Raheem J. Kassam Discusses How Left Wing & Right Wing Political Extremism Would Play Out In America
Raheem Kassam is a British political commentator and author who has made a name for himself in the UK as a vocal supporter of conservative and nationalist causes. He is best known for his work as a chief advisor to Nigel Farage, the former leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), and for his commentary on politics and national security issues.
Kassam's political career began in earnest in 2009, when he became an advisor to Farage, the then-leader of UKIP. In this role, he helped Farage to shape the party's message and strategy, and played a key role in the campaign that led to the UK's vote to leave the European Union in 2016. After the referendum, Kassam continued to work with Farage, serving as his chief advisor until 2018.
In addition to his work with Farage, Kassam has also established himself as a prominent commentator on politics and national security issues. He has written for various publications including The Daily Caller, Breitbart News, and The National Interest, and has been a frequent guest on news programs and talk shows. Kassam is known for his strong views on immigration, national identity, and the need for Western nations to defend their values and cultures.
Kassam has also authored several books, including "No Go Zones: How Sharia Law Is Coming to a Neighborhood Near You" and "Enemy of the State: The Rise and Fall of Nigel Farage."
Despite his controversial views, Kassam has a loyal following and continues to be a prominent figure in the UK's political landscape. He has become a well-known face in the conservative and nationalistic spheres, and his work and ideas continue to be widely discussed and debated.
In summary, Raheem Kassam is a British political commentator and author known for his work as a chief advisor to Nigel Farage and his commentary on politics and national security issues. He has written several books and been a guest on various news programs and talk shows. Despite his controversial views, he continues to be a prominent figure in the UK's political landscape.
This one American podcast live with Raheem Jake Assam.
Raheem, it's an honor and pleasure to have you back, dude.
How are you?
I'm well.
You know, I've noticed that you know since the last time I was on, there's all this new production value in all of this now.
And uh I can't help but think like maybe I was the the spark there.
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, absolutely.
You've been a serious inspiration.
You know, after I had Bannon on, I hit like a roadblock because it was sort of like, who the fuck am I supposed to have on now?
Where do you go from there?
Right, right.
And so I was like, I started this podcast 18 months ago, and I sort of like worked my way up in terms of like guest league.
And yeah, when I had Bannon, I was like, oh, now I can't have just like Joe Schmo on.
Of course, I I've had other great names like you, and I've had Stone on, and um, next week I'm gonna have Kyle Rittenhouse on, which I'm excited about.
Um, but I thought, man, maybe I'm getting to a point now where I need to like ramp it up a little bit and try to increase the uh production quality.
So that's what I've been trying to do.
Well, the irony of all of that is is Steve would say to you, you should absolutely have Joe Schmo on after Steve, you know, that he regards you on, you know, Joe Show is higher in the pecking order than him.
Yeah, that's right.
And uh that's that's such a good point.
In fact, I even made um I made like a meme where I took uh Rockwell's famous painting of uh freedom of speech, which famously sort of depicts Abraham Lincoln at a town hall meeting with a Carhart kind of jacket on and just sort of standing up speaking as is expressing himself.
And I ran it through a reface app and I put Steve Bannett's face over it, so it's the same exact painting.
It just looks like it was Steve Bannon that was painted instead of Abraham Lincoln.
And you know, I think that lines up with Bannon's sort of MO.
Like he's he dresses like a blue-collar man, he wears the working class clothes, and he he speaks the working class language.
And it is true that in a populist movement, the working class, the people class is the real hero.
It's not it's not really the um uh I don't know, the political elite, so to speak.
That's that's the real top G, right?
Yeah, yeah.
It's not Andrew Tate.
No, the real top G is the ordinary working class man and woman across the Western world.
That's a fact.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Unfortunately, it seems like everything is being done to shrink that entire sort of class of people.
Um but the more that you shrink the working class, I suppose the this the smaller the wealth the wealthy class becomes, and the greater the sort of poor class becomes.
And so by shrinking the middle class, they're actually sort of empowering a populist movement, I think, because they're creating a greater number of people who are different disenfranchised with the system.
Yeah, I think that's right.
I think that's right.
So, what are we gonna do today?
Well, what do you want to talk about?
Man, I I saw your clip with um uh on the Jenna Ellis show about uh how nobody knows who the hell ran Joe Biden's campaign.
But I thought that was really fascinating because it hadn't occurred to me at all before.
It was such a good point.
Um, and I didn't see the entire context, I just saw the clip that you posted.
So, who the hell did run Joe Biden's campaign?
So, so this is such a critical point.
And by the way, this is why I get paid the medium bucks, because I I notice things like this.
Um I'm so embarrassed that it didn't stand out to to me sooner.
But um, here's here's the thing.
You go back through all of recent American electoral history, and with every victor, even with a lot of the losers, you know the people who ran their campaigns.
They go around and they do conferences and TED talks, and um, you know, go and run foreign campaigns for other foreign leaders around the world.
Specifically, what stands out in my mind is the uh Obama campaign with uh Jim Messener, David Axelrod, uh, because they you know, Messena then went over to the United Kingdom and and found work with David Cameron's conservative party, believe it or not.
Um, but but you know, you know these names, they are in fact household names, people who run campaigns for a living.
Rahm Emanuel, Dick Morris, uh, you know, I'm just reading from a list in front of me here of very famous ones in in yeah, yeah, uh, you know, uh Roger Stone, um Steve Bannon, or you know, David Pluff, all of that.
Um you even know the the losers from Hillary's campaign, um, Ben Rhodes and so on and so forth.
But but we're now several years later, after Joe Biden is supposed to have done something ridiculously extraordinary, which is the single most number of votes in American political history.
And guess what?
Nobody's giving TED talks, nobody's getting hired by foreign leaders to run their parties and their campaigns.
Nobody's on the front page of Time magazine being lauded as you know, the great, you know, Svengali of this political era.
And as far as I'm concerned, that's the biggest tell that we have now.
We know all of the previous ones.
We've been over the data, we've seen the reports, we you know, we've gone through all the zuck bucks and the spending and the machines and all of that.
But if you're looking for a contemporaneous tell, it's the silence, it's the vacuum.
The the these jobs are incredibly hard to get.
The number of sheer number of people that pitch for those top campaign strategist jobs, they are also extremely extremely lucrative jobs.
And they're not losing jobs necessarily while you're doing them, but they're lucrative jobs in the long run.
People, as I say, they take that experience, they take the trophy, and then they tour the world.
They they live for the rest of their lives on on the basis that they got somebody elected to the highest office in the world, and yet we have nobody from Biden World, Biden campaign, uh PAC, you name it, that is out there doing that.
So, what is it, you know, what does that raise?
Well, the obvious question is who ran the campaign?
Who was in charge of the campaign?
Who was who was ticking off, you know, every day?
Here's where we need to be, here's what we need to do, here's what we need to say, here's what he should know.
Here's who wrote the you know, who writes the teleprompter, here's who gives him the briefings, you know, all of that stuff, and it's crickets, it's stone cold silence.
That leads one to realize that it wasn't any one person, it wasn't any one consulting group.
It wasn't any type of uh, you know, uh long-term strategic, you know, political advice uh shop, either in DC or New York or wherever the heck they might be based nowadays, Delaware in a garage, perhaps.
Um, it was it was the state apparatus.
It was it was the regime, it was the prevailing powers that be that got Biden over the line.
And and and I'm sure you harbor as many suspicions, if not more, uh, that I that as I do, that he really did get over certain lines, but isn't that all extremely interesting?
I think so.
And you know, what immediately comes to mind is I've been carefully studying recently uh the master class that Carl Rove and Axelrod did together on masterclass.com.
So they did a great they did a great sort of class together, which was sort of magical because of course they're from opposite sides of the political spectrum and they worked together.
No, they're not okay.
No, they're not.
Okay, okay.
On on the face, right?
They're from on the face, they're from opposite sides of the political spectrum, regardless of whether they're part of the uniparty.
So but but you know, they came together and they did this class about the history of campaigns and the work that they did.
And basically it's like a campaigns for idiots type class where they're like, this is how you win a campaign.
And all the examples that they used, of course, were sort of through the 2008 election of Barack Obama.
Uh, but it it sort of ends there.
And I know that their careers in terms of campaign management directly kind of end there, but it seems like we've crossed a threshold into a different era where there was a way, there was a real competition that was semi-fair, and there was a way to do it in a way that was sophisticated and would achieve desired outcomes.
And then now we're like in this major sort of purgatory of elections or gray area where there's nobody around anymore that knows how to win anymore, and there's nobody around anymore that's even sure how the last one was won anymore.
There it's just it, like I said, it's a it's a major unknown.
Yeah, so and also the other thing to bear in mind here is let's say there was somebody, right?
Let's say there was this this uh genius pulling at the strings of the Biden campaign that that you know really did get you know that that many votes.
Um if they were to stand in front of an audience anywhere, the first question that they would necessarily be asked is well, how did you do it given the fact that your candidate rarely left his house, you know, his basement.
Um, and and when he did, had about eight to twelve people in in the rally audiences.
There didn't seem to be any uh energy out there.
There wasn't any, you know, and and somebody's not going to want to answer that question for obvious reasons.
Right.
So it either way, you still end up in the same place.
And I realize that I'm kind of re-litigating some of the things that we all got tired of over the last couple of years, um, especially for a long time on Trump's social feed.
Um, but this is a this is a new way of coming at it and a new way of thinking about it that I think you're going to want to tell your friends, your family, your neighbors, your co-workers about.
You're gonna want to just ask them that question because there are so many people that I find out there right now who are skeptical on the fence, but have yet been con you know, yet to be convinced.
This is convincing.
This is a thing where people will go, yeah, you know what?
Like that's weird.
Yeah.
Well, people are very reluctant in the conservative space, and I've been fortunate enough to develop friendships with with some conservative influencers over the time that I've been doing this podcast.
And so, in confidence, you know, they'll they'll express to me disappointments that they may have had in Trump that they wouldn't really espouse on social media, just they don't want to lose followers or whatever.
And one of the criticisms that I've heard was actually from Jack Maxey when he was on my podcast.
And he said it live.
He was basically like, look, he was president when all of this election stuff happened.
I'm trying to be careful how I use my words because I don't want the stream to get cut from YouTube, but if it does, no no bother.
But but he's like, he was president the whole time that this happened.
It's in my opinion, it's his fault that you know that it happened.
So, what are your thoughts regarding the criticism of Trump that he should have done more to prevent the questionable outcomes or the doubts um that have come to be regarding our election integrity while he was in office?
Did he drop the ball?
Well, so this is probably the single largest problem that I have with Trump as as as as a as a commander-in-chief, right, in that role.
The this the thing that I keep coming back to in my mind.
I know a lot of people talk about you know, personnel, personnel.
They're right to talk about it, but again, we've we've we flogged that horse now.
Um, but it but it comes down to this.
He he campaigned on running the country in the way he's run his businesses.
And I've seen first hand, in person, live, the way he runs his businesses.
He he is meticulous about them.
He walks around his properties, and if the trim on the tablecloth is too long, he calls somebody over and says, fix that, somebody could trip over.
If the food is bad, he's the first to complain about it.
If the service is too slow, you know, he makes sure that people, you know, that the service staff understand, and he's very good at it, he's very charming about it, but that they understand, hey, you know, people are waiting, we need to hustle this a little bit, you know, blah, blah, blah.
Detail uh oriented man in in all of those senses in and of his businesses.
But but in office, it was like he delegated all of the the detail out to people who you know promised to have his best interests at heart, but very rarely did.
And I still can't get over, and we can talk about who he chose and if there are better people, sure.
I think again, we've we've flogged that horse so many times that it's kind of self-evident.
Sure.
But I think one of the things that Trump needs to be made aware of is that people really need him next time around, if there is a next time around, um, to bring his detail-oriented focus into those things, the especially when it comes to things like election integrity.
You you cannot hand it over to the RNC lawyers, right?
You can't hand it over to Harmete Dylan.
You certainly can't hand it over to Ronald McDaniel.
Um, and you can't hand it over to Republicans in the House to deal with these things.
You, as president, Mr. Trump are going to have to look at these things yourself in agonizing detail.
You know, and this goes down to where the money is going, uh, how different uh counties, especially the major Sweden counties around the country are managing their elections, who personnel-wise is in charge of those.
You have to look at all of those yourself, I'm afraid.
And hey, that's not the job of the commander-in-chief, you might scream.
Well, guess what?
It is now.
I should do that in a Biden way.
It is now.
So are you going to support Trump in the primary?
Have you decided?
Uh, it doesn't matter.
Um, I am not an American citizen.
I will have no vote, um, and I don't tend to make endorsements like that.
Um, what we have done is immediately after the um launch, uh, his launch uh that I was at in Mar-a-Lago, uh, we published uh uh an editorial on the National Pulse that said, yes, you know, if if if what he talks about is how he intends to run and how he intends to govern, then yes, it all makes perfect sense.
Uh the problem again is is is in the doing, and he will have to show competence on the campaign trail about about the doing.
He will also have to stop talking about the success of the vaccines.
That that is just that is just you know, taking uh an oozy and aiming it at his own foot and holding down the trigger as long as he possibly can.
That's what he's doing with that every single time.
And every single time he does it, he loses people, he loses swathes of people.
How do I know?
Because every time he does it, my phone doesn't stop dinging.
Of people going, right, you know, I was willing to put up with it for 430 times, you know, but the 431st time is too much for me.
I get it, I understand that.
Um, I I have long said that that this party needs a primary, uh, a rough primary, because it trains everyone up and it hones everyone's arguments and it brings everybody to their to their A game and keeps them on the on their toes.
Um I look, there are some people who go, Oh, you know, DeSantis gonna wipe the floor with him, especially on the vaccines.
Well, yeah, maybe on that issue, he'll have a slight advantage.
People uh do forget about early DeSantis during the pandemic as well.
And credit to DeSantis, he did a course correction way sooner than everyone else.
And he did a he did more than a course correction, right?
He he realized and he governed, like actually, all these things were bad on the face of it, and and to address them as bad on the face of it.
But there are a lot more issues than just that.
It's a big one, don't get me wrong, but there are a lot of other issues than just that.
And and Trump, people forget, they really forget that when he starts swinging, he rarely stops.
Right.
Right.
Well, everyone's seen the famous uh meme of the CNN logo over the wrestler where he just pound he was at like a WWE event, right?
And that's really how he is politically.
That's why it was so funny, I think.
But why do you suppose it is that he keeps pushing the uh the vaccine success in terms of uh Operation Warp Speed and bragging about it, even though it's it's very obvious that his constituents have a lot of reservations to say the least about it.
By the way, if you see me looking this way and frowning, it's because the team I needed to lose this football match, soccer match, um, has just scored two goals in the space of a minute, and I'm very angry about it.
Um the the Trump is very he's starved of um gratitude.
He only ever really reads negative things about himself or sees negative things about himself.
Um, in this instance, especially on warp speed, he did exactly what the apparatus, the regime told him to do, and he thought and he internalized and has not managed to externalize that as a result of doing everything he was told were the were the right things,
the morally correct things, the safe things to do, that he would end up getting the the plaudits, the plaudits from CNN, the plaudits from the New York Times, the political and and people watching this might say, Oh, you know, but why does he still think he needs all of that?
He's always thought he needs all of that.
He He he was a celebrity in New York all of his life.
He used to personally call up magazines, pretending to be his own publicist to correct the record in his favor.
He would do things specifically, most things that he did publicly, charitably, all of that, specifically with the public relations element to him.
So he is he has been and he remains unable to leap that hurdle in his brain of why didn't I get any thanks for this?
Right.
Um so there's that part of it.
The other part of it is it was basically the only time, and this was this should have been a red flag to him, but it was basically the only time in his administration that everything seemed to work, that everyone was sort of coming together, pulling in the same direction, whether it was the politics, the penses, all of that, but also the people, you know, in it at a departmental level, all sort of pulling in the same direction.
Now, again, you you and I know and the audience will know that that is a is a massive red flag.
But for a businessman like him, you know, it's it's I love it when a plan comes together.
It's oh my gosh, like you know, this this works seamlessly.
Um, the other part of it is that we have to address, and we have to talk about here is are his are his team, you know, the people around him actually even showing him the negative effects of this, and does he want to see it?
Does he want to address the fact that there are a lot of I mean, we again so many of us warned for so long about this experiment, the experimental nature of all of this, the side effects, the curious nature of the fact that these pharmaceutical giants were also buying up um heart uh focused companies at the same time.
Um but does he want to see that?
And uh, you know, whether it's whether he's not being shown or he doesn't want to see it himself, that there's still something amiss there.
That's one of the main reasons why I so adamantly want Trump to come back to Twitter, because where he is now on true social, he's not seeing any antagonism.
And that was honestly what was the most entertaining about Trump was seeing him quote tweet a lefty and just saying the most hilarious insult back, you know, that was quite fitting and relevant to whatever criticism they had.
And you know, if he comes back to Twitter, I think he's gonna see what his own constituents think in a much greater magnitude than he is on on Truth Social.
And I've heard rumors from yesterday, I believe, that he was coming back.
Do you know anything about that?
I don't, actually, to be honest, I I I haven't, you know, I've been swamped this week with stuff on our side, and I haven't made the the relevant um inquiries.
I I I should and I will, uh, but I don't have anything unique to to relate to you on that.
What I will say is I I said for for you know, almost immediately after they banned him, I said the biggest problem about this isn't that we don't get to hear from him, it's that he doesn't get to hear from us.
That that was the you know, Twitter was the feedback mechanism that he would use to figure out, you know, like a populist, whether he was on the right side on an issue or not.
Um he he would study it intently, the replies, the likes, the retweets, what people were saying and the quote tweets, all of that.
He was he was rightly obsessed with it as a mechanism by which to understand where people's hearts um laid on any given issue.
Um so that was the bigger problem.
It it's it's not it's not that we couldn't hear from Trump.
It's it's that Trump couldn't hear from us.
So given the highly questionable, right?
Me specifically, right?
No, the audience, I mean, of course, you know, you know, people like you and I might get our views over to him and his team from time to time.
But what is the order how you know, how does the ordinary person um communicate?
And and you know, maybe maybe the ordinary person hasn't been used to committing communicating with their commander-in-chief for a very long time.
But don't forget, I mean, there's that famous picture, I think it's of JFK, you know, knocking doors in West Virginia and talking face to face um with voters.
That's what Trump was doing every day on a on a gargantuan scale on Twitter.
Yeah, absolutely.
So given the Highly questionable status of our elections in the United States.
How does this manifest or play out in 2024?
I mean, is it even possible for someone like Trump or any Republican for that matter to win an election in the hypothetical case that the elections are less than uh genuine?
I mean, that really depends on how much they're willing to bend the knee to the regime.
At this point in time, I am of the belief that the regime will do everything in its power to decide the outcome.
Um, and you know, it's not it's not new.
That's not a new thing.
That it was especially galling in 2020, certainly.
But you can go back decades and decades and find the the prevailing establishment putting its shoulders to the wheel on elections in all manner of ways.
There are certainly enough books about the 2000 election, and I know a lot of people think back to the 2000 election.
And what are the first two words you think of?
Hanging chads.
Oh, uh hanging chads, yeah, of course.
Hanging chads.
But it's not, it wasn't the hanging chads.
That's what people forget.
It wasn't the hanging chads.
It was actually the way the machines were reading the votes back then that helped the Republicans.
And it was Republicans who had investments in the companies that provided the machines to the counties.
Look at Florida as an example of that and how that took place and the differential between uh black dominated counties and white dominated counties and how the machines were counting the votes.
This isn't new.
The only thing here that's new is it's corporate America has flipped uh almost in its total entirety to being left globalist, um, you know, use whatever pejorative uh you want, and therefore Republicans no longer have either the institutional knowledge of how to do that anymore, how to cheat, because both sides have cheat, you know, have cheated in the past, they've lost that institutional knowledge, and they've lost the institutions themselves.
Yeah.
Well, you know, it's one of the things that's been fascinating to me, just sort of perceiving what's been happening this past year, specifically with the private acquisition of Twitter, is considering the difference between a publicly traded company and a private company.
And what I mean to say is if you look at the example of Steve Jobs' famous ousting from Apple in the 1980s by the board, you have this situation in which once a company goes public, everything changes, right?
And you have a sudden you have a board of directors that's calling shots rather than a CEO, and the board of director directors is particularly sensitive to investors and therefore particularly sensitive to PR in press.
And we saw this with Apple.
We saw this with Facebook and what happened with uh with Zuckerberg, where the platform was absolutely amazing until about 2012 and proceeded to sort of get worse.
And then by the time the uh Cambridge Analytica scandal happened in 2016, they basically just bent the knee to censorship and shut down any sort of right-wing political discourse on their platforms as a result of this PR nightmare.
And like you said, these companies that are publicly traded, they seem to be going more and more left-wing.
And I think that's an outcome of the leftists among us really having a monopoly over corporate press, the traditional legacy mainstream media outlets.
And that might be the strongest point of uh of media, not so much the brainwashing of the people with lies, but the ability to seriously impact the decisions that major company board of directors make by manipulating the the value of these companies or the perceived value and in tanking the stock of Tesla or taking the stock of Facebook when something goes goes wrong.
And so, what do you think about that dynamic in terms of like how these why these publicly traded companies are going more and more left and what that means down the road for company culture or just culture in general, um, as well as the how whether or not mainstream media will always sort of have that grip, regardless of how irrelevant it becomes in the in the eyes of uh the American people.
And they just scored another goal, so I'm fuming.
But I I don't I don't I mean, this is really happening, and I'm really angry about it.
But um I uh I don't necessarily think that it's you know that this is the way it's gonna be forever.
It only took 20 years really for the left.
Um there was a lot of legwork, prior legwork that went into it, and your experts on on uh Gramsci and and all of that and Adorno will tell you about the long march through the institutions.
And it took them a lot of legwork, certainly decades of legwork uh from the 50s and 60s onwards to get to the situation.
But but once they were at the door it only took them about you know it was less than 20 years, let's face it.
Uh but but 20 years to get to a point where they could they could you know claim this this gargantuan victory electoral victory which totally against the run of play like that goal was and and nobody would say you were goose and I I so I don't believe that these are the things that the the that will be the you know the way they are forever.
The question you asked, though, was why, right?
Why these companies, these corporates keep doing what they're doing?
Well, it's because the left tells them, right?
For a long time, we operated on the basis that, oh, well, you know, if a company sees this man dressing up as a woman and gyrating in front of children, naturally, they're going to put the kibosh on that, fire that individual, not have that on the premises.
Of course, it's only morally correct.
And then we're stunned when it doesn't happen, because all the while, the left are just whispering in their ears, no, that's fine.
No, that's normal.
And if you don't go along with this, you're a bigot.
And we're going to boycott your company.
We're going to show up outside your gates.
And we're going to harass your board members.
We're going to harass your customers.
And like all of that, the left bothers to show up.
And the left bothers to show up because I was thinking about this a couple of days ago.
If you could stand in front of every single member of Congress, Democrat and Republican, and say to them, look, there are absolutely no consequences if you put your hand up right now.
But if there were no more elections, and you retained your power and your access, and there are no repercussions for you, how many of you would be willing to give up the core issues that you got elected on?
And almost every single Republican hand would go up, and almost no Democrat hand would go up.
They are wedded to their ideology as part of who...
who they are and Republicans on Capitol Hill are just simply not that they are only wedded mostly again mostly to what gives them power and access and and elevates them to a position above you.
I am afraid that the Republican Party is on the fast track to becoming the conservative party of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and and that is not a conservative party at all that's very interesting.
So obviously, throughout history, there's sort of precedence.
By the way, feel free to push back on me if you think I'm not making any sense.
No, it makes sense to me.
My question then is, okay, so if the Uniparty is real and it becomes more and more apparent that the Uniparty is real, how does that manifest politically in terms of the dynamic in the United States?
And what I mean specifically is if you look at the way that the Third Reich came to power in...
in in the late 20s and early 30s there was 30% unemployment rate there was a lot of desperation and you have this a lot of people don't realize this but when the Nazis came to power in 1933 only one in 40 Germans was a Nazi there were 80 million people in the country two million of them were Nazis.
It's one in 40 it was a major minority party but none of the sort of establishment parties that were in place could get anything done because they were kind of gridlocked and they needed the consent of this sort of radicalized minor party in order to have anything happen.
And ultimately, that's how the Nazis were able to sort of wiggle their way into total power.
And so obviously, our political system is different from the Weimar Republic in Germany at the time.
But is this going to manifest in sort of like a radicalized populist third party in time that comes to power?
Or is it just going to womp, womp, just fizzle and die like Rome?
Well, I don't like the premise because it supposes that any, you know, party...
any third or a third party that that comes up in this in this you know vacuum of of representation will be extremist and I don't think it has to be that way.
I hope you're right I have a lot sorry I just said I hope that you're right no look I you know there's all there's obviously a a concern about that I mean that that that's what history teaches us.
That's that's what we internalize as things that are to be avoided.
And if we and if we can avoid the pitfalls of lending in our frustration to a to a tyrannical response in in you know, in that extreme sense, uh, then we would have done the you know the right conservative thing, right?
By not repeating uh history's mistakes and and marching like lemmings into that situation.
But at the same time, I have long believed that that America not not just not just should have, but deserves um more than these two parties, or one party, as I as I as I really genuinely um think of it.
And I and I'll tell you why I think of it like that.
It's not just because of how these people vote um or what drives them.
It's my interactions with these people on a day-to-day basis here outside this window on Capitol Hill.
You know, phrase in England that I I don't think will necessarily translate here, but the the phrase goes that you can't put a fag paper between the two parties.
Well, a fag paper is a cigarette paper, a rolling paper, right?
You know, that are extremely thin.
Um you you cannot squeeze uh uh a cigarette paper between um a lot of a lot of the democrats and a lot of the republicans here on Capitol Hill.
So yeah, again, I don't want people to think that I'm saying, yeah, third party Nazis, I'm saying I'm saying for the third party and avoid avoid the tendencies because there will be.
That's the thing.
I mean, the question you're asking is well founded because there will be tendencies towards lashing out in an extreme in an extreme way.
And it it it for instance, I'll give it, I'll give you another example from back home.
Uh, we are now looking at a situation where the Labour Party is likely to win the next election.
Um, the Labour Party, uh, not that the Conservatives deserve to win the next election.
The Labour Party has already said that one of its key planks of of what it intends to do uh in the next parliament will be to abolish the House of Lords, which is the upper chamber of our bicameral system, and replace it with more of an elected Senate like in the United States.
Well, I think it's your 17th amendment that that took away the the the actual way the the frame is intended for your senators to be um chosen and replaced it with a democratic, a more democratic system like that.
Well, we're going to have basically just more politicians and more of their staffers, which means more lobbyists, which means more money.
That is not the solution to disenfranchisement.
That is that is the necessary path to further disenfranchisement.
Um the the bicameral system can only work if the two chambers have divergent um uh rationales and have divergent interests.
The point of the House of Lords, the hereditary House of Lords, how it used to be, uh, was it had the long-term national interest at heart because these people were made hereditary peers and they were in that chamber for their entire lives.
They were they were landowners or the sons and daughters of landowners and and the inheritors of that.
We don't have that anymore.
We don't have anybody whose interest lays beyond the next time they might not get elected.
And so people try to vest as much power as possible in themselves and as much money as possible in their wallets along along that way.
So we're going to end up in that scenario in in the United Kingdom.
It is constitutional vandalism like like we haven't seen in decades and decades and decades.
Whereas the real uh uh you know pressure release valve, you know, releasing real pressure from this build-up of power in certain people's pockets, uh, whether it was in London or Brussels or Davos, was Brexit.
And now we know that when Labour get in and they replace the House of Lords, they are going to force through two votes, one in the commons and one in the Lords or the Senate, as it will probably end up being called, and make Britain a member of the European Union again.
And at that point, all hell breaks loose, because you have The largest democratic exercise that we ever went through in my country being overturned by a chamber that has just been created by the party that opposed the vote last time around.
I mean, can you imagine what the streets are going to look like in that scenario?
Wow, that's I never put that together, but that's absolutely a sign for.
The question that's been on my mind is in the hypothetical event of a more extremist United States, whether it's left wing or right wing, who is going to be the group or entity that everyone points the finger at.
So obviously the Nazis pointed their finger erroneously at the Jews.
The um communists point their finger at the capitalists or the bourgeois or the property owners.
Anytime there's sort of like a radical extremist takeover, for better or for worse, for worse, there's there's a there's an enemy that's identified and sort of eradicated, right?
And so in the event that there's a right-wing extremist movement that that unfolds in the United States, who is going to be the enemy?
And in the event that there's a left-wing extremist movement that unfolds in the United States, who would then be the enemy?
Well, there is a left-wing extremist movement in charge of the United States right now, and you are the enemy.
Um, you know, the the working class, the lower class, as far as they are concerned, um, the unclubbable class, uh, the people who wear denim unironically and and without a sense of fashion about it, you know, who who do it because they are they are literally working people who who do it for working reasons, right?
Um that's that's the people being eradicated.
Your your um your dignity is being eroded, your finances are being eroded, your your um you know, everything you're even even the inducement to having children is being eroded before your very eyes.
And and and they are chipping away, and they are necessarily and knowingly chipping away at all of that.
Um the the other the the contra to that is communists.
You know, there's gonna be helicopters in the air everywhere, you know, dropping hell dropping communists out of them like uh like Pinochet.
That's that's the that you know, and that will that part of the interview will necessarily be clipped and used against me in my future absurd.
But but I'm just saying that.
Well, you're not condoning it, you're just saying that's how it plays out.
Yeah.
Well, that is their fever dream, is it not?
I mean, that is they're accusing us of doing that right now.
Whereas in reality, the the reality of the situation um in places like Washington, DC, for instance, you know, overwhelmingly liberal city, um, dominated by liberal voters.
I say liberal, they're not really liberal, um, you know, progressive, they're not really progressive, communists, right?
They're communists.
My neighbors are communists.
And the, you know, the prevail I should have a yard sign that says that.
The prevailing uh consensus here in DC is that, you know, as long as there's a nice new fusion, you know, Japanese Mexican restaurant opening up uh, you know, on the corner or whatever, that that things are necessarily getting better.
Meanwhile, murder rates spiking, um, uh, you know, carjackings, spiking.
The the city is plowing money into repairing the roads.
But the uh amounts of money that is being spent to to tarmac over a few potholes here.
Well, you you know full well where a lot of that money is going.
The corruption here is endemic.
The black communities are murdering themselves on mass.
There is a citizen app, right, where you get notifications of the crime that's going on across the city, predominantly happening in black areas to black people by black people, and the black mayor and the woke city council not only don't care, the city council just this week changed.
They over they actually voted to override Mayor Muriel Bowser's veto, because even she had the sentence to veto this of the criminal code of Washington, DC, where they have now watered down the crimes of homicide,
carjacking, felons carrying guns openly, all of these things are now uh to be to be punished in a much less strict way, in a much more lesse-fair manner Than has been the case while all of this crime has been going up anyway.
So and and these communists that live around me, they just shove, you know, it's not even good food, by the way.
I have to report to you.
I uh I go to these places, they're trash in comparison to other cities around the world where you can get actual good food.
And that tells you everything you need to know about Washington, DC, by the way, you are you are governed by dilettants.
These are people who go to the Kennedy Center and see piss poor performances and go, oh, isn't that just wonderful?
You know, these things wouldn't pass for real culture in any serious city.
They don't work in New York, they don't work in London, they don't work in Vienna, you know, but Washington, DC has its head up its ass culturally, and therefore it has its head up its ass in every other way.
And and and this is where your this is where your national government is being led from.
So what do you think is going to happen?
The the thing that gets me is I walk down the street, and I'm not a big guy by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't pretend to be imposing uh uh you know at all, and I don't fancy myself uh, you know, in a fight against against a big guy, you know, who's who's who's been at the gym for all their lives.
But at the same time, I know that when I I love when you look at me like, where's he going with this?
Um when I walk down the street, you know, if I walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, predominantly in the middle of the day, uh Hillsfurs, all of that, I am the scariest person on the block.
And they look at me like that.
And I don't know whether it's because of how I walk or how I dress or how you know whatever it is, but I see these little, these little, you know, I I don't even want to call them men.
They're the dweebs, the you know, their bellies uh are are bigger than than the you know the than their than their stature, their arms, uh, you know, all of this, and they just sort of skulk around and they look at me and they go, you know, as if as if I am somehow an imposing figure.
And I just think to myself, gosh, if only lots of patriotic people, um, you know, actually actual, you know, big strapping people, um, would move to Washington, DC and kind of bully their way around this city, you could take it back quite easily.
I don't mean literally physically, I mean I mean politically.
Because as weak as they are physically, they're weak mentally.
And you would find yourself, and I know it's a sacrifice, it would be an it would be a massive sacrifice because trust me, nobody wants to live here right now.
It's it's just it's just dire.
Like nobody sane wants to live here right now.
Um I don't want to live here right now.
But if if lots of Americans, real red-blooded Americans, move to Washington, DC, you could change the culture very quickly, and therefore you could change the the trajectory of the nation.
How is it that guys like that get laid?
I don't think they do.
I mean, I think I think the the you know, incel thing that they hurl around is actually is actually you know, projection.
Uh it's either that or they're or they're I don't mean to get into all of this, but it's it's the ones, it's the one, you know, they go for the ones that I wouldn't touch with yours.
You know what I mean?
Like, we saw what happened at FTX.
Right.
Quite quite right.
Well, so and on that note, yeah, and on that note, right?
So what do you think about the current sort of censorship dynamic?
Obviously, with Elon Musk's takeover of of Twitter, there it's not perfect, but there have been a lot of improvements, it seems on the I don't think.
Okay, well, I want to hear, I want to hear why on that.
But my question for you is even if it were true, it's still an untenable position for free speech to be dependent on a fluke billionaire, you know, doing like a hostile takeover of a company to fix a free speech problem.
So, first, why don't you think that Twitter's improved?
And and second, uh how do you think that we can fight censorship moving forward without relying on sort of rogue financiers?
So I actually I disagree with both of those premises.
So the first one I'll tell you, um, it improves slightly um right after the takeover, when a lot of the shadow bands and all Of that were being stripped out.
But then when they change the algorithm, and I believe they've changed the algorithm to where it's like if enough verified accounts have blocked you, then you get suppressed now.
Um, well, I'm on a block list.
I'm on a massive left-wing block list.
I was talking to Laura Lohmer today.
I said, Laura, your uh account can now reach more people than mine, and you haven't even been on the platform for years, because in that intervening period where she wasn't on the platform, I was getting blocked by all these leftists.
So the algorithm just sees, you know, that I'm blocked by all of these, both legacy and new um blue checks, and it necessarily ranks me down.
And I've I've I I can even pull the graph and screen grab the graph to show that right after Elon took over, there was a thing, and then as soon as that algorithm was put into place, there's been a decline in that.
So I don't think it's improved in that regard.
And I am seriously reconsidering my uh, even though I was already verified, my eight dollars a month that I I decided to spend in support of Elon's uh progress on that.
So that's number one.
Number two, um we've kind of always Western civilization has kind of always stood on the shoulders of of the people who are willing to take the risks.
So I don't necessarily think that that we can turn around and say, uh, well, we can't rely on on you know Sir Francis Drake to defeat the Spanish Armada, and we can't rely on, you know, uh think of a million examples, right?
We can't rely on Henry Ford to build a car, we can't rely on, you know, you can, and you do you it's those are to come back to your Apple analogy, right?
The crazy ones, that famous Apple advertisement.
That's that's that's normal.
I mean, I say normal in in the sense that is historically normal.
Uh, I understand the question if it comes from a power perspective that you cannot allow that such a such an important constitutional right to be you know held effectively in trust by somebody who may wake up tomorrow and decide to be a tyrant with those powers.
But at the same time, I'm a monarchist, so what do I know?
So you consider yourself actually a monarchist.
So you believe in the traditional sort of English there should be a king, king should call the shots, that kind of thing.
Well, so uh, you know, just to just to elaborate on that um a little bit for the audience who who who may uh have winced about it, because I understand that your experience with monarchies isn't isn't very good, but the idea that there should be somebody as just as the long-term steward of the nation, whether it is a uh a chamber of the house, whether it is uh uh you know the executive branch.
You know, here's the funny thing about the executive branch, it really doesn't have that much power.
You know, the executive branch really is kind of uh uh uh uh I wouldn't say a joke, but it's it's kind of laughed about in Washington, DC.
Like, oh, you know, the executive branch wants to do something, the executive branch doesn't have the purse strings, the executive branch doesn't have the oversight, the executive branch doesn't have the ability to do what the what the what the legislative does in a massive fashion.
I mean, it was it's it's 101 when you go to um study politics in college, is they show you the British system and they show you the American system, and they ask who do you think is more powerful, the prime minister uh in the in their respective um countries, the prime minister or the president, and everyone goes, oh well, of course the the president, and and it no, that's not actually the case.
The prime minister has uh far more power in in and of that system, the parliamentary system than the president has um in the in the US system, and so it doesn't necessarily have to be a monarch, and it certainly doesn't necessarily have to be a you know uh uh uh a lineage, right?
It doesn't have to be passed down through the same family, but there has to be in my maybe I'm deadly wrong about this, but in my reading of of Western philosophy, uh the countries that succeed are the countries that have people somewhere in their body politic whose interests are to the nation and not to themselves.
And and neither of our countries have that right now.
Because the monarchy stopped being the monarchy, by the way, a long time ago, we pretend we still have a monarchy, we don't have a monarchy, actually.
We have a we have a constitutional monarchy, which actually is pretty much nothing.
Um it has an advisory role, right?
But you know, you got you don't have a house of lords, you don't have a monarch, you you you rely on these politicians who serve four or five year terms uh to to be the steward, the long-term stewards of the nation.
And we wonder why we have such a mess.
Well, it's interesting to me because it's a very sort of platonic and Christian backed philosophy of monarchy, right?
Because the kingdom of heaven, not the democratic republic.
Like Christianity is inherently a monarchy, right?
There's the king, yes, the king of the kingdom of heaven, right?
And that's Jesus.
And so the sort of American Christian argument is, yeah, Jesus is king of the world, but he's a perfect king.
So we are we're going to excuse that.
But so far as we can allow men to run things, we need to have sort of this checks and balances republic system where no branch has any sort of authority over the other or any individual, right?
And so it's interesting because Christianity has been sort of the basis and justification for monarchies for millennia, but at the same time in the United States, we sort of have this sort of radical republicanism that's anti uh monarchy from the evangelical.
I was having this conversation with D.C. Drano, you know, Rogan O'Hanley the other day, and, you know, because he is of the belief, and I don't want to misrepresent his views, but I think he is of the belief that, you know, that the monarchy is necessarily a tyrannical or despotic power that vests all the power in that one person who is in no way accountable
And that is just not how the monarchy has has been, you know, the functioning monarchy uh has been in the United Kingdom for centuries.
Um firstly, parliament had plenty of leverage over the monarch.
Uh we all know how Magna Carta came to be, or we should know how Magna Carta came to be.
Um, and we all understand that, or we should understand.
This is one of the things about Americans that really gets my goat up, that it wasn't the king that was exercising tyrannical powers over uh the colonies of the United States.
These were acts of parliament that were passed democratically by parliamentarians.
Now, it was genius, it was a genius move to name the king in your founding documents and say this is where the tyranny establishes from because it's always easier to put a face on evil if you're trying to sell an idea, and they were very much trying to sell an idea at the time.
And I'm not saying that it was a wrong idea either, by the way.
Uh, but what I'm saying is you have to get the history correct, that it was actually that the the parliament of the time that was executing those powers.
You know, the king was in favor of it for sure, and and the king was leading some of it, but the idea that this was all coming from the desk of a of a tyrannical monarch, and he was just going, you know what, we gotta oppress those silly colonists over there.
It there was far more checks and balances back then um than would have allowed for that.
Well, and people forget too how how cool King George was about it when he lost.
He's like, look, I did everything I could to win the war, but you guys won.
So good congratulations.
He was such a team player.
But how much respect he had for the other side as well afterwards, just like, well, you know, fair enough.
And of course, uh people forget at the time there were there were far greater concerns.
You know, people didn't really know how how much of America was was habitable, how how large the the you know the landmass would end up being, how much uh you know, Western expansion would factor into it over the next coming century plus.
Um, and and you looked at, you know, you looked at the east and you looked at all the British interests overseas, India, so on and so forth.
And it made perfect sense not to represent and and try and fight, you know, multiple uh, you know, colonial wars all over the world at the same time.
I don't know how we got into this conversation, but it's fascinating when you look into it because uh, you know, the British really didn't put their shoulder to the wheel um in the America in the American theater.
So where can people find you, follow you, and engage with you?
Well, yeah, I I worry that after after my pro-monarchy rent that none of your audience will want to, but um I'm on all of the all of the social media platforms, um, regardless as to whether or not Elon's algorithm wants me to be seen at Raheem Kassam, uh, get a truth social, gab, telegram, Facebook, you name it, uh, Substack, just Raheem Kassam.com will re route you to my substack.
Um, and the podcast is back in flow now after several years of hiatus.
Um, so uh that's all at the substack Raheem Kassam.com.
Well, it's been an honor and a pleasure to have you uh a second time on this podcast, and I hope you'll come back and join us again, man.
