginia. He is board certified in Family Medicine and has worked in Emergency Medicine in both Virginia and Montana. Dr. Brooke has practiced Family Medicine for nearly 25 years, currently employed by Valley Health System with offices in Luray and Washington, VA. Brooke is the 8th generation of his family to live in Washington, VA where he carries on the family’s purebred Angus cattle operation, Ginger Hill Angus. Through his passion for cattle and farming, he became active in the United States Cattlemen’s Association, formerly serving at the organization’s president.  Together Brooke and his wife Ann have 4 children and 4 grandchildren. While his first love is his family, he is passionate about cattle and agriculture as well as health, wellness and preventive medicine. In his spare time, he is an avid cross fitter. 
Connect with Brooke at...WEBSITE:    https://www.gingerhillangus.com/ TWITTER:    https://twitter.com/Brookemillermd?s=20SUBSTACK: https://brookemillermd.substack.com/
Interview recorded 30.6.23
*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)Hello, Hearts of Oak, and welcome to another interview coming up in a moment with Dr Brooke Miller. 
I've got to know Brooke in my travels in the US. He is a doctor, obviously, but he's also a cattleman, and he's just stepped down as president of the US Cattlemen's Association.It's an industry that I know zero about, so I wanted him to come on to discuss the industry, the meat industry, the cattle industry in the US, the different pressures they face. We look at the COVID pressures, we look at the regulatory and political pressures, We look at the difficulty of actually individuals now getting involved in the industry and he as a doctor has one source of income, the difficulty if you rely on the cattle industry as your source of income. We also look at the multinational corporations and the pressures they apply on the industry and how they stranglehold at various points. And then we end up on the carnivore diet. He's a big proponent of the carnivore diet. We look at the health benefits of that. 
Dr Brooke Miller, it's wonderful to have you with us. Thank you for your time today.(Dr Brooke Miller)
Well, thank you, Peter. I appreciate you having me on. 
Not at all, great to have you and people can find you @BrookeMillerMD on Twitter, also on Facebook, Substack, all the links are in the description. And we're going to discuss all things cattle. And I, being a Brit, don't know much, so I'm looking forward to learning. But, can I, I saw pictures of you, you were over in my neck of the woods, round the corner in the European Parliament.What on earth were you doing there? 
Well, as you know, I know Robert Malone, Robert and Jill Malone, and they've become great friends. And they're always traversing the globe, trying to fight injustice and untruths.And we went over to Brussels to have the International COVID Summit number three in Brussels.We had a meeting of physicians and scientists and interested parties.It was a private meeting on one day. And then the next day, there was a part of our delegation, testified in the European Parliament regarding COVID and the COVID response.And then the following day was a media day, but it was fun and it was informative and we had a great time.So I really appreciate Robert and Jill in dragging Anne and I along, and it was a life experience.
Let me start with you. Your background is a medical background, but you also will get onto the cattle side and you're, what, born and bred Virginia. Do you want to just introduce yourself before we get into the topic.Did you say just describe myself you said? 
Yes, so just introduce yourself to the viewers and listeners. 
Yeah, well I grew up, I'm born and raised in a small town in Washington called Washington, Virginia. It was the first Washington of them all. George Washington surveyed it as a 17-year-old young man. We're nestled in the foothills of the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains about 70 miles southwest of Washington, D.C. It's a very rural area, sparsely populated.I grew up here, I'm eighth generation to live here in my family.My grandchildren will be the 10th generation.My wife, Anne and I own and operate a family medicine clinic here about a mile from the house, Miller Family Health and Wellness, where we provide, you know, primary care, preventive medicine, small surgical procedures, pretty much everything that most people need in a small rural community.I also grew up on a cattle farm, third-generation cattle farmer and rancher here in Washington, Virginia.We have a purebred Angus operation where we sell purebred Angus seed stock.We also market some beef directly to consumers in the form of freezer beef.Well, yes, I want to ask you a little bit about that commercial cattle industry.And I think the headwinds at the UFAS.Were president of the US Cattlemen's Association and as a Brit, I've no idea what that means.So I wonder, could you just explain to me what that is?
The United States Cattlemen's Association is a grassroots organization where we represent, the production side of the cattle industry. You have the production side and then you have the packing and the retail side, and we represent the producers who basically have been taken advantage of by big, large, multinational corporations.So we're a nationwide organization of cattle producers here in the United States, and we basically try to lobby and shape, policy here in the United States that's beneficial to cattle ranchers, so cattle ranchers can stay in business and we can continue to feed our country and the world.Unfortunately for most of my lifetime, there's been sort of a war on cattle ranchers.The big multinational corporations, there are only four of them that control about 85% of our slaughter cattle market worldwide.And they basically have a monopoly and they exert their power and their influence in Washington, DC and worldwide.And there's no real free true market for cattle ranchers to make a good fair living.And consequently, we have lost thousands of cattle ranchers over the last several decades and eventually it's going to reach critical mass and it's gonna seriously harm our country. 
What has it traditionally been like? Has it traditionally been small holdings of kind of small farms? What kind of has it been like up until I guess the advent of the large multinational companies?Yeah, I think we had a secretary of agriculture back during the, maybe it was the Reagan administration, I'm not sure, that said get big or get out.And that's really been harmful for cattle farmers and ranchers and small family farms.And small family farms are actually going by the wayside.And, you got to get bigger and bigger and bigger. And even the guys in the production side that are getting bigger and bigger and bigger are having a hard time because our production costs are going through the roof, especially with the inflation that we've seen in the last several years.And what the retailer or what the packers are paying us for our end product, really hasn't been worthwhile. Now, recently there's been, and with environmental disasters and the cattle market being so bad for so long, our nation's cow herd is smaller than any time since 1965.So our cattle prices recently in the past six months have come up dramatically, but those things are very cyclical.We'll probably enjoy a good cattle market for a couple of years and then it'll be back to famine, you know, just barely scraping by and not being able to put any money back into your production and your program and not really make a living.As you know, I'm a medical doctor and I loved cattle ranching my whole life and my dad and I had a special bond because he loved it too.And he saw the handwriting on the wall when I was a kid and he directed me away from just being a solo, only cattle ranching is my only means of income and raising family, and thank goodness that he did.And so I have to be a medical doctor in order to be able to, I'm not going to say to afford to ranch, but possibly to afford to ranch because I couldn't, you know, we make a little bit of money on the ranch, but not near as much money as we could if we did other things with that time, and it's really not economically feasible.And consequently, a bunch of young people in our country are not going into it.And we're losing cattle ranchers, you know, it's at epidemic proportions.And eventually, if we lose enough cattle ranchers, we're not going to be able to feed this nation and we will be dependent on foreign countries for our food sources and we know how that would turn out. I mean being dependent on anybody for something that's so critical as your food is a disastrous plan.It's curious when you say you need to be a doctor to actually afford to look after cattle.I mean, is it possible for someone to run a, I don't know what you call it, a cattle ranch?Is it possible for someone to run that and actually make money?Or are you saying it's probably getting to the point where that's not possible anymore?Well, I don't know what the statistics are, but they're getting worse and worse as far as the number of family farms and ranchers that require or depend on outside income from some family members.Back in the 50s and 60s, the wife didn't work on the ranch, I mean, she didn't work in town.Now a lot of those families are requiring outside income and it's becoming more and more.Some of my best friends get all of their income solely through ranching and you can see how they are struggling and they're finding other revenue streams to support themselves and their family in addition to what they can make on the cattle ranch.
Tell me, when you talk about multinational companies, those large companies, what part of the kind of chain is that in? Is that the beginning? Is that the process?Is that packing? Is that the supermarket? 
That's the packing and processing industry.There's basically a bottleneck.What you have is you have seed stock producers like me who produce the seed stock to go out to the commercial cattle ranchers to provide the genetics for their herds. The commercial cattle ranches are usually a little bit bigger. They have more cattle, but I sell them bulls to breed their cows to hopefully produce superior livestock, to more efficiently produce good healthy tasting beef. Those people then sell to some middlemen usually, sometimes they take it all the way through to the fattening, but essentially those, most people that are in the commercial cattle business raise their calves till they're about seven or eight months of age, maybe a little bit longer, and then they sell them.From there, they'll usually go on to grass to people that purchase cattle to grow them out and put more of a frame on them so they can put feed on, I mean weight on them in a very economic fashion when they go to the feedlot, once they're eight, nine hundred pounds, they go to the into the feedlots where they're fed for the most part a very high concentrate ration.And when those animals are what we call finished, where they're adequately fattened at an adequate size and weight, then they're sold to the packers and there are basically four multinational packing companies, two of them owned in Brazil, one of them I think is heavily invested in China and one of them is American. And they basically there's, they have contracts and they contract with these big corporate feeders. They don't let, there's no sort of free market. These contracts, are secret and the independent cattle feeders are, they try to squeeze them out.Right now, depending on what part of the country you are, in this country there's feeding areas like in the south in Texas and Kansas, less than 10% of the fed cattle are sold on an open market, so you really don't know what the true value of those animals is. And in other areas like Iowa and Nebraska, there are a few more independent farmer feeders, and it's probably 25 or 30% at most but there are weeks where those these farmers and ranchers can't even get bids on their cattle and it's just a purely a monopolistic practice and our government, our Department of Justice, and our Congress, and The Agricultural Department has allowed this to happen through mergers and acquisitions and through their regulations.The regulations are just so much more beneficial to these big multinational packers because these big multinational packers have a lot of money and they have more money to put into lobbying and influence.And it's really a sad situation for both the American consumer and the American farmer and rancher.And as our cattle market goes, so goes the Canadian cattle market, the Australian cattle market. We pretty much set the cattle market here. So it hurts basically all other countries as well.And those farmers and ranchers in those other countries, because, you know, they look at what we're getting.And to be quite honest, the packers try to use those foreign cattle in our country to control the market, and try to get them at a cheaper price.And unfortunately, our labelling laws allow it to happen where they can deceive the consumers.They can label foreign product as product of the USA.And we don't really have any labelling laws that are truthful right now, as far as, you know, grass fed is not even truthful. Product of the USA is not even truthful.They're just ways that people can get around and they change definitions.And the average consumer doesn't know where their food is coming from.And that's becoming more and more important because everybody is really concerned about their food supply and the safety and the health benefits of their food supply, and what those animals have been treated with, what they've been fed.And this country has the highest safety standards in the world.And they're not allowing the American cattle ranchers to compete on a global scale if we can't identify our product.And if we're able to identify our product, it's gonna help the cattle market in general and help farmers and ranchers all over the country, all over the world, I mean.
You talked about the pressures from governments. and you look at the Democrat Party, they seem to support anything but homegrown products.We have the same issue in the UK, where it's a destruction of industry and products in the UK.Tell us about the political pressures that there are on the industry and why is there not more political support?
Because there are not many farmers and ranchers in this world, and they don't, they're not a lot of votes.There's not a lot of money behind it, and there's not a lot of votes.And that's why it doesn't get support from either party in our country across the board.We had a bill in Congress last year that would have created a mandatory minimum number of, percentage of cattle that each packer had to procure there on the open market each week.In other words, a mandatory minimum. Our open market has been dwindling year after year after year.And we were trying to put a stop on that and require these packers who are exerting their monopolistic powers to require to, you know, bid on cattle on the open market.And these cattle that are on the open market are superior in their quality.And we couldn't even get, we had, I think there were 27 sponsors in the Senate, bipartisan, and we couldn't get the head of the Senate to even bring it to a vote.And, it's not one party or the other, they're both equally responsible for this.I mean, there are some people in the Republican Party in powerful positions that are beholden to the big corporations, Tyson Foods and Walmart, because they're big factories in their states. And they're very powerful and they exert all the influence that they can. And in order to get this turned around, we have to create a partnership with the American consumer and basically the worldwide consumer, and they have to become more aware of what's going on.They have to realize that there's a lot of deceit in the labelling process in food, not only in this country, but worldwide. And more and more people, this this past spring there was the big hot button issue was mRNA vaccines in livestock. And consumers are really paying attention to that. And they want to make sure that they're they know what they're eating. And the United States Cattlemen's Association is all about truthful labelling.And we know we are in partnership with consumers and we want to produce the safest, best product, available. But in order to do that, we have to be able to differentiate it. And we can't do it so far.Yeah, we are having the same conversation about mRNA in the cattle industry here in the UK. Can I ask you about the last three years COVID, I think I read something on the US California Association discussing the impact of COVID and the damage to the industry. What kind of have the last three years been like?
Well, when COVID-19 hit, it seemed like the World Health Organization and the American,I guess, agencies, the CDC, NIH, it seemed like they were trying to scare people, and people were really scared about this disease. And as we know, it's turned out a lot of what they put out was not true. But there was, the concentration at our industry, we have four packing companies and they have very large packing plants where they slaughter, a couple, you know, tens of thousands of animals each day. And if one of those packing plants, isn't operational, then it creates a food shortage in the grocery store where we don't  have a food shortage on the supply end.We have a bottleneck in the packing plants. And it just so happened that some of the workers got sick, and they closed down these packing plants.And so then those corporations use that basically to their advantage. They made money and the poor farmer and rancher were getting nothing for their animals because they were told that they didn't have the capacity to kill these finished market animals.And they told the retailers they didn't have any beef, and then you saw beef skyrocket in the grocery store, and there were some shortages on the shelves.And they were making upwards of $1,000 an animal, and they slaughter hundreds of thousands of animals each week.And they were making upwards of $1,000, we hear, as high as $2,000 per animal.And it was just basically price gouging on two ends.It was price gouging on the production side and price gouging the consumer.And that just showed how fragile our system was when you put all your eggs in a couple of baskets, and a couple of those baskets go bad.And our food supply chain was not very resilient. So there has been a move on in this country, and I think worldwide, to develop a more regionalized, food system and spread the risk out amongst many many smaller regional packing plants and unfortunately it had gotten so that these large mega corporations with economy of scale and all the rules and regulations these packers have, these packing plants independent packing plants have to go under that it just wasn't it's just not feasible and it's a direct result of all of our policies in this country.
There's something else specifically I want to ask you, and that is, I guess, the push to net zero, and we're seeing across Europe, certainly in the Netherlands, a push to restrict farming because farming is bad and meat is certainly very bad.Many farms in the Netherlands have been forced to close, and as somebody who works in the food industry. I mean, are you having some of the same pressures in the US against farming, against the whole carbon issue and being told that farming and meat are bad?Well, you know, we hear it. We hear a lot of people beating the drums that meat is harmful, not only for your health, but harmful for the environment. And some people that are beating that drum actually believe it, but the main players, I think, in the reality, you have to look and see where their money is invested and how they're going to make their wealth.And I think, again, it's a fear tactic.I'm 62 years of age, and I remember back in high school hearing that we were going to have an ice age and then followed that it was going to be Los Angeles was going to be be underwater in 10 years.And it started out as global cooling, and then it was global warming.And since our globe hasn't warmed appreciably in the last 50 years, now it's just climate change.And the climate, as you know, is always changing. But it always has changed, and it always will change.Anybody that thinks carbon dioxide is an environmental pollutant is, I think, just nuts.Carbon dioxide is part of our environment. That's what plants use to produce oxygen and photosynthesis.So it's a necessary part of our atmosphere, and it's a very small part of our atmosphere.So I think it's nuts. I think it's the push is mainly through, you know, wealth and power to for people to gain more wealth and power.You look at Bill Gates as a big climate alarmist.And if he if he thought that we actually were going to melt all the polar ice caps and the sea level is going to rise, why would he have so many houses on the coast near sea level?If he really believed in that, why would he own three private jets and 30 mega mansions?You know, he's been one of the one of the main pushers of beef being bad for the environment.Well, he's heavily invested in cell cultured protein and fake meat and is buying up a lot of farmland around around the country.So, you know, you have to look at the guys that are pushing this.Where do they stand to benefit?And unfortunately, that's that's where it's coming from.And I hope and pray that the world wakes up and sees this for exactly what it is, because it's nothing more than that.My cattle are not ruining the environment. All you have to do is go out and look.We live in one of the most ecologically stable parts of the world. And these people that are saying cattle are so bad, they live in their mega mansions, and they have their drivers, and they have their private jets, and they're going all over the world beating the drum. And I think it's just hogwash.
100% and hypocrisy is in full swing. My big concern is with governments pushing it.Before you've had pressure groups or organisations, it seems as though certainly the government in the Netherlands, in Holland are 100% behind this and I've heard reports of 4,000 farms being forcibly taken over by the government and just left to fallow.That seems to be spreading certainly across Europe.And part of it is the whole climate change alarmism, but part of it seems to be just destroying industries in the countries and I guess making us more reliant, but possibly that hasn't yet swept or hit over there in the US, even though your politics is just as crazy as ours in Europe.
Yeah. Yeah. I look at that in the Netherlands and I'm thinking, what are they trying to do?They're trying to destroy their ability to produce food. For what reason? I mean humanity has to has to eat. And there are certain things that humanity needs, in order to exist. And I think it's more of a power. It's more of a power grab.We can control these people if we can control their food, we can control their monetary supply, we can control their ability to move and travel.It's just something to, it's tyranny is what it is, and they want to whip the population into being a subservient, non-free people.And I don't think it's going to, you know, change is very slow, but I don't think it's going to be something that they will be able to sustain.I mean, I guess, how are they going to feed their nation? Are they going to make all their food in a laboratory? I don't think so.Are they going to be dependent upon foreign countries for their food?That doesn't seem like a very good plan to me. So I really don't get it, but I think it's a power grab.Yeah, I would propose that anyone like that they can eat grass and the rest of us can enjoy meat and we'll see how that works, 
Absolutely. Well, you know we've heard, I've heard since, I went to medical school, graduated from medical school in 1986 and all through medical school we heard about the cholesterol theory of heart disease and beef and fat is bad for you and it was all based on some from faulty scientific cherry-picked epidemiologic studies.And what we've seen happen more in this country, but when we were in Europe, we saw a lot of the result of it in Europe too.Like 10 years ago, it wasn't as prevalent, but big food, the big food corporations are pretty evil, and they will put out anything they can make a profit and try to make people think it's healthy.And since we've been traveling down this path our country, and I think many countries have become much unhealthier.We have so much more chronic disease, so much more obesity, so much more cancer, so much more diabetes, heart disease, autoimmune disorders.And it's a direct result of what people are eating, just processed crap.And they've got people, they label food like it's low fat.This is low fat. Well, I submit our body needs fat. Our brain needs fat in order to survive and thrive.And they're making people very, very unhealthy and they're addicting people to certain foods all along the way.
Well, that's something I've certainly been looking into in the last few months, the whole issue of processed foods and ultra processed.And the unknown effect on many of us. And I know you're a big proponent of the carnivore diet.And I'm wondering, is that just PR, publicity, or are you yourself finding that healthy? Tell us about that.I truly 110% believe in a low carbohydrate, high protein, high fat diet with time limited food intake and intermittent fasting.Carnivore diet is just the, it's that, just to an extreme.And I'm not saying everybody needs to be a carnivore, but with so much chronic disease that we have here and that I see on a daily basis, most of my patients are tremendously overweight.Many of them have diabetes or pre-diabetes, they're completely inflamed.A lot of them have autoimmune disorders, a lot of them have anxiety and depression.And their food is deficient in essential nutrients and fat.And the carnivore diet is the best way to counteract what we're seeing causing chronic disease in this country, and I think worldwide. It's really simple.You don't have to really think, all you have to do is, is your thought process is, is it did this grow from the soil?Or is this an animal or a living being product? And if it's an animal or living being product, and it's not been tainted, or, you know, unhealthy chemicals or additives added to it, it's carnivore.And I have seen a tremendous improvement. I have so many type two diabetics.And the ones that really will stick to a carnivore diet, they can get off all medications and they become so much healthier and their life becomes so much better.It's amazing, we can cure autoimmune disorders with this, cure diabetes, hypertension, depression, anxiety.The list just goes on and on and on and of what I have seen in my clinical practice, when I heard about the carnivore diet initially, my son's in medical school, and he was following a guy named Sean Baker, and Sean was a big proponent or still is a big proponent of the carnivore diet.And my son mentioned it to me and I go, that's hogwash.But then I actually got to know Sean and I started, have created a great friendship with him.And he was stating a lot of really good scientific studies and there was a lot of science and proof behind it.And so then I started following it for myself because at one point in time, I was probably 10, 15 pounds overweight and I was on blood pressure medicine.I didn't feel good. I started feeling old. I was feeling stiff and sore and not looking forward to aging.And I, myself, my wife and I started on a carnivore diet after meeting with Sean one fall.We started on in January, that following January.And I leaned out tremendously.My blood pressure plummeted into the normal range and actually got really low on antihypertensive medicine.So I stopped my blood pressure medicine and my indicators of chronic inflammation improved dramatically. Triglycerides and HDL cholesterol have never been so good as they are on a carnivore diet and improve my sleep.And the other thing, as you may or may not know, I'm a CrossFit athlete, and I used to do it competitively.But when I'm on a regular, what we call a standard American diet, I just eat pretty much what everybody else eats.My body hurts, and my hands hurt, and I get arthritic symptoms in my hands.And I really struggle just basically throwing around and carrying the weight when that happens.And, you know, when I go on a strict carnivore diet, all those symptoms go away and I don't even think about it.So I couldn't believe any more in the carnivore diet than what I do, what I already do, just from what I've seen personally and in my practice.And then the stories, the more and more stories of people that we know that have changed their lives with the carnivore diet, it's completely counterintuitive to what we've been hearing for the last 30 years, but what we've been hearing for the last 30 years hasn't worked, obviously.Exactly. It's intriguing that you bring that medical understanding that it's not just this tastes good, but you see the effects of unhealthy eating in patients.And then that's made you question, but I'm assuming that there is no push towards healthy eating as such, because there is always a drug to correct.And I know we sometimes look at the U.S. and think, well, you guys have got a drug for everything.But I guess that's the way that the industry stops any push towards healthy eating.
Well, it's almost like the food industry and the pharmaceutical industry are in cahoots with one another because the food industry is one of the many things that's making our population in the world become unhealthy and need medications. And then the pharmaceutical industry, unfortunately, they have exerted so much influence in our agencies and in the media and on celebrities, and they pay these people to push the narrative.If the pharmaceutical industry doesn't come up with it, it can't work.You know, cheap repurposed medications or natural remedies are felt to be bad alternative types of medicine, not backed by sound science.And we know, I mean, that's one of the things that the COVID pandemic opened up my eyes to is all the things that are out there that we can do for our patients and encourage our patients to do that will get them off medications.They don't need medicine for everything. And it's really sad.I tell my patients when I meet with them, I spend a lot of time when I meet with them for the first time trying to explain the science and the rationale behind what I'm recommending them to do, and one of which is a carnivore diet with time-limited food intake and sunlight and vitamin D is I'm trying to get myself out of a job.I mean, if I get them healthy, they won't need to come see me and they won't need medication.And they appreciate that. I mean, a lot of them come to see me and they say they heard that I was a straight shooter and would tell them what they needed to hear, not what they wanted to hear, and not push of medicine on them and not push this therapy on them if we could do it more natural ways.Just to finish off, could I ask you what advice you would give me? You understand the cattle industry for generations. I kind of feel that you would be probably encouraging someone who's wanting to get into that and maybe steer them elsewhere, but what changes do you think would need to be made to actually make it a better industry for people to actually get involved and take it as a career.
Well, on the national level, they need to break up the monopolies.I don't think there's going to be the political will to do that right now, but maybe if the people get behind it, that would solve a lot of problems.That would give us a true free market where you could make a fair living raising food in a healthy manner.In the short term, and the United States Cattlemen's Association will push to fight against rules and regulations and improve the laws and everything as far as that for our industry.But in the short term, and actually maybe in the long term, we need a more regionalization of our food supply chain and we need to make consumers and farmers and ranchers partners.And I encourage young people that are getting into the livestock industry, they want to raise cattle and raise food, to develop a direct to consumer marketing approach, whether be online or just through local. I mean, we have a limited number. We probably sell 30, 35, maybe 40 animals a year direct to consumers. And it's really easy. You don't have to advertise at all. They just, you know, they hear about it, they taste it, they taste how much better the product is when it comes directly from the farmer and rancher and they're not getting the leftovers. They're not getting the 10 year old cow that's been at the end of her lifespan or the 10-year-old bull is after the end of her lifespan, and they're getting a better product and they really love it, and they also develop a friendship with you, and you basically try to educate them and let them know the practice that you are performing in order to raise these animals in a healthy and wholesome and environmentally sound method. I'm definitely an environmentalist, I don't want to destroy our environment, especially right where I live or anywhere really. So we're very environmentally conscious on what we put on the land and our practices, but we're also very conscious on how we we care for and and treat our livestock and people appreciate it. They come out and they see the animals and they see what you do and it just makes them want to buy their their food directly from the source.When you buy food in a grocery store, you really don't know what's happened to that food before it gets to the grocery store, how it's been treated, both plant food and livestock.So buying food directly from a farmer and rancher, I think would be the most superior way.And it also bypasses all these multinational corporations and the consumer can get it for a better price and the farmer is getting a better price for his product too.So direct to market consumption model is what I'm recommending and trying to encourage young people to do when they get into the farming ranching business.
Okay, Brooke, I appreciate your time. Thank you so much for coming along and explaining your industry.
Well, thank you for having me, Peter. It's always good to see you and talk to you and I hope to see you when you're in the States.

Richard Poe - The Shadow Party: How George Soros Seized Control of the Democratic Party

Shownotes and Transcript...
George Soros is one, if not the most, dangerous person in the world.
This may sound like an overstatement but our guest today will explain why. Richard Poe is a bestselling author and respected journalist, sixteen years ago he co wrote the most comprehensive analysis of the web that Soros has spun worldwide. Detailing the connections, control, influence and how the monster we see today was created by the British and nurtured by the Americans. This will shine a light on one of the most secretive and powerful individuals and show how ignorance has allowed his ascent.
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/
'The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party'Available in print, e-book or audio book from Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shadow-Party-Hillary-Radicals-Democratic/dp/1595551034/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-1
Interview recorded 21.6.23
*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 with Richard Poe.He has co-written a book with David Horowitz.This was back in 2006, but still as relevant today. And that is The Shadow Party, how George Soros, Hilary Clinton and 60s radicals seize control of the Democratic Party.George Soros is a huge figure, and this is the first book that actually delves into his life and how he's been involved in color revolutions, coups all around the world.His life story, moving to the States, his involvement with the left.So much packed in. I know you will really enjoy listening to Richard unpacking delve deep into the life of George Soros.Thankful to have you with us today. Thank you so much for your time.
(Richard Poe)
Thank you, Peter. Great to be here.
Good to be. And we are going to discuss your book. We're also going to discuss some articles, but just for the viewers.Richard Poe's probably 10, 11 different books and here are a number of them that we are going to look, Hilary's Secret War, but we're actually going to look today at The Shadow Party, How George Soros, Hilary Clinton and 60s Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party and you wrote that along with David Horowitz, who we've had the privilege of having on before.And now you're a bestselling author, a journalist, investigative reporter, and people can find at Richard Poe, @RealRichardPoe on Twitter and RichardPoe.com.And of course, Substack is there as well @RichardPoe.And I, Richard, I've actually found your your kayak video strangely entertaining, off-topic. I've enjoyed watching them.
You must be a kayaker yourself. 
No, I'm not. No, I am not. I just, I was intrigued. It was a whole, something completely different. So I enjoyed watching your documentary on it.Well, there is something fascinating about the kayak role. And it took me many years before I finally committed myself to learning it after, but I always used to just be mesmerized to watch people do that, whether on videos or in person, there's something magical about it.And once you actually learn it, it doesn't feel any less magical.It's, you know, of course, it's just like anything else. You learn the moves, you learn how to do it, But there's magic in it. It's something that just feels so wonderful. And I just had to make a film.A short film, five minutes, just trying to convey to people as best I could what this feels like, what it's really like to capsize in a small boat where you're jammed into a cockpit, you know, by your waist, hang upside down in the water, and then turn yourself right side up. You know it's, in a small way, I guess it's like jumping out of a plane with no parachute, and then somehow lifting yourself back onto the plane. Maybe that's too dramatic, but, that's how I like to think of it. 
It's fun watching, of course, it's on your website, people can people can see it and there I mean just in The Shadow Party going to source there's so much to cover we'll we'll not do one of your marathon sessions that you do with Noor Bin Laden, those are all available for the viewers to watch you've just started doing them in video I know and that's all on substack but probably the book it's been out 2006 it came out. What led you to write it because now this is part of the conversation, the whole thing with, money, with control, with Soros. What led you to actually putting pen to paper on the book?Well I had researched Soros for many years. I first wrote about him in 1993, in my very first published book. It was called How to Profit from the Coming Russian Boom, and I had some expertise in Russia and I had been there as a business writer for Success Magazine. I had gone there a number of times in the early 90s to, cover the fall of communism and Soros was there, you know, he was part of the party, a big part of it. And at that time, I wrote very positively about Mr. Soros because I felt he was one of us, whoever us are, you know, us Westerners who are... And at that time, I believed very much in the Cold War narrative that we of the West represented freedom and democracy and all those good things.And we had to overcome communism. Communism was the great dragon.And, so Soros, I felt, was just one more person helping us to dismantle the Soviet Empire and teach the Russians how to become capitalists, quote-unquote, and become like us.It all seemed like a very noble enterprise at the time, and I wrote very positively about Mr. Soros and everything he was doing in Russia.I wasn't unaware that there was a dark side to Soros and some of his activities, but well, let's just say I wrote positively about him. And my book was quite influential.It was praised by the London Financial Times as being the first book to explain the privatization process in Russia, which was done by means of a voucher system.The government issued vouchers to every Russian citizen, every Soviet citizen, which were worth 10,000, how did it work?Each one was worth, you could be traded for 10,000 rubles, I think, 10,000 rubles worth of shares in any of the state-owned companies that were being auctioned off.And what happened, of course, is that this happened after my book came out.No one had a clue that this was going to happen. Soros and his cronies, they convinced Yeltsin to do shock therapy, as they call it, to basically de-control all prices and currency values, all at the same time, which led to immediate hyperinflation at catastrophic levels.And so these vouchers became worthless overnight and all the Westerners bought them up, and used them to acquire eventually the crown jewels of the Soviet economy.So this was one of the things that actually led, this is back in the early 90s, but it led to a lot of the ill feeling, between the Russians and the West, which we're now dealing with today, because at that time, the Russians were really....There was an innocence about them.They were really so grateful in many ways. They wanted this kind of help from Westerners, and especially Americans.They trusted us in a very special way, in a way that they didn't trust other Westerners.And unfortunately, thanks to Mr. Soros and Jeffrey Sachs, who was working with him on this project, and a lot of people at Harvard University, almost instantaneously with the image of America as friend and savior was destroyed and we were perceived as a gang of thieves who were coming to strip the country of all its wealth. And I don't think that perception has ever left. So I was aware of that as it was happening, but as I said, that happened after my book was published.So my book was totally positive about Soros, but...Please tell me if I'm going to too many details about this, but to me it's a very interesting story because, see, Soros himself had declined my request to be interviewed for the book, but he did kindly allow me to interview some of his people, and I had some expectation that maybe, you know, Soros would like the book, it might lead to some further talks, interviews, whatever. But instead what happened is, I think it was only two years after my book came out, a very similar book came out. And this happens a lot in publishing, by the way. If they, the aesthetic of a certain book, they actually replace it with a similar book. So my book was called How to Profit from the Coming Russian Boom. This other book comes out a couple years later, I think it was from the Free Press.And it was called The Coming Russian Boom. They basically took a fragment of my title and made this other book, which also looked kind of similar, the cover design. And on the back of this replacement book, this book that was meant to replace mine, was a big plug by George Soros himself saying, if you want to read a book by real Russia insiders who really know what's going on, read this book. And just to make it clear, a known Soros operative wrote a review saying, Richard Poe's book is now totally out of date. You should now read this new book, which has an almost identical title to his and a similar colour design and which was published only two years later.So you ask, how did I first come across Mr. Soros? Well, it was that. Was I particularly upset? No, not really. I was on to other things, you know, writing other books. I just thought, Well, that's a little curious.But I think the reason they did that, I think the reason my book was disliked is one for the very reason that the Financial Times had said, because I had given such a clear, explanation of the privatization process and how it worked, and then shortly thereafter Soros and his cronies had completely corrupted the privatization process.So I think that was one thing that I did bad. And another thing I did, was I told the truth about the corruption in the Moscow city government, and I was clued in by certain people in Russia that Mayor Lushkov, who I had accused by name, was very disturbed with me, and that sales of my book in Moscow, particularly in the crucial airport bookstores where foreigners would be likely to buy it had been banned.And so, this was my very first book. You know, it got a star for excellence from Publishers Weekly, got reviewed in all the right places but obviously Mr. Soros didn't like it.He endorsed this competing book which appears to have been manufactured for the express purpose of outdating mine.So anyway, I don't mean to go into all that except just to emphasize that me and Mr. Soros go back quite a ways.I first ran across him, one might say ran afoul of him in Russia in the early 90s, as did so many people.And so then much later in 2004, I got a phone call from Chris Ruddy, the founder and editor of Newsmax.I was one of the original columnists at Newsmax. It was started in 1998, I believe, and I started in 1999.And Chris called me up. He says, look, we wanna do a big expose about George Soros and put it on the cover of Newsmax magazine. Would you like to write it?I said, sure, let's do it.And so, that led to my next encounter indirectly with Soros. I never actually have met him or communicated with him in person or directly, but it seemed every time I ran across him, something ill-omened occurred, you know, it was strange.So, I wrote this article, which seemed a perfectly legitimate exercise of free speech in the home of the free and the brave, the United States of America as working journalists.Why shouldn't we write an expose of George Soros? After all, he was coming out very publicly, speaking out on political matters, saying he was going to donate $25 million to oust President Bush from office.And that's why Newsmax wanted to write about him, all seemingly fair game, you know, and the type of thing one would normally write about.Well, so I wrote, what I wrote about was the same subject I'm writing about now, all these years later, that what Soros was actually doing, and what he was boasting that he was going to do was to go outside of the normal bounds of political electioneering in the United States.And he said, what I have done in other countries, I am now going to do in the United States.And he said, actually, he was going to do a regime change, quote unquote, to remove President Bush.So I was familiar at that point in large part because I had some experience in Russia, in Eastern Europe.I knew what a colour revolution was. Most people didn't at that time.I knew that Soros was involved in these things, and I knew he had helped overthrow a number of governments, not only in Eastern Europe, but all over the world.People think he just does this in Eastern Europe. He's done it in Africa, Asia, everywhere.But, um...When I heard Soros saying these things, I knew exactly what he meant, and I felt I need to explain this to the American people.And so my article was called George Soros' Coup, and it basically explained this guy does color revolutions, and he seems to be implying that he's going to do that here in the United States.Well, it didn't quite happen in the election of 2004, although there were some strange goings-ons from the Democrat side.But for our story right now, what is interesting is that my Newsmax cover story was a big success.I was immediately called to appear on The O'Reilly Factor with Bill O'Reilly.And I did a seven-minute spot on The O'Reilly Factor. The very next day, a completely new outfit, called Media Matters for America, which George Soros had helped to found. It was it was something he and Hilary Clinton and John Podesta and a few others had been totally involved with from the ground floor. So, they attacked me, in a way I'd never been attacked. I mean, there must have been three, four different articles all all about little old me, and basically saying that I was a liar, that I got all my facts wrong.You know, saying exactly the things that if they were true, would completely disqualify me to work as a journalist ever again.They were in fact defamatory. And...
Well, can I just step back a little bit just to continue now, but colour revolution, it's something you have mentioned as a phrase, and I know there's a great article, we might get into the British aspect of it, but How the British Invented Colour Revolutions, you wrote back May 2021, and that's available on your substack, but that term colour revolutions probably will not mean anything to many people. It's still a term which isn't widespreadly used. Do you want to just touch on that to let the viewers know what you mean by a color revolution?Sure. A color revolution is basically, it's just a term that's used to describe what is basically a fake revolution. When foreign intelligence services go into a country and create a fake revolution which is meant to look like a people's uprising, a spontaneous uprising of the people, but is actually a foreign-sponsored coup, hiding behind the facade of a people's uprising. And just to give an example, not to get into my recent articles, but I recently discovered and have argued in some recent articles that the French Revolution and the Russian Revolutions were, in fact, color revolutions.It is my contention that the British Secret Services were behind both.But that's just to give an example where a revolution that most of us until now, until recently, have assumed, entailed some kind of spontaneous uprising by an aggrieved population.Yes, to some extent they were, but this, whatever discontent among the people may have manipulated by foreign intelligence services, making it a fake revolution, making it a foreign-sponsored coup, and this type of revolution has been nicknamed in recent years a color revolution.It's called that because often these revolutions use team colours to identify themselves.That for example, there was a so-called orange revolution in the Ukraine in 2004.And if you look at pictures on Google, you'll see crowds in a sea of orange banners, orange everything.And interestingly, even going back to the French and the Russian revolutions, They too had their team colors, team symbols.The French, of course, had their tricolour badges and their so-called Phrygian caps that they wore.Which were red with the tricolour badge on it.In the Bolshevik Revolution, of course, the colour was red again, red for socialism, red for communism.And they also wore a distinctive cap called the Scythian cap, which looks strangely like the Phrygian cap that the French had worn, but whatever.So even in such details as the use of these kind of evocative coloured symbols, and they weren't always colours.Sometimes they were flowers or other kinds of symbols.But they're called colour revolutions for that reason, because somebody decided to name them that.Originally, the first one that came to wide public attention was the so-called Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, during the fall of communism.And that too was, George Soros was heavily involved in that, as were many Western governments and intelligence agencies and so forth.And that was called the Velvet Revolution. It still is to this day.And that term Velvet Revolution actually caught on in Eastern Europe for quite a bit.Often these revolutions were called Velvet Revolutions, but somewhere along the line, they started calling them Colour Revolutions and that stuck.So I now use the term, it's not my favourite term, but that's what it means.A fake revolution generally orchestrated by a foreign intelligence agency or agencies, to masquerade as a popular uprising. And so George Soros has been involved in these, for many decades, funding them, being a public apologist for them, going before the press just to justify them and basically act as a propaganda voice to explain why it was necessary to do these.And the propaganda is very necessary because generally what happens in these so-called colour revolutions is that an election occurs, somebody wins, and that somebody is not the person whom the Western powers wanted to win. And so then they create an uprising saying the election was stolen, it was all fake, it doesn't match the exit polls, so let's bring all the people out into the street, often with quite a good deal of real violence. These things are often called bloodless coups, but I think they are rarely bloodless, and often they involve pretty significant violence.Certainly in 2000, when they overthrew Milosevic in Yugoslavia, there was very significant violence.They set fire to the parliament building.They had armed paramilitaries blocking all the roads around Belgrade, armed with military weapons.And... So, although they're considered bloodless, stereotypically, they're usually not.Any more than the Russian or French revolutions were. So, that's what it is. It seems like an exotic idea, but it's really not. Governments have been doing this for ages, but the British, in particular, I've learned in the last few years, have been doing this for centuries and really excel at it. It's often assumed that Americans are the ones who invented this and who are the best at doing it, but it's not true. Whatever we know, we learned from the Brits. 
Let's go on Soros, because Soros, he obviously ended up in London as a refugee, then went to LSE, London School of Economics, went to the U.S. and it seemed to be that his desire was to to make money and return and something kind of happened on the way to the point where I think the midterms, I read somewhere what was a figure was a hundred and twenty eight million dollars I read and that made him the largest single donor in the midterms just past that election cycle and kind of something happened along the way for him just wanting to make money to actually being part of a mass funding campaign off the left? 
Well I gave my theory on this very subject in a recent article called How the British Invented George Soros and basically the answer to your question, I think, is that Soros is not his own man. It is my contention that he was recruited as an asset of the British government, the British Foreign Office, and possibly of British intelligence agencies. The fact is that he has been from the beginning involved in activities such as regime change.In foreign countries, activities which, frankly, he would not be allowed to take part in unless, he were under the supervision of some intelligence agency or another. And it's often assumed that he works with the CIA and that he is a CIA asset, and that's generally the default position that most people take. But I believe that he is a British asset, and I made what I think is a pretty strong argument for it in my article. He came to England as a refugee from a communist Hungary when he was 17 years old. He lived in England for 9 or 10 years, during which hegraduated from the London School of Economics. He started work in the city of London, learned the arbitrage trade. And during that time, it appears he was selected by a group of very powerful men who include some of the most famous names in global finance. And he was sent, I believe, to the United States to basically act as an agent for this group, this cabal, if you will, of British financiers. And one Lord William Rees-Mogg, who happens to be the father of Jacob Rees-Mogg, I have named him the man who created George Soros because he almost single-handedly created the legend or the myth of Soros as one, the greatest financial genius in the world, and two, as quote-unquote the man who broke the Bank of England.These myths, and I think both are myths, actually.Both of these myths were created and promoted by Lord Rees-Mogg and his colleagues at the Times of London. Rees-Mogg was the editor of the Times for I think 15 years and then he became a vice president of the BBC. But perhaps more importantly, he has a very unique position, or he had, he died in 2012, I call him a gateway or a bridge between worlds, because he was a man who was a very close personal friend of the British royal family, and he was also a very close personal friend of Lord Jacob Rothschild. And he was a bridge between the British aristocracy, you know, the British blue blood society, if you will, and the grubby world of City of London investment, where one had to rub shoulders with such characters as Hungarian refugees, such as George Soros.And Rees Mogg had that job. He moved between those worlds and he was a bridge between those worlds.And it's a little known fact that Soros' quantum fund,Soros actually leaked in one of his books, it was an authorized, and I think Soros actually commissioned this book, it was called George Soros, Messianic Billionaire, something like that by a guy named Kaufman. And in that book is a leak that the Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth II, was one of the investors in the Quantum Fund. Now, there's a great deal of secrecy, as you know, regarding investments by the royal family, this information is closely guarded, but quite often they leak information about where they're investing, such as famously in the mining company Rio Tinto. There were a number of quasi-official leaks about royal investments in that company. And I think they do this in order to pump the stock. I mean, I think when these leaks occur, it's because they're trying to pump the stock. And there was such a leak regarding Soros' quantum fund. So I think, and it appears to me that Soros was really an artificially created person. I don't believe at all that he was was the greatest genius in the financial world.I think he was built up into that by Lord Rees-Mogg.And for example, his greatest act of genius supposedly was breaking the Bank of England.Where in 1992, he supposedly shorted the Bank of England to such an extent that Britain was forced to devalue its currency by 20% And it was a huge catastrophe.But in reality.That story, actually, the story that Soros did it, comes from Soros himself.And it can't be proven because his operations are in the Netherlands Antilles, which is a secrecy jurisdiction, a banking haven.And there is no way to prove what he actually did in that operation.But it's come out that there were many, many players, including some of the biggest banks, biggest pension funds, biggest financial institutions in the world who were taking part in that run on the pound.And Soros was allowed by Rees-Mogg and his colleagues at the Times to take credit for it.And they actually named him in a big banner headline, the man who broke the Bank of England.But he was just one among many and by far not the largest.So, why did Rees-Mogg do this? Well, he quickly demonstrated that because Rees-Mogg's next move was then to write a series of articles explaining to the British people why Soros was a hero and that his devaluation of the pound had saved Britain from having to honour its commitment to enter the Eurozone because by devaluing the pound by 20%, Britain was no longer qualified to enter the European exchange rate mechanism and was no longer qualified to become part of the Eurozone, and that's why it still isn't to this day.And so Rees-Mogg just sang the praises of Soros, called him a hero.He said there should be a statue erected in front of the treasury of him and things like that.And other British journalists have said similar things, that he should get a knighthood and so forth and so on.So that's why I say it was all a myth. Soros himself didn't actually do it single-handedly.And moreover, far from being an attack on the British establishment, It appears to have been a British economic warfare operation which the British establishment deliberately inflicted on its own central bank for political purposes, and for which Soros was assigned to take the blame or to take the credit.So once he had done that operation, then he was very famous.He had become a celebrity overnight.The Times was doing everything it could to convince people he was a wonderful guy.And they immediately started saying what a genius and a financial prophet he was.And Rees-Mogg started saying, oh my goodness, Soros is buying gold.Let's pay attention to what he's doing because if he's buying gold, maybe we should buy gold too.So what happened was, I think this was in 1993, Soros's next assignment for this group around Rees-Mogg and Jacob Rothschild.His next assignment was to buy a large number of shares of Newmont Mining Corporation, I think was and is the largest gold mining operation in North America, and he bought them from Jacob Rothschild and Sir James Goldsmith. And so Rees-Mogg, was telling everyone from the Times, look, Soros is buying gold, but some people noticed, well, yes, but Rothschild and Goldsmith are dumping it.So what does that mean?Despite these ambiguities and puzzlements, they did succeed in hyping the price of gold.The price of gold skyrocketed.Rothschild and Goldsmith made a killing, as I think did some of their other associates in the St. James Capital Group, of which Rees-Mogg was an officer at the time.And strangely Soros himself supposedly lost money on that deal, which is very interesting because although his myth touts him as a lone wolf who only looks out for number one for himself.It really looks like he took one for the team in the great gold scam, as I call it, this gold hyping scam.It appears to have been done for the specific purpose of allowing Jacob Rothschild and Sir James Goldsmith to realize a profit on their previous purchases of Newmont Mining, which had been performing sluggishly.And so this operation appears to have been done for no other reason than to allow these two men, to make some money. And Soros took a hit on that one. He took a hit for the team.He was a team player. So based on these kinds of things, I mean it goes on and on.You could say it's kind of circumstantial evidence, but it's pretty clear that from the beginning,Soros, whatever his gifts and abilities may have been, I'm sure he's very smart, I'm sure he was selected because he was deemed to be a talented person and all that, but he certainly is not the greatest financial genius in the world, that's not how he made his money. He made his money by being adopted by this very powerful group in the city of London and serving them, being a good servant and being the public face of them and their operations. And so he went to America and the rest is history. But now today, he's presumably still alive, despite recent reports of his death, I mean, who knows anymore who's alive and dead.
So true. But he has passed it over, we're told, to one of his sons. Do you think it's the end then of that era? Do you think the damage is already done?Do you think it's being passed over just to keep the financial side and it's not the political engagement?What are your thoughts as you kind of see that transfer?Well, I don't imagine that with all the investment which I will say which the British have done in building up the Open Society Institute, I can't imagine they'll simply abandon it. Obviously, it's not going to be the same without George Soros there.Alex Soros, I presume, is nothing more than a figurehead. The man who runs the Open Society Institute is its president, and he's a guy named Lord Mark Malloch Brown, a name with which you may be familiar.Malloch Brown has a similar career trajectory to Soros. He has been involved for decades in regime change operations in foreign countries, in rigging elections in places like the Philippines, and other such targets.And then in 2015, He had just, there was a British takeover of this company called Smartmatic, and by the way, Smartmatic is going around suing people for billions of dollars, so if you want me to shut up right now, I will.I won't say another word. 
Feel free to give us your opinion, Richard.
Well, whatever else one may or may not say about Smartmatic, what they did was sell voting, a voting system. And so in 2015, the same Lord Mark Malloch Brown, who had notoriously been doing regime change operations all over the world, obviously connected with intelligence.He was a high-level UN official under Kofi Annan.I mean, this guy was obviously, you know, had some role in the intelligence community, I would say. I would say it's obvious.But now he's running the Open Society Institute, but he was given that position right after the US election in 2020. And some people said that was his reward.I'm not gonna comment about that.But his Smartmatic machines and software became very controversial. And in 2015, he was openly trying to market his Smartmatic system to the United States.In the States, it's the state governments which purchase, you know, they each has its own policy for voting systems.So he was trying to sell these to state governments and people often say, well, he never succeeded.I mean, they have a few Smartmatic machines in LA, supposedly, and not nowhere else.All I can tell you is.And this I believe is the very subject of this multi-billion dollar lawsuit that's going on, but there were people in high places who seemed to be in the know, who were close to the Trump campaign.I believe Rudy Giuliani was one, Sidney Powell, others who were basically saying that the Smartmatic software was actually being used by other companies to run other voting machines and that in fact the Smartmatic software was the evil potion that enabled them to do all these alleged alterations of the vote.So, is any of that true? Well, I don't know. I can't prove it. And, you know, anybody who opened their mouth in public and spoke of it is now being sued.You know, defamation law is a very good thing. People should be allowed to sue for defamation.I do think it's very odd to have foreign companies providing voting software to the United States of America and then being able to sue people into silence who legitimately raise questions about the integrity of those systems. I find that very strange and disturbing.But that's what's going on. You know, back in 2000, I remember very well, there was a dispute, started by, you know, Gore. Gore challenged the election result, famously, and for weeks and weeks and weeks, the world watched in astonishment and horror as the United States seemingly descended into a third world country unable to count its own votes. But no one at that time ever suggested that people should not be allowed to have an opinion or to speak?About whether they thought that Bush or Gore had won. That would have been unthinkable.Suddenly that's the case. Suddenly that's the situation we're in.But anyway, whatever that means. So this Lord Mark Malloch Brown was right in the middle of that, right in the middle of that storm, right in the eye of the storm.And let me just remind you that he was a long-time friend and collaborator of George Soros.In fact he lived next door to Soros in a house provided by Soros in upstate New York when Malloch Brown was working as a UN official.He was some sort of aid to Kofi Annan and he was basically put up by Soros.And they're very good friends. And they've collaborated on many regime change operations throughout the world, which is not the sort of thing every normal person gets involved in.But these two, for them, that's a big part of their lives and has been for decades.So strangely, you know, this same Malloch Brown ends up as the CEO of Smartmatic.And then as soon as that operation is finished, he's appointed by Soros to be the president of the Open Society Institute. And now he's disappeared from sight.And everyone's pointing to Alex Soros saying, Alex Soros is now going to take over for George Soros, and that's fine, but I've got my eye on Malloch Brown.I mean, I doubt very much whether Alex Soros is actually running it.In fact, I remember some years ago, Soros actually tried to pass on the baton to, at that time, I think all his sons, If I remember correctly, he was trying to...He was trying to turn over Soros Fund Management, which is his investment arm, to his sons, and then he all of a sudden reneged and took it back. And people said, I thought you were going to give this to your sons, why did you take it back?And Soros, here's an interesting father figure for you.He said, well, I discovered that my sons didn't have the talent to run it. And the interviewer said, what sort of talent do you mean? He said the talent for making money.Wow. 
So without going into all the Freudian or psychoanalytic aspects of it, I mean, whatever else one can say about Mr. Soros' sons, I can't imagine they're big fans of their father.
Can I just finish off on the book. In 2010, Glenn Beck did a series, Puppetmaster, that was based on the shadow party on your book. I know he was cancelled soon after on Fox.I don't know whether it was linked to that, but this was probably the first book to expose sources funding off of color revolutions which we've discussed. It's not something that people are supposed to discuss and then you produce this book by a large publisher which I always find intriguing. Maybe it would be different if you redid it today but that with Glenn Beck putting that in and bringing it with Glenn Beck's reach on Fox and then getting cancelled this obviously is something that you're not supposed to discuss.Yes, at that time, it was an extremely sensitive subject. I did not realize how sensitive it was until after I put my foot into the punji steak, so to speak.But I knew I was pushing it, and that's part of the reason why I invited my then employer, David Horowitz.I actually invited him to co-write the book with me, hoping that his name would not only help promote the book, and make people take it seriously, but I thought maybe it might afford some protection for me.And I think it did all of those things to some extent.I think it would have been much worse for me if I had tried to write the book myself, I think it was a wise thing to do.But nonetheless, I was punished quite severely by the powers that be for daring to write about that, because these color revolutions, these are intelligence operations, and especially at that time when people were not writing about it, when to write about such things and to do it with a co-author of the stature of David Horowitz, and then to appear on Glenn Beck reaching you know an audience of millions, a national audience on Fox News. If you're in the national security establishment, if you're somebody who's involved with these operations and you're trying to project a certain image of their innocence and spontaneity and then someone comes along and puts out a narrative that says, oh actually this guy George Soros is pulling the strings behind these things. Well, you know, we can see now how sensitive, a lot of these intelligence people are to anyone tampering with their narrative, you know, with all the recent hysteria over misinformation and disinformation.And so forth. Well, they didn't used to speak so publicly about it, still pretending, that they weren't involved in media, that is, the intelligence community. Now they've dropped that pretence. Back then, we still were allowed to have this illusion that we are a free press, and we can say what we want and all that, but clearly I was interfering with a very important intelligence narrative.AndI was doing so almost uniquely, and certainly the size of the platform that I had accessed was, and getting on national TV and all the rest, it was a challenge to the,It was a challenge to the national security establishment, whatever you want to call them, to the security forces, if you will. It was a direct challenge to them, and I was a small target, nobody else was writing about this. So it was a simple matter to silence me. And I want to say, you know, we talk a lot today about cancellation, and you know, people being cancelled and un-personed.And it's important to understand, you know, nowadays we see Tucker publicly thrown out of Fox News and we think that's what it means to be cancelled or Matt Taibi kicked out of The Intercept.And so we have this illusion that to be cancelled means that you're publicly punished for doing something good and thrown out and then everyone rallies to your rescue and you're even bigger and better than before. And supposedly that's what it means to be cancelled. But those are not real cancellations. The way cancellation is really done, and the way it's been done traditionally, and the way it's done usually, especially in free societies like ours, is very quietly, behind the scenes, very insidiously, so that nobody even knows it happened.And that's all I'm going to say about that. 
Well, that's perfect end. And let's again just leave the viewers the shadow party, how George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and 60s radicals seized control of the Democrat Party.It's available. I listened to it. You can get his hardback, paperback.It is a huge subject that is relevant today, if not more relevant than it was in 2006 when you wrote it. Richard, I appreciate your time. Thank you so much for coming along, sharing your thoughts on the book. Thank you. 
Thank you, Peter.

The Week According To . . . Charlotte: The Baroness

This episode we welcome a previous guest of ours and a bona fide member of UK Twitter royalty!Charlotte, The Baroness of Burnley.Charlotte has become a prominent social media voice and commentator since the beginning of the ‘scamdemic’ madness in March 2020.She prides herself on pointing out Government inconsistencies, hypocrisy and media manipulation techniques with an added dose of much-needed humour on a daily basis, Charlotte’s Twitter account is the one to follow.So who better to help us look back over the past seven days news, articles and at what has caught our attention on the web and on social media including...- Free Speech is Dead? Comedian Abi Roberts arrested for swearing outside the COVID inquiry.- France on Fire: Has multiculturalism failed?- France Riots: Is this more of a coup than what we saw with Wagner in Russia last week?- Macron under pressure. Is it time for Le Pen?- Broken Britain: Home Office must process one asylum claim every four minutes to clear backlog by January.- London Pride 2023: Just Stop Oil tosspots disrupt the parade and Laurence Fox hits the streets to a chorus of boo's and handshakes! Connect with Charlotte on....TWITTER: https://twitter.com/CharlotteEmmaUK?s=20&t=SU4Nn4u_4vcXHOk3-UP0OwGETTR: https://gettr.com/user/charlotteemmaukTELEGRAM: https://t.me/letscutthecrap
Originally broadcast live 1.7.23
Audio Podcast version available on Podbean and all major podcast directories... ⁣https://heartsofoak.podbean.com/
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!
Links to topics this episode...Arrested for swearing https://twitter.com/FrancisxONeill/status/1674037662838038528?s=20Abi arrested https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1673616175362613248?s=20France on fire https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/900-people-arrested-overnight-young-rioters-clash-police-100568083https://twitter.com/RadioGenova/status/1674827178196844549?s=20https://twitter.com/SpriterTeam/status/1675158266681204740?s=20https://twitter.com/SankeethNaidu/status/1675103332384526338?s=20https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1674585277556473856?s=20https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1674934815563587585?s=20https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1674902790844616705?s=20https://twitter.com/MahyarTousi/status/1675185216095174656?s=20Asylum claimshttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/28/home-office-must-process-asylum-claim-every-four-minutes-to-clear-backlog-by-januaryLaurence Fox at Pride https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1675169364193026049?s=20Just Stop Oil at Pride https://twitter.com/JustStop_Oil/status/1675129382828924935?s=20

Frank Gaffney - The Indictment: Prosecuting the CCP for Crimes Against America and the World

Show-notes and Transcript...
'The CCP is the mortal enemy of the US!' This is one of the opening lines in Frank Gaffney's latest bestseller "The Indictment" and we are delighted to welcome him to Hearts of Oak today. Frank has been a towering figure in the conservative movement for many decades from his time serving in the Reagan administration through to all the work done with Centre for Security Policy. He is the go to person on any issue relating to national security of the US and in his new book Frank sets out eight charges against The Chinese Communist Party that lay out the reason and basis for a prosecution against them. From their crimes against their own people to crimes against the whole world using biological warfare, espionage and infiltration while showing how the CCP are ravaging America's energy security and taking down the military. This book gives a roadmap for any Republican legislator and official to use before its too late.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. serves as Vice Chair for the Committee on the Present Danger: China. The Committee on the Present Danger: China defends America through public education and advocacy against the full array of conventional and non-conventional dangers posed by the People’s Republic of China. As with the Soviet Union in the past, Communist China represents an existential and ideological threat to the United States and to the idea of freedom—one that requires a new American consensus regarding the policies and priorities required to defeat this threat. And for this purpose, it is necessary to bring to bear the collective skills, expertise and energies of a diverse group of experts on China, national security practitioners, human rights and religious freedom activists and others who have joined forces under the umbrella of the Committee on Present Danger: China.In 1988, he founded the Center for Security Policy. Mr. Gaffney serves at the Executive Vice Chairman for the Center. The Center has been nationally and internationally recognized as a resource for timely, informed and penetrating analyses of foreign and defense policy matters.Under President Ronald Reagan, he acted as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. He served as chairman of the High Level Group (NATO’s senior politico-military committee) and as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control.Policy under Assistant Secretary Richard Perle. He was also a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee.Frank hosts Secure Freedom Radio, an hour-long, nationally syndicated program that airs every weeknight. His daily Secure Freedom Minute commentaries are heard on 200 stations coast-to-coast. He is a featured contributor to Breitbart Radio and a columnist for Breitbart.com. He appears often on national and international television networks such as Fox News, CNN and BBC. Over the years, his op.ed. articles have appeared in such publications as: The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New Republic, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Los Angeles Times, National Review, Newsday, American Legion Magazine, and Commentary.Mr. Gaffney is Founder, President, and CEO of Save the Persecuted Christians (STPC), a not-for-profit, non-partisan educational corporation established in 2018 to inform Americans of the global crisis of rising anti- Christian violence and to hold state and non-state persecutors accountable for their crimes against humanity.Frank’s leadership has been recognized by numerous organizations including: the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Award (1987), the U.S. Business and Industry Council’s Defender of the National Interest Award (1994), the Navy League of the United States’ “Alfred Thayer Mahan Literary Achievement Award” (1999), and the Zionist Organization of America’s “Louis Brandeis Award” (2003).Mr. Gaffney received a B.S. in Foreign Service from Georgetown University and an M.A. from Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 
'The Indictment' with forward by Steve Bannon available from Amazon... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Indictment-Prosecuting-Chinese-Communist-Friends-ebook/dp/B0C297HN7Y/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-1
Connect with Frank and 'Securing Freedom'...WEBSITE:  https://www.securingamerica.tv/TWITTER:  https://twitter.com/frankgaffneyGETTR:      https://gettr.com/user/frankgaffney
Interview recorded 9.6.23
*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)
Hello, Hearts of Oak, and welcome to another interview coming up in a moment with Frank Gaffney. And I was delighted that Frank had the time to join us. I've had the pleasure of being on his show numerous times. And he is one of the towering figures of the conservative movement across the world with a specific focus on security. But today he joins us to talk about his book, The Indictment, Prosecuting the Chinese Communist Party for What It Has Done Against the West and it lays out nine charges against the CCP. So we we touch on most of them, on energy security, on the US military and how it's been attacked, on the economic battle that China has waged against the West, on the biological attack that we've seen over the last three years, and of course how China has captured a lot of the elites in America and the West, and not only the elites individuals but the institutions as well. So much to cover and he ends up with actually 20 action items and how we can respond to this. I know after listening to Frank you will want to get the book.It is a fantastic overview of the threat that we face from China. 
Frank Gaffney, it's wonderful to have you with us today. Thank you for your time. 
(Frank Gaffney)
The pleasure is really mine. Thank you for yours.Not at all. I think I first heard your name from Lord Pearson, who I've had the pleasure of working with for 10 years and when I first heard your name you sounded like a legendary figure who had their finger on the pulse policy-wise. You'd served in the Reagan administration so politically and you were doing public engagement and helping the public understand. So it is a delight to have you on with us. Thank you, I'm really appreciative of your time. 
Well I'm a huge fan of Malcolm Pearson's. We've had a mutual admiration society I think for a long time and I appreciate so much of the work that he's been doing as have you, Peter, at Hearts of Oak.And I'm always delighted to have a chance to have you on our program and look forward to the visit with you here on yours.
Not at all, it's great to have you. And the viewers obviously @FrankGaffney on all the social media platforms, at Twitter and everything else, and @SecureFreedom.And of course they can watch that.And Center for Security Policy is the organization which you're the founder of.Maybe we could start on that and let us know what led you to start the organization itself and why was it needed?I left the Reagan administration in the beginning of 1988 and looked about for an organization that did what I thought needed to be done to help people like me during my time in the Reagan Pentagon contend with the various challenges that policy makers have.Trying to stay not only engaged properly in various fights, both internal to the administration, as was true in that case, as well as externally, by enlisting the help of people on the outside.There didn't seem to be any efficient way of doing that, other than retail, which is, a very challenging thing when you've got a very busy program. I was able to establish that others felt as I did, that it would be useful to have an organization that could help senior policy makers inside the government, with a single phone call to bring in experts and others that they wanted to have engaged in those fights, if you will, from the outside with efficient connectivity, as they say.So we started the organization, the Center for Security Policy.Over the 35 years it's been in business, spawned a great many tiger teams and team Bs and working groups and coalitions and the like to try to basically advance what my old boss, Ronald Reagan, described as the practice of peace through strength and to help those in government in the executive branch on Capitol Hill, as well as the media and the public at large, understand the challenges we face and what needed to be done about them.And I'm very proud of the work that the center has been doing and happy to continue to be a part of it as its executive chairman.I think when I first came across you, your focus had been on Islam and that certainly had been what I have learned over the last 15 years.And this is a change to looking at a different threat, China.And that's what we're going to bring up the book. Let me bring up the screen itself.And this is the publication itself, the indictment, and it is available everywhere, Prosecuting the Chinese Communist Party and Friends for Crimes Against America, China and the World.And we're going to go into this chapter by chapter, looking at the charges you have.But yeah, that change, that focus from looking at Islam and the threat on to China. Tell us about that.
Well, I guess I would say the sort of arc of my career, such as it has been mostly downhill from my time with President Reagan, I have to say, but it's been fighting totalitarians of one stripe or another, first the Soviets, of course, during my time prior to the Reagan administration in the United States Senate with two terrific members of that body, Senator Scoop Jackson, a Democrat, and Senator John Tower, a Republican.Then, of course, during the Reagan administration, when we were really in the clinches, bringing down the Soviet Union, as Reagan promised he would do.And then, as you say, during the sort of interlude after the fall of the Soviet Union, the people who emerged to kind of fill the totalitarian vacuum, if you will, were what I think of as Sharia supremacists. It's not all Muslims. Of course, it's those who seek to impose this Islamic code of Sharia on the rest of us and use jihad to accomplish that. And that was a very serious threat at the time, but it has certainly been overshadowed and far surpassed in recent years by the emergence of yet another totalitarian, another communist one, that is to say the Chinese Communist Party. And what we've been doing in the past four years, Peter, is trying to essentially replicate some very important capabilities that I think helped Ronald Reagan define and then ultimately defeat his times, as he put it, existential threat to freedom, namely the Soviet Communist Party, one of which was something called the Committee on the Present Danger, which was this kind of pickup team of national security practitioners, subject matter experts, business leaders, and others who came together to really try to help Ronald Reagan, one of its members as a matter of fact, devise a strategy for taking down the evil empire. And he brought 30 or so members of that committee into his administration. Once, he had run on a platform of changing the trajectory from détente or appeasement, if you will, and maybe containment at best of the Soviets, to one of rolling back that evil empire and, freeing its enslaved peoples. Those members of the Committee on the Present Danger helped him do that, and the rest, as they say, is history. We've created, about four years ago, what we call the Committee on the Present Danger in China, to hopefully help elective officials accomplish a similar kind of course correction with what is, in fact, not only our time's existential threat to freedom, but I believe far and away the most serious we in the free world have ever faced, and that would be, again, the Chinese Communist Party or CCP.And one of the things that we've been doing over these past 9, 10, 11 months or so has been a series of webinars, some 70 of them, designed to do two things. One, to examine what the Chinese mean when they describe the practice of unrestricted warfare against America. And secondly, who has been helping them wage that kind of warfare against us in the United States and really the free world more generally. It's been a fascinating experience. I've had the privilege of moderating these programs.And what we came up with were well over 100 hours of very, very high-quality analysis, insights, policy recommendations, and the like. And what we wanted to do, basically, was to, distil the most important of those points, make them accessible to the audience and the public more generally. And that's where this book, The Indictment, came from, was that distilled essence and I've been very pleased to see that it's been selling well, I think because people know there's a problem with China, they don't just fully understand what it is and we're hoping to help explain it and give them action items as to what needs to be done now about it. 
I love the research then that's gone into it as you've given us an insight because often you see publications rushed out just simply going to market for the sake of publishing. But hearing about those 100 hours, those intense discussions, really understanding, I mean, it is a mammoth amount of research that's gone into it.
Well, it is. And again, I think the beauty of this is that people can have access to that research as well. In fact, at the back of the book, we have a list of all of the webinars that we drew upon and QR codes, which enable them very easily to go to the videotape, as they say, see them themselves. What we've got are basically, in most cases, just a quote or two from them. But there's really a, well, I think of it as kind of a graduate level course on the Chinese Communist Party.The warfare that it's been engaged in, its ambitions for global hegemony, and how far advanced it now is towards realizing that objective, thanks in part to the help of what they call captured elites, especially here in the United States.
I love, looking even just at the beginning of the introduction, one of the short paragraphs was you jump straight in and you see exactly where you understand the issue to be.The Chinese Communist Party is the United States' mortal enemy.The CCP explicitly seeks America's destruction as long as devastating, I bet, pre-violent, unrestricted warfare techniques against us for decades with the help of their friends amongst American captured elites. I just thought, because sometimes authors slowly go into the topic, but you put it straight out there, this is the threat we face.
Kind of up front, yeah. And partly that's because I think, you know, there's a famous expression here in the States, Peter, as you may know, that says a conservativeis a liberal who has been mugged by reality. And I think an awful lot of Americans, and I think people around the world for that matter, have been mugged by the reality of the Chinese, well, biological warfare attack against all of us using this so-called SARS-CoV-2 virus, the Wuhan virus, the Chinese Communist Party biological warfare engineered virus that made the pandemic of COVID-19 possible. And to the extent that they have been mugged by reality and have some sense that there's something really seriously wrong with what the Chinese are doing, there's an appetite for learning more that I think requires just directness and candour and that's what we've tried to bring to this book, The Indictment.
Well, we'll jump into that charge which is the fourth one, that the CCP has waged biological warfare against America and the rest of the world. I'm wondering is this the first time that many people have woken up to the reality with all the information coming out about the origins of it, with China being able to provide the protection equipment, being able to provide the testing equipment, being able to provide everything seemingly extremely quickly.Do you think that was a wake-up call for many people?
I think so. I pray so, because it's certainly urgently needed. And just a word about kind of the structure of the book under the rubric of it being an indictment.We have a number of charges, and you've mentioned charge number four is that the Chinese Communist Party deliberately launched a biological warfare attack against the United States and the world.And that's based on an analysis not only that, in fact, this virus came out of a, biowarfare laboratory in Wuhan called the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This is now more and more generally accepted as what happened, after years of being lied to and otherwise told, no, no, no, it came out of nature.But the real kicker, Peter, and what makes this indisputably a biological warfare attack is that however the virus got out of the laboratory, and we just don't know for sure whether it was by accident or deliberately.What we do know is that the Chinese communists deliberately sent it overseas.And again, as you know, Peter, by contrast, they were ensuring that nobody left Wuhan to go anywhere else in China.But if they wanted to get on a plane to some international destination, especially here, they were on their way.So that is why we consider it to be deliberate, purposeful, malevolent, and in fact a proof of concept of something else that's also in that chapter about charge four, which is very disconcerting, needless to say.And that is that about 20 years ago, the man who was at the time the defense minister of China.A general by the name of Qi Haoqian, spoke in secret to a group of party leaders and told them, among other things, that Deng Xiaoping, the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, the man who brought us, by the way, Tiananmen Square, back in the early 1990s, had given as a charge to the biowarfare program of China, which, by the way, is illegal, the mission of depopulating the United States so that it could be colonized by China.So this episode was, I think, a precursor, a test, a proof of concept, if you will, of what may well be in store for us with a lot worse, a lot more virulent bioengineered viruses or what have you, in that arsenal of such products that the Chinese have been beavering away at for decades now.
The first charge the CCP has perpetrated crimes against the people of China and it's captive nations.We kind of have been aware in the West of how the Chinese people living in China are treated with all different types of controls.I mean, you started on that, a focus on how it's treating its own people, before taking it wider. I mean, tell us more about that.Yeah, this seems to be the right place to start, not only to help people calibrate on the nature of the Chinese Communist Party, namely that it is the most murderous regime in history.It has killed, probably conservatively, a hundred million of its own people. And by that I mean people that it claims are their people, the Tibetans, the Uyghurs, the Southern Mongolians, people now in Hong Kong, people who are really enslaved peoples of China. But the vast majority of that number are Han Chinese themselves, who've been starved, who've been tortured to death, that their organs harvested who've otherwise been thrown into gulags and slave labour camps and all the rest. The point is that never in the history of the world, really if you take the entire history of the world, have you ever seen anything like the killing machine that the Chinese Communist Party has represented, especially if you add, as I think we have to, the 400 million children they have murdered in the womb, they boast about it.And by some estimates, it's probably 500 million at this point.Whatever the number is, it's just staggering.And people need to understand that for two reasons. One, both to properly calibrate, as I say, the character of this enemy we face, but also to realize that if you think about it, even for a half a minute, any regime that treats its own people that badly is not going to treat ours better.So this is one of the reasons why we start with the crimes against humanity by the Chinese Communist Party and then pivot to eight other charges, including the one we discussed, the biological warfare one, that constitute, we think, war crimes against this country and others. 
Well then you move on to CCP is at war with America and it's interesting, myself looking at when we had the Cold War, we had the Iron Curtain, which was the line between the West and between the USSR. And it was a war. And yet when you look at China, the same discussion, the same rhetoric, the same words are not used. And we're just told it's just an economic powerhouse that is fighting for, I guess, control of certain parts. But it's not a war as such. Tell us why you you are saying that the CCP is at war with America?Well, for one reason, they've declared war on America, a little known fact. And I'm not speaking about the publication in 1999. Obviously, with the permission of the Chinese Communist Party of a book entitled, unrestricted warfare, by two senior colonels in the People's Liberation Army, who by way went on to become decorated general officers subsequently, so this was no rogue operation, but they proceeded to lay out I think some 20 different lines of attack that could be used and would be used by the Chinese Communist Party to weaken and take down, if they can, America without firing a shot.But beyond that, which is kind of, as they say in the intelligence business, a clue, the Chinese actually published in May of 2019, not in some secret document internal to the Chinese Party, but in the pages of its most important propaganda outlet, People's Daily, a declaration of, quote, people's war, unquote, against the United States of America. That again is a clue. And Xi Jinping, the general secretary now of the Chinese Communist Party, has made no secret of his belief that the Chinese have to defeat the United States, have to supplant it to become the rightful inheritors once again of the place in the world that the Chinese have historically considered to be theirs, namely the center of the universe, the middle kingdom, the dominant power on the planet.So, for all these reasons, I think it's just unmistakable that they are at war with us.Not necessarily that we want it or that we feel ourselves to be in that state, but that's the facts, ma'am.And if you don't understand it, as the famous Chinese strategist Sun Tzu made clear, you can't possibly win such a war.
China does seem to have an appetite for growth, for control, for dominance, and is happy to bring claims that are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years old to lay claim. And the same kind of, I guess, conversation diplomacy in the West doesn't seem to work as well there. Is that a fair thought? 
Well, look, I think the Chinese have many attributes. And when I say the Chinese, I mean sort of the party, the Chinese Communist Party.Some of them are historical traits of Chinese emperors and other rulers, but some of them are unique to the Chinese Communist Party.One is patience, for sure.Another is the practice of deception.For sure. And a third is, going back again to Sun Tzu, to see what you can do to defeat your enemy without actually having to fight them. And all of those are part and parcel of the kind of warfare that the Chinese Communist Party has been waging against us. That general secretary I mentioned a a moment ago, Deng Xiaoping, at the end of the Soviet empire, as he observed essentially the Reagan strategy leading to its defeat, he resolved that that Cold War may be over, but a new Cold War was beginning between the United States and China, and whereas the Soviets had lost theirs, China would win the new one, and they would use what he came to call a hide-and-bide strategy to pull that off.What would that mean? Well, that would mean that they would hide their true intent, which is world domination, and they would bide their time patiently, as the Chinese often do.In the process, they would enlist as much help from elites in particular, what they would say captured elites in places like the United States, who would help with technology, know-how and investment dollars and other ways to both weaken the United States and strengthen communist China.This has played out brilliantly over the past three or four decades, to the point now where the current general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jinping, sees no need for hiding and biding any longer.He's rather, as I said earlier, frontally, aggressively showing that he intends to pursue, our destruction, including by not just these pre-violent or non-kinetic, unrestricted warfare techniques, Peter, but actually the old-fashioned kind, the shooting war kind as well.
And that capture in America, at least, we've kind of, the media have allowed us a little snapshot into some of the bribery, the espionage there, but we've kind of haven't seen much of it.But it does seem to be so deep, even looking at the institutions, the control that China have on simply educational institutions. I mean, tell us more about about how they've captured that, I guess, so easily.Well, they've done it, I think, partly by that hide-and-bide strategy, by having not only members of various sectors of our society, running from Wall Street and the financial sector to business more generally, to media, to academia, as you say, to Hollywood, And also, of course, our political elites. But they've got buy-in from the top levels of our government to the idea that we want to do whatever we can to enrich and even strengthen communist China.And all these other folks, again, especially those mavens of Wall Street, were only too happy to make good money, at least personally, by engineering the penetration of our society and influential elites by the Chinese Communist Party, but also doing everything they conceivably could do to both enrich and enhance the power of what is in fact our mortal enemy.It's insane. It is reckless. It has put us in extreme peril, I believe, but I think that's essentially how this has worked out over time, and of course, you know, it has to be said.The more culpable such individuals in these elites have become of clearly aiding and abetting our enemy, the more incentive they've had not to acknowledge that reality, to cover it up, to continue to perpetuate it and prosper in doing so personally, but increasing, as I say, danger to the rest of us.In Charge 5 you talk about the economy and that certainly seemed to early on the Chinese were rolling this out.In the cold war you never talked about made in Russia it wasn't a thing but you think made in china and it is everywhere every product not only the electronic side but just everything is made in China.It seems as though they have taken a different route maybe than other times, certainly in the Cold War this was not the route that Russia went down, but the  economic attack, that seems to be specifically part of this attack by the CCP. 
You're absolutely right, and I think that this again goes back to that hide-and-bide idea of Deng Xiaoping. He recognized that one of the things that that enabled Ronald Reagan to take down the Soviet Union was that it had not fully integrated its economy with the West.It had tried to varying degrees, but not very successfully. And certainly when Reagan began his strategy of rolling back, he famously called it, we win, they lose, it became even more difficult the Soviets to have that kind of access and influence. The Chinese set about making sure that they were intimately engaged with Americans, both buying their products for a time and and doing deals that would give these American businessmen, particularly, access to the incredibly appetizing idea of 1 point x billion mouths needing toothbrushes or whatever.That was a kind of tractor beam, if you will, for getting American participation in and involvement with the Chinese Communist Party.Over time, of course, that changed dramatically. All of those industrial capabilities that we had that would sell stuff to China migrated to China. In some cases, quite literally, lock, stock, and barrel.Some of our factories were dismantled and rebuilt in China to sell us from there what we had previously sold them from here.I hail from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the heart of what is now called the Rust Belt.When I was growing up, it was Steel City. It became the Rust Belt, not out of some inevitable decline, but because the Chinese Communist Party's economic warfare essentially took down our steel industry by replicating it there and then for a fraction of the cost, usually through dumping, making it uneconomic to build real steel output here.But that was just one example. You mentioned electronics, you mentioned flat screens, televisions, any number of other things, medicines not least, we have allowed to become increasingly if not exclusively dependent upon China as a result of this kind of economic warfare.And it's madness. I mean, look, we saw in the pandemic the dangers associated with relying on China for not only medication, but personal protective equipment and testing and the rest of it.That is not an accident, comrade.That is by design. And it has made it very difficult for people to contemplate disengaging, decoupling, as it's called, from China.But as we say in the action part of the book, the specific steps, we recommend some 20 of them, we have no choice but to decouple because the Chinese are in the process of doing it to us and it will be extremely problematic if we have not made preparations to compensate for those sources.And of course President Trump understood this and one of his big themes was returning jobs back to America and he was maybe the first leader in the West to realize what was happening and actually do something about it. I mean, tell us about that because that's the chain and obviously with Biden being in, it's again trying to roll that back and seem to try and destroy the manufacturing base, the technology base, everything to make us more subservient on China. 
Right. I think Donald Trump, long before he became president, was very clear-eyed about the problem that we face from China. I've written a number of books on the subject and spoken about it at length for many years, decades I think. As president he sought to take some corrective steps. But this goes back to the point about captured elites.He was obstructed at every turn by people like Steve Mnuchin.The Secretary of the Treasury, Larry Kudlow, who had some shining moments, but unfortunately all too often sort of defaulted to we need to keep engaging and keep Wall Street happy and the like.And similarly, members of Congress, many of them relying on donors like the Wall Street mavens, were not keen on this decoupling and so resisted Trump.I think his single most effective effort was the use of tariffs, which he could more or less do unilaterally and that wasn't directly under the control of the Treasury Department as were things like investment flows and the like.But I just would say this, Peter, I think that the cumulative effect of what Donald Trump did was certainly to showcase the dangers we faced from China, and to try for the first time, really, since Nixon went there.To adjust the trajectory of our relationship. It's a shame. It's really, I think, a tragedy that he wasn't able to do more, partly, you know, I think, due to the considerations that I just talked about, but we'd have been even worse off than we are today if we'd had Hillary Clinton, for example, pursuing aggressively that same policy of doing the bidding of China, enabling its power to grow and otherwise weaken our own.The Chinese have a term for this, they call it comprehensive national power.And I think there's no doubt about it that as it is, especially as a result of the Biden administration, I kind of consider it the Obama-Biden 3.0 administration.But whatever you call it, it's definitely picked up where Obama left off.But the Chinese calculation is their comprehensive national power has greatly increased.And our comprehensive national power has greatly diminished.And unfortunately, that's partly why I think, and I hope I'm wrong about this, as I hope I'm wrong about everything, frankly, but especially this, that they have calculated that they can now, move into that next phase, a shooting war phase, perhaps not cost-free, but with sufficient impunity to make it worthwhile.Well, that's one of the other seven as CCP enablers are taking down the US military and Chinese military spending is huge and it seems though that's rising at a time where the US military are reducing in size and more worried about diversity issues and pronouns than they are about equipment and training. And of course, you could espionage with Chinese taking a lot of secrets and replicating and being ahead in the hypersonic missiles, being ahead of the US. I mean, tell us about that because it does seem that China are in a perfect position of strength going into any possible military confrontation. 
I don't know if it's a perfect position but I'm afraid they perceive it as a position of relative strength to ours, especially in in the Western Pacific, the immense build-up of their Navy,in a few short years, a product of decades of planning, to be sure, and building of shipyards.It's said that one of China's shipyards is larger than the entire footprint of every single American shipyard.And that translates into, of course, vastly greater capacity to push more platforms to sea.And the Chinese are doing that.And, you know, you have now a 300-some ship Navy in China, which is roughly the same size, a bit larger than ours.But when you realize that ours is deployed worldwide and much of it on the other side of a canal in Panama that the Chinese happened to control.It means we've got roughly half of our Navy confronting the entirety of their Navy.And their Navy is not only very modern and increasingly capable, as you say, of having advanced weapon systems on board, but also is now building, we're told, to something on the order of a 400 ship fleet.And that means, you know, we will be outgunned for sure.And to the point that you just made about hyper sonics, Peter, there's a study, as you know, that has just recently been published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute that found that in some 37, out of 44 different technology categories, most of them with relevance to military applications.China is ahead of the United States. So that qualitative edge that we've relied upon to offset quantitative disadvantages is now, I think, unfortunately, a thing of the past.And that's a very ominous thing indeed.Just the final thing to touch on is energy security. And I love the way the book goes through these.You get an absolute overall understanding of the threat. It's not just on the military or economic, but it's the energy security.And obviously Biden is doing all he can to destroy American independent energy policy.But even you see China with the boycotts of Russia energy, well, China and India step in and they just get energy on the cheap.But it seems though that energy security in America is really being degraded alarmingly.
Well again that's the point of the exercise. The Biden administration is deliberately dismantling not only our prospective energy dominance as Donald Trump is fond of talking about but also our energy independence. In favour of what?In favour of making us dependent on China for energy products like solar panels and windmills and even transformers for our electric grid, all of which creates a new supply chain that we simply cannot afford as a matter of national security to rely upon the goodwill of the Chinese to supply.But in a way, this makes a larger point. What I think is the case.And I really don't believe this is an exaggeration, Peter, every policy that the Biden administration has pursued, both domestic and foreign, certainly not just this energy security piece, has two things in common. One, they've all been bad for America. And two, they've all benefited, either directly or at least indirectly, the Chinese Communist Party.And that, I think, has something to do with the fact that the President of the United States is as one of our committee on the present danger China members of career, CIA undercover operative spy who used to recruit and run foreign agents for the United States. He says in the terms of the trade, his business, the lexicon, if you will, of intelligence, Joe Biden has to be described as a controlled asset of the Chinese Communist Party. And that explains a lot about what I just described, and why, again, it is not an accident that it is doing so much damage to us and further emboldening as well as empowering our mortal enemy of the Chinese Communist Party. 
And you mentioned, and we'll just finish on this, that you finish off the book, What Must We Do? 20 Action Items to Protect America and Defeat the CCP. People can go through all those, but you just want to mention, it's always good, you lay out a dark situation, a absolute threat to not only America but to the West itself. But you end off by giving actually points that there is a response that can happen. Let us know more about that. 
Well thank you. Yes, they're relatively brief but they really flow from the longer conversation in the earlier segment of the book where we're talking about the specific problems in these various areas. And it's mostly just common sense, frankly. It starts with understanding that we are, in fact, at war with the Chinese Communist Party. If you don't get that right, you're not going to do much of the rest of it, obviously. That we need to, in fact, adopt a war footing in response to the threat we're facing, much as the Chinese are on a war footing now. And again, increasingly, one that is seemingly meant to be a violent shooting or footing at that. But as important as anything we talk about is the urgent need to remove from positions of power and influence, those captured elites, especially if God forbid, we do in fact face the prospect of a violent conflict with China, we simply can't have as the commander-in-chief of the United States military. It's a controlled asset of the enemy.Another of the very important points, I think, taking a page out of the Reagan playbook, which of course I'm both an admirer of and played a small role in trying to implement. Namely, the delegitimization of the Chinese Communist Party as he delegitimized the evil empire of the Soviet Union is crucial for one other reason besides, you know, trying to make the lives miserable of the CCP. It helps to speak to the people of China, which, going back to where we started, have suffered more than anybody at the hands of the Chinese Communist Party have more interest than anybody in seeing the end of this party. They're not our enemy. We have no, I think, quarrel with the Chinese people. But the Chinese Communist Party is our enemy and theirs as well. And we need to delegitimate them. And we think the way to do that is to describe them as what they are, a transnational criminal organization.
Well, we'll finish on that. I'll again leave our viewers with, there it is, the indictment prosecuting the Chinese Communist Party and Friends for Crimes Against America, China and the World is available anywhere, not only in the US, but in the UK, in Europe. Frank, I appreciate your time. As I said at the beginning, I'll repeat that you are a legendary figure in the conservative movement and your focus on security brings something quite fresh that others don't bring. So we do appreciate your time today.
And my yours, and thank you for those kind words, and back at you.We appreciate you all as well, and give my regards of Lord Pearson.

Matt Le Tissier - Duped: False Information and Losing Trust in the Institutions

Show-Notes and Transcript
Matt Le Tissier has experienced how fickle and nasty the British media can be. Overnight he went from being a football legend to a dangerous conspiracy theorist and anti vaxxer! 'Le God' returns to Hearts of Oak to talk about the ongoing attempts by the media to attack and discredit him. We discuss how even outlets we trusted as believers in free speech have apparently become government mouthpieces on the COVID new-speak and how can Britain only have one single MP who will challenge and question the COVID tyranny and jab nonsense.We also touch on Matt's team, Southampton. After 20 years in the top flight they have recently been relegated and we chat about what Matt thinks went wrong this season.So join us this episode for more straight talking and common sense from an absolute gentleman.
Matt Le Tissier is a bona fide football legend, often described as one of the most naturally talented players of his time, the man that south coast residents call ‘Le God’ and one of the most famous soccer stars of the 1990's.Matt joined Southampton FC on the YTS scheme in 1985, signed professional forms with them the following year at 16 years of age and for the next 16 years he put loyalty above riches and remained at the club.A hero to his fans for his creativity, he was the first midfielder to score 100 goals in the Premier League and Matt's penalty taking abilities were renowned, converting 47 out of 48 from the spot.Then for 15 years he was on our TV screens every week on Sky Sports giving his commentary on the Premier League football matches.This all came to a screeching halt when he tweeted his thoughts on the Ukraine/Russia conflict, refused to wear a badge on-air of an organisation he had no interest in being associated with and also retweeting a post that questioned the government line on COVID.These actions were apparently outside the accepted new-speak and for these crimes he was sacked.
Connect with Matt.....GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/mattletiss7TWITTER: https://twitter.com/mattletiss7?s=20&t=ls0cW_a6pUFdItFZENqmHQ
Want a personal video message from 'Le God'?:  https://memmo.me/gb/en/profile/matt-le-tissier
Interview recorded 18.5.23
*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 Matt Le Tissier who rejoins us and we start off looking at obviously the attacks that he has faced through the media on him and his family for simply questioning the COVID narrative and then how the media have turned on people like Andrew Bridgen, the one MP who's spoken up on vaccine harms and how the media have attacked him including media that we trusted like Spiked Online and what that means for our trust in those media institutions that we did rely on for news before.And then we look at 25 percent of Americans not having the jab, latest data coming out, that CDC originally said it was eight percent, three times higher. Again, everything is changing.And then we finish off just asking Matt how he stays sane in the midst of the chaos.And it's wonderful to have the football legend Matt Le Tissier back with us again.Matt, thank you for your time today.
(Matt Le Tissier)
My pleasure Pete, good to see you mate.Always good to have you on and if we can, well obviously your handle there is your Twitter handle, people can follow you and you tweet regularly so people can get all the information their own events you're at, speaking events, your thoughts on the news, everything is there.But maybe first, Matt, my commiserations to you on Southampton's, what, 11 seasons in the Premiership finishing. Yeah, that obviously was your life for many, many years.It must be quite sad whenever it all goes.
Yeah, it is sad.Obviously, no football fan likes to see their team relegated.But I think the saddest part of all for me was I was at the game on Saturday, a game that they needed to win to keep their hopes alive of staying up.And I just couldn't believe what I was watching. You know, the lack of commitment in the game from the players, the lack of effort at times, the lack of passion, the lack of urgency to try to get a result in front of your home fans was something that I had kind of not really witnessed before. And that was the saddest part of the whole season.I guess with clubs that are smaller clubs, it is a nigh on impossible task against the bigger teams who have the financial clout. There is a gap that I guess every season just gets wider.I mean I guess it kind of does, but the great thing about football is that you still, you still have a chance, you can still fight harder than the team that has spent the most money and give yourself a chance in a football match.And at times we have done that. I mean, we were one of the few teams that beat Manchester City this season, we knocked them out of the league cup.So there was occasions where they did play to their full potential and gave it a really good go.But over the last kind of few weeks, uh, the writing's kind of been on the wall.I mean, we had a bit of a decent performance at Arsenal, but again, capitulated right near the end, couldn't hold onto a lead and so, yeah, it's, it's been a disappointing and frustrating season, but it's not all down to financesyou know, you can look at that. Yeah. I look at the recruitment.I mean, you talk about finances, not many people mentioned that we've spent nearly 140 million pound this season.Now for Southampton, that is unheard of. You know, we just don't do that.And we only really spend money if we've sold a player for like 70 million or whatever.But this season we really heavily invested without bringing any money in.And we've ended up cut adrift at the bottom of the Premier League.So you have to kind of look at the department that was responsible for the recruitment of the players, and ask yourself, you know, did they spend that moneywisely and I have to say looking at the season as a whole, no they didn't.
I guess.On the bright side your season ticket will be a bit cheaper now.
Probably not because they still give me free tickets to go watch the game first of all but also you get that many more games in the championship it will feel like it's money saved but it really isn't you just get to watch four extra games.
As you've kind of spoken out. No one, I guess you also, whenever you're just seeing news and speaking out, maybe pushing back against some of the information that comes out.No one expects, I don't think, a massive backlash. I guess if you challenge something, you might get ridiculed, you might get mocked, you might get pulled up, but cancellation isn't really thought, of. Tell us about that as you've spoken up more and more over the last three years. I guess you you weren't expecting the backlash that you faced?Well, I kind of was expecting it after, I guess probably the very first controversial tweet I ever did before we even locked down, I think it was, when I tweeted, why are we making such a big deal about a virus that is only gonna affect the very elderly, and the already immunocompromised?And that was in March of 2020. And the reaction to that was it was quite something. I think it got the most likes of any tweet I've ever tweeted at the time, but it also got the most abuse in the replies, So at that point I thought hang on something's, something's not quite right I've never really had that reaction to a tweet before when I've just given my opinion on something, so I kind of knew early on and then the whole you know, COVID stuff, the George Floyd stuff, the Black Lives Matter, taking the knee, all that business, going against that probably cost me my job to a certain extent, but I wasn't going to be forced into wearing a badge of an organization that I had no desire to be associated with.And so I stood my ground knowing that, yeah, it might cost me my job, but at the end of the day, I think you've got to put your head on your pillow at night and know that you can sleep soundly by the decisions you've made in your life and the principles that you've stuck by.I guess you never thought that you'd end up being a commentator on the culture wars. That's probably the last thing you were thinking.
Yeah, if you'd have told me three years ago that I'd be on a news station giving my political take on things, I would have said you're absolutely mad, given that I'd never really taken any interest in politics, quite frankly. From a young age, I always felt like I never trusted politicians really to have the best interest of the people at heart. And so I'd never even voted in an election or anything. I just stayed clear of politics I just concentrated on my football career, you know building a life for my family. Making sure that I could home them and feed them. And that's kind of what I concentrated on until, March of 2020 when all of a sudden government overreach into my life, I got into a point where I was very uncomfortable with it and decided to stand up for what I thought was right.I enjoyed watching your time with LotusEaters and you went through some of the stories, many hit pieces that have been on you and I guess the hit pieces on family which really hit home.When you look back, I guess when it starts coming out you're thinking, wow, why are they going for me? I mean, they're obviously worried about what you're saying. It's not just, we're going to have a good kick at Matt Le Tissier. It's actually stuff that he's coming out with, we don't agree. And it's not simply, I guess, the journalists themselves who write it, it's from, higher up and the whole story is wheeled out. I mean, tell us about that, because I guess when it comes initially, you're not expecting it. Then you've begun to get accustomed to it, I guess, and think, well, bring it on.
Yeah, I think when you realize that you're going against the establishment and the weapons that they have at their destruction to try to take you down are pretty severe, you kind of get very used to it very early on. So, you know, I kind of made a point of not really reading my replies that much on social media. I kind of put my thoughts out there and just let it linger out out there for people to chew over.And then, you know, you get the hit pieces in the newspapers and I've had a bit of a disdain for newspapers anyway, given the way that they covered my footballing abilities in my career.And so I was kind of used to it. I mean, my football career really kind of primed me, for what was gonna happen over these last three years.And it's been an interesting ride, but as you say, you do, you get used to it. I was used to it.It didn't really affect me at all. You know, it affected my family and the people around me more.And I think sometimes that's the people that they aim to attack because they know that they can't get through me because I've got the skin of a rhino and I believe in what I'm saying.And so when they can't attack me, then the next best thing they'll do is obviously attack the people closest to me because they know that they're the people that I love and that'll affect me.But, I've stood firm, my family know my views and not all my family agree with my views.But, I've never fallen out with them about it. I'm quite happy to allow other people to have their view.And all I ask in return is that they respect me in the same way and the views that I have.And yeah, that's kind of been the crux of it all, really.I think it's important that we have debate in this country. I think it's important that the media should be showing both sides of the story and letting people make their own minds up what they think is right. We haven't had that and so I decided to highlight that because I thought it was important.Tell us about the new people you met, because it's a whole new world that we find ourselves in, not just in what's happening in our country and the world, but also with the people we've got to meet, with this being a completely new cause of forced jabs. None of us had thought, we would ever get that in the UK. In some countries, there are mandatory vaccines, but we haven't really had it in the UK. Tell us about that over the last three years, that journey going from football commentary to actually being at crowds and speaking at events and shoulder-to-shoulder with people who maybe you hadn't come across years before.
It's been incredible the people that I've met over the last few years because we share a common cause.If you'd have told me three years ago that I would have been interviewing people like Dr Peter McCullough, Robert Malone, Mike Yeadon, Dr. Tess Laurie, people like Ivor Cummins, who is probably one of the cleverest men I think I've ever spoke to in my life. He's just a genius for me. And so many more. It's just been incredible, the people that I've been in contact with. I never thought I would be kind of being invited to Zoom meetings where you know, Robert F. Kennedy will be speaking and it's just, it's just mad. I mean, I even got a free round of golf at the Trump International in Aberdeen through my friends at GETTR.So yeah, it's just, it's just been an amazing rollercoaster.
Watching the media and I've been intrigued with it, obviously the media that I guess we traditionally trusted, The Telegraph, Mail.I've grown up kind of on the right of politics thinking I trust them and they stand for free speech and people's personal responsibility and a whole range of issues and then seeing them capitulate completely. I mean what for you that there must have been parts of the media that you would have gone to and more or less trusted the information you were given. What's your thoughts now?
My thoughts now are that I no longer, there's many institutions that I've lost a lot of trust in, a lot of faith in, the media is one of them. I'm not sure I had a huge amount of trust in the newspaper industry anyway, from my experience as a footballer. I didn't realise probably until the last three years just how bad the mainstream news on the TV was in terms of the propaganda that that throws out. So yeah, my trust has been completely destroyed in mainstream media. My trust in government wasn't really there in the first place but that's gone. My trust in the scientific, the scientists around the world, my trust in those has disappeared. My trust in health agencies has disappeared. My trust in the NHS, they've behaved despicably over the last few years.They really have. And it's just, it's kind of turned your world upside down, really. I've kind of taken, taken things in my own hands, really. And I now, you know, tried to look after my health a little bit better, because I don't want to have to rely on those institutions anymore.And you know just try and live my life in the best way possible, in the happiest way possible without having to without having to interact with those kind of organisations.
What institutions then do, because it does shake up your world, and you mentioned the medical side, you mentioned you go to your doctor and that would have been fine. Now actually you think twice about it because you wonder what they will push, what they will force, what their views are.How do you then stay, I guess relatively sane because you see those institutions you trust. Do you say is it me or is it them? How do you kind of cope with that on a personal level?
I cope with it by doing everything in my life not to have to interact with them, so I try and keep myself healthy.I don't try and get myself into any trouble with the law and I just kind of go about my life and make sure that I have a balance in my life to to keep me happy, because at the end of the day, we are still here only once, apparently.Some people might argue that.And I wanna have as good a time as I can while I'm here. So I still make sure I have time to do the things in life that I enjoy, but also, it's also important to speak up about things that I think are harming the world, and about the organizations that I think are not helping people.They are wolf in sheep's clothing, unfortunately, and organizations like the WHO, United Nations, all those kind of things, not for me.Here in the UK we have one MP who has spoken out. We've had a few in Parliament but I've been, surprised at how few Conservative MPs who I thought would have been on the side of concerns of vaccine harms and excess deaths and all that, they've remained silent while Andrew Bridgen has been kicked and mauled and abused by the Conservative Party and then was forced out.I mean, he's someone who I know you've been on the stage with and I'm sure you've got to know.I mean, has that surprised you? There haven't been a number of others to come to support him, that we have one out of 650 actually on this.
I'm not sure it does surprise me, to be honest, given politicians' record down the years and also knowing the amount of corruption that is in Westminster, knowing the amount of influence pharmaceutical industry have over certain individuals. So it doesn't surprise me that there's only one. Yeah, I interviewed Andrew just before Christmas, on my GETTR live streams.And I'm very, very grateful for what Andrew has tried to do for the vaccine injured, like quite a few of us, we've tried to shine a light on this issue, because the government are completely ignoring them. And given that it was the government that were the ones that were heavily coercing people into taking these vaccines and now they've just, the ones that took them and were damaged by them, have just been completely thrown aside and ignored, I think is an absolute disgrace and the other 649 MPs need to hang their heads in shame for what they've done for these people.
Have you ever thought of putting yourself in the mix politically? I live and breath politics, we would have been opposites, but yes, I've kind of found myself on the sides with no political party affiliation. I'm seeing Andrew Bridgen actually has intrigued me to what might happen with Reclaim, with Lozza, and they're not the only ones. Have you thought of putting yourself mix because you should take Twitter to to the to the poling booth should you not?
Obviously I hadn't really thought about it seriously and it probably hadn't crossed my mind until I don't know maybe the last year or so when people have people have actually suggested that to me and I thought ah, do I really want to go down that route would it make any difference is the system rigged. But I certainly think if there was a new political party formed that was for the people, for the freedom of speech, then I would certainly back it. I might consider running for a party like that but it's not something that was ever kind of on my radar. No great ambition to be a politician, quite frankly, I feel like the whole system at the moment is actually a bit of a sham and I don't think we're getting represented properly by the parties that are in power. The two main parties look like two cheeks of the same arse to me. So if there was a way that that could be shaken up and I had trust in that process then yeah I'd consider it.
I mean is is alternative media a more powerful way of engaging with the public and changing their opinion to think,
Uh, I think so. I think alternative media over the last few years there has been such a rise, so many people that I now speak to in everyday life and I've had two conversations already this morning, a friend of mine rang me to speak about CBD, which I've just kind of got involved with and another guy just on my taking the dog out for a walk just before I came and spoke to you, randomly just stopped his car, got out, gave me a hug and said, thank you very much for standing up for what a lot of us believe in.We follow the same kind of people and we've got the same thoughts as you and we just wanted to say thank you for having the balls to stand up with a public persona, and say what lots of other people behind the scenes without a big profile and a big platform are thinking really.Yeah, because there is that massive disconnect. The media want to paint you and people who are speaking truth as dangerous and someone you cannot associate with.But actually, the response you said you get is probably the more normal response of gratitude and thanks.
It's amazing, out in what I call real life, not on social media, not in the mainstream media, in real life when I'm going about my business on a daily basis, playing golf with people, doing my after dinner speaking, going to events like Cheltenham races, which I went to a few weeks back, and the response there was just incredible this year.Honestly, I can't tell you how lifted I was by the amount of people that came up to thank me and wanted pictures taken with me, and didn't have a single negative comment from any of the public who were there at Cheltenham.It was really uplifting.You mentioned, just to ask you before going on, you mentioned CBD and you've been talking about that as having health benefits, and it's something which is, I guess, fairly new in the UK market.Why did you get involved in promoting that and encouraging others to take a look into it?
It's a rapidly growing market, first and foremost, and I'd been approached a while ago, And I kind of, first of all, I was quite sceptical about it.I was like, well, I don't really know enough about that to be promoting it.And I've never tried it. So they said, we'll send you some stuff, see what you think.And so I have, I've been trying, I've been using the CBD gummies, I've been using the sports gel.And I could honestly say with my hand on my heart, it's made a difference to me.And so that's why I'm now happy to, because I've tried it and I've looked into it.I've done a bit of research into it.And everything about it from what I've read, tells me that it's got some really helpful benefits for people, so that's why I was happy to get involved in promoting it.
Back on to some of the data that we've seen come out, I think the latest data is that 25% of Americans did not take the jab. And that was interesting because I think the CDC had about, 8%. So you've got a massive disconnect where the figure is three times difference. And then the UK was seeing that the booster, there's a website you can put in your postcode and the booster..
Yeah I've done it...
but the booster in my area it's one percent.
Same.
So what, again that reiterates the information we've got is very different and that seems to be getting through. Now that's publicly available, people can find out that no one else is getting this.
Well that for me basically summed up what was happening with the media, the propaganda that was being used, the psychological operations and I think they were saying it was five million I think it was in this country that they were saying the five million refus-niks, I think was the headline in one of the papers and then, yeah when the when the actual figures came out it was like 23 million or something and that's what they do, they try to make you feel in a tiny minority and they try to turn everybody else against you.That's how they do it. It's psychological manipulation. And that's why, the nudge unit, the behavioural insights team on the SAGE committee and all that kind of stuff.And if you kind of know about this stuff, it's really easy to see through it.But if you have no idea about it, then you are gonna continue to be duped.I think it's probably the best word for it.You're gonna be in positions where you're looking at information and thinking, oh, blimey, this is really bad, this is really bad.And these people over here, they're absolute nutcases because there's just like a tiny few of them and they're going completely opposite to what I'm being told by the government.But that's not the reality of the world. And these people, I'm afraid, are gonna have a big shock, I think, at some point down the line when they realize that actually the governmentdon't really give a shit about your health mate, and don't really care about you at all.In fact they'd rather you weren't on the planet.Well they're working hard on that. Duped is an interesting word because duped was the word that Vivek Ramaswamy, who's running for presidential candidate for the Republicans in America.He was on an interview and said that he feels that he was duped and then discussed that and moved on.It's fascinating when you have high profile people that are beginning to catch up and and waking up and speak.And that's kind of like a juggernaut that whenever the more and more people get on board speaking that truth, the higher profile, the dam will break.
Yeah, the harder it is for the media to then suppress the information, as more and more people speak out and more and more of the general public understand what the truth is, then it's harder and harder for the mainstream media to keep lying about it.And eventually you then force them into telling the truth. And this is how you do it with numbers.And that's why we see little snippets of the truth coming out, little admissions about things.Nobody told you when the vaccine first came out, not a single person from any pharmaceutical company told you that they didn't actually test the vaccine to see whether or not you could pass it on.Still, it wasn't tested for stopping transmission. Nobody, not a single person in the world told you that before the vaccine came out.Now that is quite an important bit of information, I'd say. And if you're gonna be starting to take an experimental injection, you probably should be able to have all the knowledge available to be able to let you make an informed decision on whether you take it or not.And people didn't have that.And they were duped. It was exactly the right word.
I'm amazed at the disconnect with people not trusting politicians, but then trusting them.Having the conversation, I'm thinking, the penny has to drop at one point.You hate this person with a passion, but you'll go and do anything they say.It's such a weird concept.
Well, that's because of, I believe, It's because of people's innate belief in their system that they want to feel safe.And it's the whole safety thing that these people pray on, everything is for your safety.Don't kill granny. It's all psychological manipulation.And they know that. And that overrides their emotions that they felt towards these politicians before all this happened.I guess, and you look back and you think, I didn't actually see many investigative pieces on these large drug companies. I didn't see them talking about Pfizer and the pay-outs they've had to make for harm. It's a whole back part of the story that actually the public have very little understanding about.
Absolutely. That was another one of the things that I looked into.The biggest criminal fine in history was paid by Pfizer back in 2009, 10 somewhere around there, and these pharmaceutical companies are not ethical companies. They are there to make money. They're not there to make you healthy. That's not their prime objective, their prime objective is to make money and if you think about it logically, if they came up with a cure for things, they'd be putting themselves out of business.So their objective is to just make you sick enough to make you need more tablets.And those tablets will always have a side effect. And guess what?We've got a tablet for that side effect.And when that tablet is used, that's got a side effect as well. And guess what?There's another tablet that can cure that side effect.And there's how they make all their money.
It's true, because looking at cancer, even begin to go down that rabbit hole, and very little of the conversation is about healthy lifestyle or what you eat.And it's simply, well, you need to go and go for radiotherapy or chemotherapy and blast all your body.And it's the most ludicrous way of trying to fix a problem by just destroying your whole body.And even now looking at that, and I remember talking to people years ago who'd have said, oh, there's a quack and they think that, you know, you can cure yourself by healthy eating, that sort of thing.But now I'm beginning to think, well, actually, the only reason why the root of therapy though, it is an industry that the drug companies exist for, maybe it's not true.Yeah, I think it's interesting. Well, I've spoken to quite a few people who have their own stories about people who were given six weeks to live because they had cancer, they went for an alternative therapy, and they're still alive and kicking today because they tried something a little bit different.And I think you're right, I think there are cancer treatments that have been suppressed by pharmaceutical companies because it's not in their interest to do that.On the free speech thing, I watched the short, only 30 minutes, I think, Andrew Bridgen interview on GB News with the person from Spiked Online. It was intriguing to watch, in many ways, but one of the ways was Andrew was logical. He was putting down the data that he had come across, and what you had back is conspiracy theorists, dangerous.I was blown away. It's something you expect, I guess, from an Antifa type of group, when they shout abuse at you whenever you're talking, but actually, grown up media, it's the same tactic that they're just shouting abuse and trying to demonize you.
Absolutely. They never rebut the data. You're right.They just call you names. You're either an anti something, or a conspiracy theorist, or a denier. These are all their favourite little terms that they just use to shout at you so they don't have to address the point in question. And that's something that's become pretty obvious to me over the last few years that once somebody shouts the conspiracy theory thing at you or calls you a denier or an anti, I mean, I've been an anti vaxxer, apparently, despite the fact that this is probably the only vaccine I've never taken in my life.My children were vaccinated. And so to be called an anti-vaxxer is like, well, it doesn't really add up, mate, does it?You're just using that term to try and shut down an argument because you don't really feel comfortable talking about it.Because in the back of your mind you probably know that I'm right.
The whole anti-vax kind of thing, well, actually, I wasn't before, but actually, I'm kind of beginning to lean that way now.
I'm exactly the same. I would never take another vaccine in my life now. They've completely destroyed my trust in all vaccines, completely destroyed it. They've absolutely shot themselves in the foot when it comes to me and a lot of other people like me who did used to trust that industry, who no longer do. And yeah, I'm not sure they they actually realized that that was going to be the case
Other data coming out is the excess deaths and I think it was a Daily Mirror headline that's basically said so many people are dying and we don't know why.
Doctors are baffled! Doctors are baffled, it's just incredible, I mean doctors have got to be the stupidest profession in the world if they are baffled by what is going on. 2,000 or more people dying every week than what would normally die.What could it possibly be? What's happened over the last couple of years that might just affect that? And then they go, oh, it's long COVID. That's what's doing it.And that just, for me, destroys their credibility even more. The fact that they can't even admit to going, oh maybe, just maybe, small part, might be because of these gene therapies that have come out.They won't even admit that and that just makes me more suspicious.When you look over all that's happened, you've got that, you've got the WHO meeting, the end of this month and that seemingly they will pass a resolution that will give them the right to tell governments how to run their health services in the case of an emergency.You've got that, you've got obviously all the central bank digital currencies, you've got what's happening in Netherlands with stopping farming.When you look at all that and you sit back, is there a specific one that really frustrates you?You think, If I put my finger in something that's it or is it just all parts of the jigsaw?
I mean there's a there's a lot of parts of the jigsaw. It's a multifaceted attack on humanity is what it is. I can't describe it any other way. Is there one bit that's more important than all the other bits? Do you know, for me the thing that's most important about probably everything, you talk about the specifics of the CBDCs and the farming and everything. But I think on top of everything sits freedom of speech.I think it's the foremost important thing that we have to protect to be able to shine a light on the corruption that's going on below with all the other stuff that's going on.We need to be able to shine a light on that without the fear of getting arrested because you've said something on social media that goes against the government. And so for me, the freedom of speech thing is the umbrella that covers every bit of corruption underneath it.
And it seems though the CBDC will be a massive part of that. I hadn't realized until actually, when Mike Yeadon spoke at an event the other week and I looked into it that when you pay with your credit card, if you pay on a card, then it's a record of you paying 10 pounds in Sainsbury's.But if you use CBDC then actually it breaks it down and it gives the government, I guess, the control they have in China with a social credit system.
Yep, they can start controlling just how much money you spend on certain foods a week. You can only buy so much meat if they want you to. It's a control mechanism that is just way beyond the pale when it comes to intrusion into the lives of the people of this country.
Matt, I appreciate you coming on, and well you were probably going to be playing golf today, it's a beautiful day, lovely golf weather is it?
I probably would of done if I hadn't of been speaking to you, I've got another one at 12 o'clock to do and then I'm going to head up to London and have dinner with some friends tonight.
Well I'll blame your 12 o'clock for stopping your golf and not mine.
Yeah it probably is the twelve.
Thank you for your time Matt.
Great to talk to you, Pete.

Richard Fairbrass - Not my Pride

Richard Fairbrass -  Not my Pride - Show notes and Transcript
We are currently in the holy month of Pride with every business and shop window sporting an obligatory rainbow or LGBTBS flag. Richard Fairbrass (one half of the dynamic British pop duo that is Right Said Fred) joins us to give his thoughts on Pride. Being a gay man, it is fascinating to have his thoughts on how pride has moved from rights to indoctrination. And of course we discuss the Fred's brand new album which is the good news story in this month of confusion and madness.
Richard Fairbrass is one half of legendary British pop band Right Said Fred. The Freds 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!
Their latest album 'The Singles' available from Amazon and all good record stores...https://www.amazon.co.uk/Singles-Right-Said-Fred/dp/B0BXXZR9YK/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=right+said+fred&rnid=1642204031&s=music&sr=1-5
Follow & support Richard and Right Said Fred at....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
Interview recorded 14.6.23
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)
Hello Hearts of Oak and welcome to another interview coming up in a moment with Richard Fairbrass, of course one half of the duo that is Right Said Fred and that's just Richard with us today not Fred and I want to talk to Richard about the topic Not My Pride but before we get into that we open up looking at the music side they've just got a new album coming out reworking of all of their singles. Fantastic album, you want to get hold of it, all the details are on their website.And of course you can get hold of all different merch and you can get hold of their autobiography which they released last year and we covered that a year ago. But today I want to talk to him about his experiences as someone who's gay with the whole month of pride, the whole LGBTQ++ BS has been forced on all of our throats and it's a fascinating, intriguing insight for me to understand where he is coming from and why he doesn't think pride is good.Talking about the commercial aspect, massive businesses, money behind it, media behind it, everyone is pushing it and forcing it at us.The whole LGBT agenda in schools, all of that great conversation.And Richard giving his insights, which I know you will love.
Nice to have you back with us again? Thank you for your time today.
(Richard Fairbrass)
It's a pleasure. Nice to be here.Thanks. Nice to see you, Peter.
Good to have you with us and lots been happening. First of all, @TheFreds on Twitter.Everyone can find you there. Right Said Fred is the website.And we want to go and talk about pride and your thoughts on that.But first, there's some better news this month.The better news is a release of a Right Said Fred album. Do you want to tell us about that?Because it's been, what, it was, I think, five years ago?Five years ago, so it could be longer.
Yeah, we have to be a bit abstemious sometimes, because we have to pay for it, because we're independent, so we've got to pay for the video ourselves.Well, this idea came to us through somebody else, who suggested that we should do an album of remixes.These are re-records.We've re-recorded every song, and also to include songs that are less well-known because nobody would play them during the lockdown and everything else.We wrote this stuff during lockdown, but it was just stuff that we enjoyed doing.We didn't necessarily plan to release it.So when we did the album, it's basically half and half. It's 50 re-recordings of established tracks, and the other half is brand new stuff, which includes a new single, Spiritual War.What was the video clip I saw of you? What's a German band? I loved it.
The Streichfrieder. That's on the album too. Yeah, exactly. Well, they're a German umpire band, what do you call it? That's how they make their living.And we did a radio thing down in Germany some time ago. And it was somebody else's idea, why don't they play on Too Sexy and we'll record it and do a carpool type thing.And to be honest, I mean, I'm useless at stuff like this. I would be the most hopeless A&R man ever to walk the earth.Because I just thought, this is going to be rubbish. And it's gone mental.Everybody loves it. So what do I know? Yeah, and they're great.They did a really good job. I went and did the vocal.And we drove around, I can't remember what town we were in.I don't know, it was in Germany somewhere, I can't remember.But the German fan base has been really good and the support of German radio has been really good.And it's less, it seems to be less fan-driven in Germany, but I can't be sure about that.
Of course, it was what, last year, you released your autobiography.
It was August last year,Tell us about that. What has that been like? People can find your life warts and all.I know that in the book.Tell us about that.
Well, Omnibus came to us with the idea and we worked with a guy called John McIver who has done a lot of that sort of rock and pop autobiography stuff.But I think what happened was, in my memory, we agreed all this prior to the first lockdown.And then when Fred and I started of making the mistake of having an opinion and actually verbalizing it.Omnibus walked away, and so did everybody else. So, yeah. So, bookshops and Waterstones was one.And in fact, back in the early days, it was WH Smith that was the most supportive, amazingly.But yeah, it was scuppered from day one, basically, because of who we are and what we say.So the thing is, with the sensitive issue, it's not that you're specifically told not to say something.You just know that if you do say something you will lose that job or that placement or whatever it happens to be, it's censorship in all but name actually.I grew up in a country, I thought I grew up in a country where saying what you thought and being a little bit out of the box, particularly for a pop musician you're expected to be a little bit out of the box.So I was stunned, Fred and I were both absolutely stunned when it became clear that 99% of artists, basically bought the story, and the people who didn't were ostracized.I mean, one good example was Eric Clapton, who merely told the story of the effect of the jab on him, and I think he lost the use of his hands for I don't know how long for, but enough for him to worry.And he merely did an interview, that's all he did. He didn't say, do this or don't do that, he just told his story.And the flack he got for it was depressing. So there's been a bit of learning curve, this is not necessarily the country that I thought it was.Certainly not my dad, he would have been amazed actually, I think.
Because you kind of think music industry, you kind of think it's raging against the system, it's saying what it wants, it's standing up for independence and freedom and to hell with anyone else.And yet it seems to fold and accept whatever mandates, controls, or restrictions are put in place, which is strange.
It is, yeah. I mean, if you go back into the 60s, when people like Joan Baez and Country Joe and the Fish and Bob Dylan and all these people were talking about, one, directly or indirectly about the war in Vietnam or race riots or whatever it happens to be, pop music and pop culture was at the forefront of that.And you didn't have to agree with their position, but they were allowed to have that position and make it known publicly.That is not the situation that we are in now in the West. It doesn't matter what particular position, what subject you're talking about.It's almost impossible not to offend and transgress upon somebody's sensitivities.And it cripples everything.It cripples speech. It cripples behaviour. And when we've been doing some radio interviews, What's interesting is, when you're on mic, the story is, the interviewer is very cagey about their position, but once the mic's off, and it's all, you know, it's not being recorded, the general consensus is, you know, I agree with what you're saying.And we've had that from musicians, musicians who don't say a word in public, and then we get these emails, or Facebook stuff, saying, keep going, guys, you know, it's great.And then they'll all take the jab to do a pub gig. It's just a,frankly, I think they've all been, it's shameful. I mean, it's, yeah, I can't think of a nice thing to say about people like Pink or anybody else.Well, the one nice thing we can is your website. And this is what people will find.rightsaidfred.com, I'm sure I recognize that warehouse from somewhere.I'm sure I've been there.Tell us about, yeah, the merchandise, all of that, what people can find on the website.
Well, a few years ago, we tried to design our own T-shirts and merch, and it was such a disaster.It was absolute, nobody thought that anything we thought was funny.Nobody else said it was funny.So we've been, we've got, in fact, in the storage, we've got bucket loads, boxes and boxes of T-shirts that we designed, that nobody wants.But this stuff designed by the guys at Plastic Head through Steve Beatty have done a really, really good job. and lots of different takes on a theme.And amazingly enough, they are t-shirts that I wouldn't be embarrassed to wear.The one you see, the ghost behind Fred, is obviously me.And that was the one that came out of the box first. But there are dozens and dozens of alternatives to that.Yeah, there's the Spiritual War song.
Yeah, Bob Moran.
I mean, how did that link up with Bob? Because Bob has kind of summed up what's been happening in his imagery.And then you bring the music to it. And it's fascinating to have those two sides of, I guess, the artistic, the creative art coming together and enforcing it.I mean, how did that come together?
Well, we went to Bob because we've met Bob on several functions and stuff about this. And we got to know him, we got to like him.And so we sent him, we asked if he would do graphics to the song.And we sent him the lyrics. And we made it clear that, one, we were prepared to pay for it.And two, that if he didn't want to do it and didn't like the song, fine, it didn't matter.But he loved the song, his wife loved the song, and they agreed to do it for nothing.Although the original of that artwork now is up for a bucketload of money.And he's done a brilliant job. I think it's absolutely, absolutely brilliant.And it makes you laugh. I mean, the picture of Sam Smith in the bottom right-hand corner, where he's just hysterical.
Its just hysterical, the thing is, the thing what I like is I like the fact that, the pop industry has become incredibly po-faced, I think. It's incredibly up its own rear end, you know.And if we were all just, you know, working on a cure for Alzheimer's or cancer, I could understand it, but it's pop music.And I think it's incredibly important to be passionate about what you do.So being passionate about pop music, I'm behind that.But be passionate about comment. Be passionate about everything other than doing what the corporates tell you.And there's an awful lot of that corporate stuff going on right now.And the reason I think a lot of artists are quiet is maybe it's because their label doesn't want them to speak out their management, their publishing, publishers there. I don't know. It doesn't matter who it is. I know from our experience, if we were still signed to our old label, we would have had phone calls. Can you not say that? Can you apologize for that? Can you know, and you've got to, you've got to say what you think. I just, life is too short for this nonsense. I know, I know it sounds corny, But when I'm shaving in the mirror, would I be able to look at myself happily if I had been bullshitting for the last two and a half years?No, I wouldn't. No. So it was we were between rock and hard place.We just had to do what we what we wanted to do. And the the fallout was the thing that surprised us more than anything else.Well, I know that many viewers and listeners will want to go on the website and get all the merchandise.And in doing that, supporting you as you have spoken out and being a voice, I guess, in the wilderness in the entertainment industry. So definitely.Yes, it has been a bit of a... I was kind of torn between being really angry that nobody more famous spoke out, and thinking, well, you know, in a way, if somebody more famous spoke out, they'd get all the attention.
That's true.
I was kind of... I was split, really, you know. But yeah, it was so clear to me. I mean, If you have a memory at all, and you look back to the days of John Smith or Robin Cook or Peter Shaw, imagine any of those people crying on a TV show like Matt Hancock did.It's not worthy of respect at all. And I think we have to, you know, the people say you get the newspapers you deserve, and maybe we're getting the politicians we deserve.
Yeah.Perhaps I think so, yeah.I want to discuss the whole issue on pride. It's always good to talk to people where your backgrounds are just so obvious.I mean, I'd be very socially conservative, grew up in a very traditional church.I want to understand your background, I guess the whole gay rights during whatever, 80s, 90s, and then before we jump into where we are at moment with pride and the alphabet soup. But I mean, set the scene. What was, for you as someone who's gay, what was that like, kind of fighting and standing up and trying to get those, I guess, freedoms and rights?
Well, it didn't really, it didn't dawn on me at all. When I was living in the countryside, there was one guy in the town who wore orange trousers, and it was always reckoned that he was probably gay. It was the orange trousers that gave it away.So I had quite a few girlfriends back then, but it never felt like, I never felt I connected. And it's I mean, so it was a really cerebral kind of connection. It just didn't work. And then I moved to London, and I hooked up with an American guy. And then we, and then he went back to America, who now lives in Alaska, I think. And then I met Stuart. And I met Stuart in a bar in Earl's Court, it was almost empty. I made the mistake of winking at him. And then he started walking over I remember thinking oh my god he's walking over oh no no no no no no and we were together for 28 years and that was what, and I think what made me more assertive about it was Stuart, he knew he was gay when he was 12, he told me and uh and my affection for Stuart was um, was so strong that I felt it would be really disrespectful to him to deny it, now I did deny it to start with, and you know the old saying, buy now, gay later.I don't know if you've ever heard that, but I think it's funny.Have you not heard that? If you're saying you'll buy, then buy now, gay later.And it's kind of true, I've got to say.And when the band first came out, and I came out, I think to The Sun, I think, and in all fairness to The Sun, they were very, very, very sort of civilized.When did you come out?
When the band first broke. Publicly.Because I knew that I wouldn't be able to lie. I knew that I couldn't make bullshit. I just couldn't.But I had this bizarre idea in my head that if I went down to the local newsagents and bought all the copies of the newspaper, nobody would know.What? Can you honestly believe that? That's what I thought. And I told mum.She cried for about a year.By this time, dad had passed away.And I didn't, I mean, Stuart and I, we lived in Fulham at the time, and we used to walk past Stanford Bridge, the football ground, hand in hand. And Stuart was 17 when we first met.And it never crossed my mind that it was an issue. I couldn't understand for the life of me why anybody would think our, the affection we have for each other was of any concern of anybody else's.I couldn't understand it, actually. It was really surprising to me.Stuart worked for Stonewall, I think, for a very short amount of time.But what was interesting to me, and we'll get on to it at some point about the idea of community, the gay community thing, when Stuart was ill, he was ill on and off for quite a long time, all the people that cared for Stuart, including me, apart from me, were all straight.His carer was straight, his live in helper, the daily helper was straight.We never got one call from any of the gay agencies, none of them.I don't think Stuart got a call even from Stonewall, despite the fact he'd worked there.So I agree with Douglas Murray on this matter. I think that there is no such thing as a gay community.It's just a whole bunch of gay people who think they're in a community.They're not, they're not, and also being gay is not that interesting or special.It just is, it's like talking about the shoe size or it's like talking about your hair colour or whatever, it just simply is. And there are plenty of people out there who have tried to turn it into some kind of brave campaign. And there's no doubt about it, for some people coming out, it does require a certain bravery, it demands a certain self-confidence and a decision in your own head that regardless of the result, the reaction we're going to get, you will stick by what you are.So I wouldn't say, but brave is a bit of a big word, I think, for coming out.I'm not sure that it is that. But unfortunately, we now have LGBTQ blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.And it's become something else. It's morphed into a blancmange of colours and numbers and letters.And it doesn't speak to me, and it doesn't speak to many, many, many gay people.And Douglas Murray talks about, he talks about when you see a low loader lorry at a pride and a bunch of gay disco bunnies all dancing to disco music, thinking that they're significant because they're gay.They're not. They're not. They're just gay. It's really, really simple.And it should be. In fact, I think, in a funny kind of way, the fact that the flag is so important to to some people, tells us that we haven't really moved on at all.What would be interesting to me is that nobody cares. You don't need a flag.You don't need to wave, do a pride march or anything else, because it is what it is.And we accept that in the same way that you don't have an immigrant day, or a black day, or a Jewish day, or whatever. A month, actually.So I would be much happier if the flag was unnecessary, and we just assumed that every bank, and every retail outlet, every corporation was gay friendly whatever the word is but you know tolerant and and unmoved by it you know so in a way I think this is what we're seeing now is a regressive, it's regressive rather than progressive I think back in the day as I said earlier when there was there was a political movement and Section 28 and all that stuff had to be fought.I get that, I really do get that, but we're in a post-liberation moment now.And I've said to Peter Tatchell a couple of times actually, some gay people, some gay men, think that liberation is to do with the amount of sex you have, as opposed to the love that you feel.I think that's a really, for me, that's quite an interesting dichotomy, I think, that gay people measure their liberation by the sex they have, as opposed to being honest about the love they feel.
That's a conversation I've kind of had with most of the people I've known who have been gay in work, in all different areas, and that's kind of the conversation, that they seem to be someone who goes from partner to partner, there's no monogamous relationship and they're happy to, over a few drinks, which I always think is strange to regale their exploits.This is true. But why is that? But yeah, you will you will get that anyway.But it's it seems to be that they never settled down.And it's always this. And is that kind of I've always kind of looked from the outside and thought, that's maybe just the thing that happens in the gay community, which we will touch a little bit.But yeah, tell us more of that.
Well, I think it's, I mean, I'm not against gay sex clubs. I've been to them. I'm not against saunas. I'm not against any of that. But I think the focus, and as I've got older, and now Stuart died 13 years ago, and I still think about him every single day. So what I'm confronted with is, What is that?And now I can't do casual stuff, I'm just not interested in it.Whereas I did back in the day.So I think some gay men are very, how can I say this? I don't want anybody to be offended by this, but I get the feeling a bit disconnected.A bit disconnected from their true feelings and what then their true wants and needs.And some men, in the same way that some men find it difficult, straight men to talk prostate cancer, some gay men find it difficult to talk about love and to talk about genuine affection. And I think that's something that needs addressing, but it might be one of those things that just happens organically over the years. We're actually still in quite a new period now with gayness, if you like, and homosexuality being so readily acceptable by so many people.So it may change over time. But I do think at the moment, I think there's too much of an emphasis on, as you say, the one-night stand and the sex clubs and all that.And I've done all that, and it was deeply unsatisfying.One of the things I do think, I've always thought this, I'm sure straight people think that gay sex is absolutely brilliant.And it really is not.It can be just as crap as straight sex. So let's not get the jealous thing going on.I do get this feeling that they think, some straight guy thought, I wish I was gay, then I could be doing this and that. No, it's not.It can be just as rubbish as anything else. But I think the rainbow thing and the LGBT thing has changed out of all recognition to what I understood it to be when it started.So I've never liked the expression queer. I hate that expression.It's an ugly word. I have nothing in common with trans. I'm not against trans at all.I think people are entirely entitled to live their life as they choose.But it has nothing to do with my life choices and the things that I'm seeking.So that the LGBTQ blah blah blah is a meaningless...It's a clown car, it's nonsense, and the alphabet people doesn't really interest me at all.In fact, I went to a march, well I didn't go to the march, I went to a watch a march back in the day, and it didn't speak to me at all, it just didn't.I looked at these people, it could have been a celebration of ceramics, or anything.I looked at them and thought, is this me? No, it's not, it's not me at all.And I think there are lots of gay people out there, lots of gay guys out there like that.And it's important to remember that lesbians and gay men want very different things, they have different demands, different wishes. And so I'm also very cynical about corporate endorsement. When I see the flag outside Barclays, or the flag outside Couts, or whatever, or the multi-coloured lighting inside a cathedral, come on, don't treat me like an idiot. This is Corporate, cynical, paper-thin support, means nothing.And in a way, if you need to protest that loudly, you've probably got a problem.
I remember going to Heathrow the other week, Walking in through one of the walkways on terminal two, I think it was, and the whole ceiling was lit up with, I thought, why, why, I just, I'm here because I want to flight, and yet, this is, it's pervading every part and it's, you want to flight, would you like a, a gay flight, would you like a trans flight, I'd just like a, a form of transport to get me from A to B.
Exactly. It's become, I mean, there's an estate agent around the corner, and first of all, a few months ago, they had thank the NHS everywhere. Now they've got the flag. It's this kind of knee-jerk reaction to whatever is happening at the time. I think my brother made the point, and I think it's a good point. For some people, the gay flag denotes for them, particularly if they live in more remote areas, it shows a level of support for them.So if there's a little flag in their local post office, it means they can walk in and feel relaxed about it.I understand the importance of the flag in those circumstances.But the corporate thing, I think we need to be very, very cynical about that.And there was a thing the other day, my brother was telling me about Zebra Crossing, which is now painted in the rainbow colours.And some gay activists were complaining that there were rubber marks on the thing, and they were saying, we've got to stamp out this hate.I mean, sorry, you know, you can't get your head around the idiocy of it.And of course, some people thrive on this, some people need a cause, they need to have something.Just simply living their life and looking after their friends and family and getting a job and all that stuff is just not enough. They have to be shouting and screaming about something.
Why is that? Because again with this kind of groupings, identities.And I know when, I remember coming to London 20 years ago, and you would connect with people who would be like-minded on, it could be on religion, it could be on pets, it could be on their workplace.And kind of, for me, my first thought was not to introduce myself as a heterosexual, that that would not, and kind of, in one way you're looking for friendship and therefore you're not kind of thinking, of the sexuality in terms of it.Why is it that kind of, so I perceive it's always pushed to be a grouping that has to be gathered around sex, and that has to be your prime identity, where surely it should just be one of many parts of you.
I agree, I absolutely agree with that. I think the people do, the people, there are some guys, that I used to know, and they would only ever watch gay movies, they'd only ever buy gay books, they'd only ever read a gay newspaper, their whole life was enveloped in the gay world, if you like. So they weren't connecting to the world beyond. And me being gay is the smallest part of me, really, actually. I mean, it's a very small... When I was with Stuart, it's a much bigger part of me, because that was part of my life. But now Stuart's gone, it's retreated in a way, and it's still... It's an important part of me, but it's not the most important part of me. And I agree with you. If I was meeting people, I would not introduce myself, hello, my name's Richard Fairbrass, I'm a gay man and I'm a singer, you know. I wouldn't do that.
So it's, the thing is, if you look at the, I mean, there's a thing in the picture of the White House with, you've seen the flags, you know, and there is something weird going on. There's definitely something weird going on. I don't know what it is. I think the gay, the LGBT flag thing has been co-opted by a whole lot of people who truly don't really give a crap about gay liberation or rights or anything, they're using it as a way of salving their conscience or polishing their halo.Douglas Murray thinks it's because, I'm not sure he's right about this, but he says after 2008, when all the banks absolutely screwed the world economy, the cheapest thing for them to do, to polish their credentials, was to come out as pro-gay. So whether that's true or not, I don't know. I met Stuart, in fact going back to the thing about the gay support groups and stuff, when I first came to London.The first thing I did actually was find, it was called Icebreakers, I think it was called.And it was just a small group of gay people in London that you could go along on one evening a week and get a level of support.Now, I'd come up to London from Sussex, and I didn't have any knowledge about this.I knew that I was probably gay, but I didn't really know how to express that or what it meant.So I went to this thing, and then that's when I met the American guy, and then he went back to America, and then I met Stuart. So that's how that worked out. But back in the day,and of course, we had the whole Section 28 and the whole AIDS thing back then, which changed the flavour of it a lot. Some of the British press were absolutely horrendous. The gay plague, it became, and it didn't help at all, particularly living with somebody who was positive. Stuart was positive nearly all the time we were together and it was incredibly hurtful that you know the don't die of ignorance and the you know the gravestone falling over and sadly we didn't have any politician, Lady Di performed an extraordinary you know positive had a positive image on the whole thing but sadly politicians were horrible and they are now actually I mean the House of Commons now is exactly the same it's compliant it's overall they're one or members obviously speaking out but overall it's compliant, it's weak, it's showing no leadership, it doesn't seem to have a moral compass and it is trashing rights and freedoms that previous generations in this country have fought for really hard and they're just paying it no heed at all.I don't think it's changed much. I think the gay thing is just one issue amongst many that have shown some people up to be less than we hoped. And I would say also, if you imagine when that idiot Springsteen was saying, you can only come to my show if you've been jabbed. Imagine him saying that in 1982, you can only come to my gig if you're HIV negative. We wouldn't tolerate it. Nobody would tolerate it. But for some inexplicable reason, we are tolerating it now. I don't understand.
Tell me about how you see the change happening in where we are now in the whole alphabet soup from gay rights.Was it because people thought actually now there was the same legal rights and protections for the gay community, so it's simply moving on?I mean, surely if you're working for something and you complete it, then you shut up shop.How did, how has that moved over into that? And why did it just not finish off and go on to, I don't know, the right for pets or something? I don't know.
Oh, I think I think a lot of it is to do with people who, as I said earlier, who absolutely need to have a crusade of one kind or another.So in the early days, it was, you know, LGB, then it became LGBT, then it became, you know, it just moves on. And there's a whole group of people within whether it was back in the day, the pink newspaper or or whatever it happens to be, there's there's a group of people whose lives have been defined by the position they've taken. And they won't, they don't want to let it go. You can't, in a way you can't blame them. So when there's, and suddenly there's a trans issue, Oh, we'll stick that in as well. That'll keep us going.Um, and I think that's truthfully, I think that's all it is. I mean, the trans trans rights issue. I, one of the questions I've, my brother and I ask all the time when they talk about trans rights, what rights do they not have? That's what I don't understand. They're not, you know, I wish somebody would tell me I can't do this or I can't do that. I wish somebody would would tell me what rights they don't have, but I have, but we went through a very difficult time when I was with Stuart at the time, and you tend to forget, he worked at BT and was sacked because nobody would touch his computer.We knew people in aerobics classes who wouldn't share mats with anybody else. It was a very, very, very weird time, and I had fag scratched on my car and I was spat out in the street and all that kind of stuff, you know, and it is infinitely better now. I mean, really, the difference is huge. But where it goes,I would hope that the movement, the LGBT blah, blah, blah, would kind of just fizzle out. And like I said earlier, I would be much happier if we just didn't need it, because people were already fully on board with the rights that other people have to lead their lives as they choose.So in a way, the flag and our obsession with the flag and our obsession with these communities such as they are, or whatever, is a sign that we haven't moved on, and in a way you could claim that we're actually going in the wrong direction.Is a straight person likely to be persuaded to be tolerant because they see a disco bunny on the back of a lorry?Personally, I don't think so. I think a lot of this, and it sounds really old-fashioned, but I think it's how you lead your life.And I think if you lead, you have to lead your life as you would other people, as you would wish other people to lead it.And the best way to encourage people to be tolerant and to try and understand it is to be gay or to be whatever you want to be and lead your life in a constructive and tolerant manner, which is why trans movement people shouting and screaming at the top of their voices and gluing themselves to whatever, they want to stop all oil people.That's never going to do it.It's never, ever, ever going to do it. You're going to have to lead by example.That's what you have to do. But sadly, we have a house of commons, which is empty of people capable of leading by example.Tell me about, because we've seen what's happening with another lobby organization, BLM, and how the finance for that seems to be fancy-driven.And then kind of looking into Stonewall and seeing the money that is raised from simply government departments signing up and schools signing up.It seems to have moved away from an issue of rights to simply an ability to generate money and airtime and noise.Is that a fair assessment?
I think it is. Also, I think it's like the SNP. I think it's symptomatic of people who fail to understand the old saying, they know the price of everything but the value of nothing.It's that. And like I said earlier, in terms of the BLM or whatever it is.There was bucket loads of money coming in, and you had some people in that grouping who were impressed by money.They weren't impressed by the campaign or the efforts they were making to achieve more equitable race relations in America, say.Suddenly there's a million pounds in the bank. It's like, oh, wow, this is the way to go.This is brilliant. I'll buy a house.You know, and that's, it's people just, in the same way I'd go back to it.But but the reason so many artists were so quiet during this whole two years, three years, whatever it is, is because of money.They were either paid to come across and flog the jab, which they knew nothing about, or they were quiet because they wanted to make a few quid and do some gigs.That's and that's it's the same old stuff, you know, and I haven't, I don't have any time for it.I don't have any respect for those people. So I've had to take a whole load of acts out of my iPod, sadly.I just can't listen to that stuff.
The whole trans stuff. And I now see a backlash.LGB Alliance, for instance, then standing up against this. And whenever the LG certainly movement was about understanding who you are, and then choosing that, where the T seems to be, well, you can decide over breakfast what you want to be, and you can bet, and that seems to take away from any rights that have been forced, if someone can pick and choose so easily at whim.That T, which seems to be, I would even use the term cancerous, the damage that it seems to have caused, that aggression, and you see trans lobbyists just beating up gay right activists or lesbians, and I think this is bonkers.
It is, it is, I know. I think the trouble is that the original idea of LGB... LGB kind of made sense. And now, because so much stuff has been tacked on, we're being forced to look at it afresh and decide, actually, what is this grouping of people?How real is it? And I don't think back in the day when there was a political campaign to work and to get some satisfaction on Section 28 and all that stuff, I don't think it mattered too much.I think everybody was too busy with that campaign.And now the campaign's over, and so much so that gay men can get married, gay men can, I mean, all those rights are all there now. But some people still need to fight for something.They always do, and tacking the T on, and then tacking the Q on, and all that kind of stuff.It's just a way of keeping this-
And the two spirit, don't forget about that.That is vital.
Yeah, I know, I know. It's just, I mean, to be honest with you, the minute I see that, when I get to Q, I can't be bothered anymore.I just can't, I don't care, I don't care who all those people are.I don't, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And I think, I remember with Stuart on a couple of occasions, I'm remember saying to Stuart, I said, if you're in love with somebody, being gay is as fantastic and as amazing as being straight and being in love with somebody, there is no difference.I would have taken a bullet for Stuart, absolutely. I was never in any doubt about that.And that is what it is. And in a way, it's trivialized by this weird kind of faux politicking.Even the expression gay pride is nonsensical.You can't take pride in your shoe size. You can't take pride in your hair colour or anything else.You take pride in what you've achieved. you haven't achieved being gay, you just are.So pride in itself is a nonsense. It's linguistic rubbish. And I don't have any time for rubbish. Life's too short.
It was said, I think Jordan Peterson put up an image of Satan falling from heaven, and it was, pride comes before a fall.And it's weird, because as a Christian, that's how I see it. Pride being something negative, being one of the seven deadly sins, and now its celebrated. I was scratching my head, thinking, how did we get here?
Yeah, exactly. No, I've never, I mean, I understand a no shame day.I get that. There's nothing shameful about being gay, but being proud of it, I mean, if you make a little cabinet out of wood, then you'll really, you'll be proud of it.This is, I've made this. This is great, you know, but being proud of being me, just what I am, I just, I'm proud of the records. I'm proud of song writing, things we've achieved, but not simply stuff that I'm, that I've genetically been given.It doesn't, that I'd had nothing to do with.That doesn't seem to be sensible to me. It's interesting you should say that.Andrew Lawrence was saying the other day that Pride Month is very greedy, because it's a whole month.It's really greedy, isn't it? So you've got greed, then you've got pride, as you say, two of the deadly sins right in there.It's, I don't know, it just never, the 2 million, I mean, on Armistice Day, what do they do, get three minutes?And we get a month, really? You know, it's nonsense.It's a complete and utter, it's tokenistic politicking of the most crass kind.I just don't have anything to do with it. If anything, we should have a month of remembrance for the guys who sacrificed their lives in the First and Second World War, or whatever.And a three-minute silence for pride. Pride three minutes or no shame three minutes, whatever you want to call it. But a month, come on, it's self-aggrandizement of the most awful kind. I just don't get it.
What are your... you mentioned Stonewall and you mentioned Stuart who worked for them back in the days and how do you,My big issue with Stonewall and maybe similar organizations is the push to bring something which I don't think should be brought into schools. I think there's one thing having a public conversation and having that out, but when you bring something in schools, especially with little parental engagement and conversation, it seems to cross a line.I mean, what? Yeah, because when you go into most schools, you see the rainbow up for this month, and you think, is that really part of what education is about?
No, no, it's what propaganda is about.It's nothing to do with education.The other thing, the two things I think, that first of all, there's a kind of a reluctance to believe in innocence, which I think children have.And I don't think it's adults' job or business to try and corrupt that at all.I think we should allow kids to be as innocent for as long as possible.Adult life is absolutely hellish. Who wants to encourage them to become an adult any sooner than they have to.And the other thing I think is that this MAPS thing, which I've seen conflated with the LGBT thing, is really, really, really disgraceful.It certainly doesn't do the gay movement, whatever you want to call it, any favours.It speaks to a kind of perversion and ignorance. The power relationship between children and adults is a reality.And when adults deceive themselves into thinking that it's possible for a child to love an adult or an adult to love a child, it's complete and utter nonsense.It's also disrespectful. And also the journey that I made from being a child, working my way through to knowing who I am was my journey.That's my journey. I don't want anybody else to take it away from me.I don't want some twerking idiot in my primary school when I was a kid taking away my journey.It's mine. I think in a funny kind of way we're stealing something from people to find their own route. And once again, it's reminiscent of the fat jab that we're now looking at with the NHS. It's removing from people any sense of self-reliance, any sense of self-responsibility. Let the state do it. I'm going to have 12 burgers tonight because tomorrow I'm getting a jab. You know, it's nonsense. The whole thing is nonsense and, under a so-called conservative government it's quite bizarre. But I agree with you. I thinkthe school thing is very worrying. If I had kids I would probably do home-schooling or I'd find and a school set up outside of the main curriculum where there was more parental control.Not control necessarily, but information, more understanding.And we know a charity on the South Coast, HOPE, H-O-P-E, and their thing is about teaching in a much more holistic way and not propagandizing the whole time.And they are snowed under with interest from parents. So there is a market for this.And as we saw with Mulvaney, and as we saw with Target, and all these other, you know, there is a pushback against this nonsense gradually.What I don't understand is, as somebody quite rightly pointed out, when it comes to people talking, you know, the drag queens talking to children, why don't they read stories to elderly people?
Yeah.That's true.
I wonder why. Yeah. Yeah, it's worrying, I think.
Just to finish off on, can I, you talked about it fizzling out what we've seen with the many letters of the alphabet. That couldhappen. My other concern is that it will build up a lot of anger with many people who say this isn't right and depending on how as more and more letters get added onto it, and you obviously talk about minor attracted person and that, and people will get more and more angry and it could flare up and I'm kind ofhoping that it does fizzle out but my concern is that actually it keeps ramping up and you have an overspill of anger against it.
Yes I think that's trueI think it's also very damaging, some of this is very damaging to the efforts that gay homosexual people have to live a normal life. It's politicizing what shouldn't be politicized in the first place.
I would like it, like you, I would like it to fizzle out. I don't know whether I agree with you about it getting ramped up.I honestly don't know about that. But what I do think is that we have in this country at the moment some incredibly stupid politicians who do not understand.
Some?
Who do not understand the importance of culture and tribe and all that stuff.And having the importance of a moral compass, the importance of understanding what's changing in this country and how to manage it, they're just letting it rip.So I think schooling is a really big issue with the gay community.I think gay people need to think long and hard about what they actually want.What do we actually want? Do we want to be pantomime dames?Do we want to be on the back of a lorry with a feather boa, shouting and screaming at people who are just taking cameras and stuff? It's all terribly funny.Do we really want to be, I think Missouri in America with a guy with his trousers around his back, having his backside whipped by somebody, I mean, it's absurd.It's absurd. So we need to, frankly, we need to grow up.That's why I think it needs to happen. I think just if you want to put it in blatant sort of silly, a very sort of pithy expression. We need to grow up. We need to see that all that stuff is fine.It's absolutely fine. But it's not what we are. It's not the whole. It's by no means the whole story. It's one tiny part of the whole story. I've got two friends married, two guys married up in the north country and they've got a B&B and they run their lives and they're just two guys.They don't saunter down the road like Sam Smith in stilettos and sparkling knickers and all that stuff. They're just two blokes. And I think we need to grow up and stop being quite so impressed with ourselves, you know?Richard, thanks for coming on. It's insightful, certainly from my point of view, to have your thoughts on what we're seeing.So thank you for coming on and sharing your thoughts on The Madness of Pride.
Thank you. Thanks Peter.
I'm just saying what you provided one of the most surreal moments, certainly of this year, maybe longer.And that was with you, with Nigel Farage on GB News, Nigel beginning to take his shirt off, dancing to I'm Too Sexy.That probably was one of the most surreal images of the year.So thank you for providing that.
Nigel's good, he's got a good sense of humour, Nigel. I like him.
Wonderful.So the viewers can make sure go to rightsaidfred.com, take advantage of all the merchandise that you see there.And what Plastichead have done is phenomenal. And you'll not be short of anything.And maybe Richard and Fred will get some of those, the B roll stuff that they have hidden away that they did. Maybe that'll come out later as special.But thank you, Richard, for your time.
It's a pleasure, Peter.