The Culture War #75 The Deadly Alliance Of Communism And Islam, COMMUNISLAM w/Apostate Prophet, Ben Weingarten, & Tayler Hansen
Host:
Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere)
Guests:
Apostate Prophet @ApostateProphet (YouTube)
Ben Weingarten @bhweingarten (X)
Tayler Hansen @TaylerUSA (X)
Producers:
Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X)
Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X)
Connect with TENET Media:
https://twitter.com/watchTENETnow
https://www.facebook.com/watchTENET
https://www.instagram.com/watchtenet/
https://www.tiktok.com/@watchtenet
https://www.youtube.com/@watchTENET
https://rumble.com/c/c-5080150
https://www.tenetmedia.com/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I just want to say, in before the left takes communism seriously, I put in the title of this video, it's supposed to be, it's a half joke, it's a reference to our good friends over at Rap News from oh so long ago, but there is an interesting question pertaining to woke left, neo-Marxist and communists, For some reason, aligning with conservative Islam, and there have been a bunch of funny circumstances, particularly in the UK.
This was several years ago.
You had LGBTQ activists showing up at a protest where fundamentalist Muslims in full, like, niqab and garb were protesting LGBTQ education.
And the activists were telling them that they were in this together.
And the conservative religious people were like, no, we're not.
You're degenerates.
And so the question is, how does something like this happen?
Where does merger come from?
And it may actually just be the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Perhaps it's an anti-Western, anti-Christian thing.
But I don't think it's universal.
I do think there is a strange power dynamics at play.
So we're going to talk about this today.
We've got a couple of guests and we'll start here.
So do you want to introduce yourself?
unidentified
Yeah, I'm Ridvan Aydemir.
People know me as Apostate Prophet, where I have a YouTube channel by that name, for those who don't know it.
I'm a former Muslim and... Just pull that microphone up to your... There you go.
I'm a former Muslim.
I talk about Islam a lot, criticize Islam and its history and its beliefs and different aspects.
Yep, Ben Weingarten, I'm editor-at-large at Real Clear Investigations, write for The Federalist, New York Post, and a slew of other outlets.
I wrote a book four years ago on this very subject titled American Ingrate, Ilhan Omar and the Progressive Islamist takeover of the Democratic Party.
And so I think it sort of anticipated this topic of this kind of marriage of convenience, this unholy marriage of convenience between people whose worldviews on their face would seem to be antithetical and incompatible, but who work together to topple the common stumbling but who work together to topple the common stumbling block, which is basically us.
I thought it would be good to have you here because you've actually talked to a lot of these activists and protesters on the ground from these ideologies, and so I'll just kick it off with, I have to wonder, you know, there's in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, which is not too far away from here, there's like two churches within walking distance, two blocks, and they've got the progress pride flags on them.
And some of the locals were telling me, like, oh yeah, those places are packed.
Absolutely packed.
And I'm like, Christians and Marxists, like, together?
But it's also just the pride, like, it seems a bit contradictory.
So I have to wonder when I hear about the, like, Ilhan Omar, you mentioned, you know, she's progressive and she's left.
And I'm, I have to wonder if Are the progressives trying to destroy Islam?
I mean, think about it.
They're bringing about these, you know, queers for Palestine movement.
They've got the pride flag.
In America, they are trying to make the two concepts inseparable, which I think would be extremely offensive, probably is, to Muslims in other parts of the world.
Yet, here we are.
Oh, actually, you know, a good example is there was that, I can't remember what TV show it was, it was a big controversy several years ago, where there was a Muslim woman who was gay, and she's in the show saying like, oh, I'm gay and I'm a Muslim, and then the Muslim community got really mad saying, how dare you?
Are people like Ilhan Omar, is this an attempt to actually just damage and destroy Islam?
unidentified
Well, one of the things that I would say before we talk about, I guess, probably more of the theological aspect of this is when I wrote that book, I went to Ilhan Omar's district and talked to people on the ground.
And the ironic thing is that the demographics that carried her to victory were the student population and essentially the white native progressive population and the upper crust members of her district.
If you actually look at the Somali community where she comes from and there's a massive Somali immigrant population in the Twin Cities area.
They're very divided about her.
And there are reasons for this that go back to, you know, sort of like the clannish or tribal, sort of more basic tensions that exist.
But it's also because a wide percentage consider her to be blasphemous, essentially.
She's dancing in the gay pride parade.
She's adopting the full spectrum panoply of views that would get you killed On the streets of Mogadishu or any number of other Muslim countries.
For me, the thing that crystallized it was in the district, they have these towers that are essentially sort of like projects there where the vast majority of Somali immigrants, that's their first stop when they get into the Twin Cities area.
Then right next to it, you have these gentrified, modern apartment buildings, luxurious ones.
And on the streets there in the Somali community, the heart of it, You have college students who are dressed in basically nothing, and then you have women fully covered.
Coexisting, and coexisting is the key word because that's all it is, side by side, and I think ultimately, Some percentage of the populace is able to set aside her blasphemous beliefs and say, but we're working towards a common cause, which is ultimately power.
And then at the end of the day, they have to duke it out to see who wins.
And the last point I'd make is just, when I was at Columbia University, I saw Israel Apartheid Week every single year.
And if you look at who the groups were that sponsored it, It was the progressive student groups and it was the Muslim student groups.
They work hand-in-hand because they have a common adversary and that is sort of the traditional Western civilization proponents.
The thing that unites these two groups is Israel and Jew hatred.
unidentified
It is, yes.
There's actually, it goes much further than those divisions.
He just mentioned Ilhan Omar during a pride parade.
So there was this moment where she was, there was a video of her going around where she dances at a pride parade.
She shared a message of how we need to further the rights of the LGBTQ plus community and so on.
Whenever these things happen, but especially at that time, there was a major outcry among Islamists, among many regular Muslims.
I have many of those posts saved, where certain well-known Islamist figures said things like, she is not a Muslim, we should not call her a Muslim anymore, we should not accept her as part of the community anymore.
You have lots of Somalians going around saying, she's not one of us, she has become something different, whatever.
I asked the question yesterday, who actually likes her?
It's hard to tell because she is thought to be a Muslim, thought to be an Islamist, and on the right there is generally often this idea that she is a full-fledged Islamist infiltrator who simply pretends to be progressive for certain goals, but then her behavior and the things that she says don't align with Islamism at all.
It was interesting what you were saying, Ben, because you said in her district it's actually the affluent white female liberals type who are propping her up.
But the assumption is that she wins because the Somali migrants are voting her in, but that's not the case?
unidentified
Not the case.
It's not a big enough population probably to fully swing it, though you need the backing of the Somali population.
To win but some of her biggest supporters and especially when she initially started getting scrutiny over it were basically the liberal Jews in her district were imperative to get them on board to try and win and of course she kind of Figuratively stabbed them in the back almost immediately when she got into power But but yeah among her own people.
She's she's a divisive figure Yeah, she has a history of Well, there is one thing that needs to be said.
It's quite obvious, people just don't want to acknowledge it.
People who come from a Muslim background, from an Islamist background, it is extremely common for those people to be severely anti-Semitic on such a level that it would be nauseating for regular people in the West to hear.
What they say out in public is not even close to what you actually hear when you are part of the community.
So she is one of those people who has publicly said one or two things that are indicative of that, such as that, you know, all for the Benjamins, certain references to money and power influence of Jews and all that.
I would say that she tones it down a little bit in order to appeal to a wider audience.
And to have progressives and liberals and others generally on her side, but the whole anti-semitism aspect should not be a surprise.
So it's surprising, it's kind of, it's annoying, but also, I don't know, it's sad to me that certain liberal Jews actually end up supporting people like her.
They should know from the very beginning that this is going to backfire.
I totally get why Muslims don't like Jews and Muslims don't like Israel.
Oh boy, there's a lot there.
But why progressives?
Like, why are progressives so anti-Jew and anti-Israel?
Like, you can make the argument about Israel being a colonizer or whatever and that's maybe what they're saying.
I don't think it answers all the questions, but...
Why Jews?
unidentified
There is a thing.
Among the progressives, there is generally the view that we should be standing up for minorities, for those who are different, for those who are of a different color, those who are marginalized.
After 9-11, it was generally directed toward Muslims as a reaction to the right having a stronger or negative reaction toward Muslims.
However, when it comes to Jews, there is this completely twisted perspective among Western leftists that Jews are not really a minority in the real sense, because they seemingly look white, they pass white, they are part of the stronger dominant culture, so they are basically like Christians, which is why we can talk trash about them as much as we want and also oppose them as much as we want.
And they buy very much into this whole narrative often presented by Islamists that Jews or that Zionists are colonizers and oppressors and to them they just say Zionists when the Islamists say Jews.
I have a, I would say, I guess I have a friend, I haven't seen them in years because as politics get crazier, but they are fairly lefty and this is out in California and she had a painting at her house of, it was like the Obama poster of like hope, but it was a Muslim woman And I forgot what it said on it, but I was just like, oh, that's interesting.
And she's Jewish.
And she's got, like, her grandma's, like, there's, like, pictures of her when she was young, and there's Holocaust stuff, and it's, like, she has, like, a cura cabinet.
And I asked her, I was like, how come you have, like, the Muslim thing?
No, I don't know, no beef, I don't know, I'm just curious, because you're Jewish.
And then she said something about the oppression of Muslims in this country or whatever.
And I was like, you think that they're, like, oppressed?
And then I was like, do you know how many Christians there are in the world?
Do you guys know how many Christians there are in the world?
And that's, despite not being as big as Christianity, that is probably the most for any religion on the planet.
And so I said this to her and I was like, Do you know how many Jews there are in the world?
And then there's the question of, like, full ethnic Jews or just people of Jewish... Yeah, well, whatever argument you want to make, it's like, what is it, like, 6 or 7 million full Jews and maybe like 11 or something in the diaspora of, like... We're talking under 20 million.
Oh, absolutely.
And then I said, and how many Jewish countries are there?
And then she got mad, and she's like, one?
And I was like, kind of, because you've got the Gaza conflict and the questions from the progressives as to whether or not it actually exists.
And then I was just like, I'm not here to defend Israel or Jews or anything.
I'm genuinely curious why a Jewish woman who has all this, like, this history and stuff from their families who have, you know, fled in World War II, Would be this progressive pro-Islam despite all of these Islamic countries wanting to destroy Israel.
And again, it's not the defense of Israel, it's the political position.
And that kind of put up like a light bulb in her head and then she immediately started getting more aggressive on defense of Israel and Jews.
And that's what I find interesting about the progressive American Jewish person.
Do they not think about this or does it not matter?
Because If they're to support a fundamentalist religion, and I want to stress, I got no problem with religions.
It's the fundamentalism and the war driven by or whatever.
You know, if there's an American Jew and they're voting for a policy that results in the destruction of Israel, I don't understand what their motives are.
I don't understand, are they not concerned about this?
You know, you see Hasidic Jews marching with the leftists, and they're saying things like, you know, end the occupation, end Zionism, and the question then becomes, like, well, what of the Jewish people without Israel?
Are you just a diasporic population at that point that becomes kind of an afterthought, kind of just like a background to your history in whatever country you're in, or what?
unidentified
There's so much to unpack there, but a few facts to establish.
You mentioned Christians.
Christianity is the largest group in the world, but Christians are actually, looking at the statistics, the most oppressed religious group in the world.
And this is very, very hard to accept for leftists in America.
There is a stereotype in the world, especially in Europe, about Americans, which is that Americans don't know much about the rest of the world.
In one sense, that is true.
In America, leftists and others have this very, very myopic, this very America-centered perspective on things.
And they don't realize that, yes, in America, Christians seem to be quite dominant and Muslims seem to be this minority that doesn't have it quite as well.
In the rest of the world, it's not quite like that.
In the Muslim world, Muslims absolutely rule over everything.
People who question Islam, who Criticize Islam who want to spread a different religion are oppressed.
Christians are very much oppressed in the Muslim world.
Muslims have a lot of power in the Muslim world, throughout the Muslim world and also in neighboring cultures like Europe for example.
Jews have the fortune, the luck now to have a The opportunity to have their own nation and to protect themselves, even there they are not allowed by the Muslim populations and by the Islamic powers to do that.
Just the idea that they should have independence, that they should be able to protect themselves, is something that is unacceptable.
I talked recently to a scholar, Dr. Annette Wolf, she's She's a very well-known historian on this issue of the history of Israel.
She pointed out something very profound, actually, and very accurate, which is, in the history of Islam, Jews were seen as a minority that can live, that is allowed to live, as long as they do whatever we tell them to do.
And if they misbehave, then we will just put them in their place.
Now that Israel is there, Jews are no longer in that position.
They are no longer the subjects.
They are now free and the Islamic world cannot accept that.
But to the Western person, that is very difficult to see.
There is something I need to share about the Muslim perspective, about Islamic beliefs.
And yes, you might respect religious beliefs.
I respect the religious beliefs or the belief in a God in and of itself.
However, Islam has very big problems and one of those problems is that Islam is a religion which, according to authenticated narrations, the Prophet Muhammad, and this is believed to be totally true by most Muslims around the world, the Prophet Muhammad made a prophecy where he said,
Before the Day of Judgment comes, you Muslims will fight the Jews and you will kill them, and they will hide behind rocks and trees, and even the rocks and trees will say there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him, except for one certain tree which is called the Gargit tree, that tree will not say because that tree is one of them.
And this is something that Muslims around the world believe, this is something that I learned when I was a little child, and people will not stop believing this.
And this was in the Hamas charter, I think, until only a few years ago.
unidentified
Yes, it was.
It was in the 1988 charter.
They made a new charter in 2017 to supposedly put a new spin and a new face on, but most of those who know the history of Hamas are not really deceived by that.
Hamas is still like that, and they still repeat those dreams of eradicating the Jews one day.
Real quick, the line was, the last hour won't come before the Muslims would fight the Jews and the Muslims would kill them.
So Jews would hide behind rocks and trees, then the rocks and trees would call, O Muslim, O servant of God, there's a Jew behind me.
unidentified
And to the Islamic supremacists, maybe the truest believers in their own eyes, they would say that The objective is for Islam to be spread across the entirety of the world, and it's either through persuasion or it's through compulsion.
And to your point about the allowance of non-Muslims in Islamic societies, you have to pay the tax if you're the non-Muslim, and you live as a second or third class citizen, a dhimmi in one of those countries.
Now, of course, the Arab world particularly They turned hundreds of thousands of Jews into refugees during the 20th century.
They fled to a variety of places, including to Israel.
The reason there are no Jews in any of those countries is because they were forced out of all those countries.
No reparations demands, obviously, from those who fled.
So there's a New Jersey-sized state there, which has been the Jews' ancestral homeland since time immemorial, where there's been a constant presence.
But the neighbors surrounding them cannot tolerate that, to your point.
They can't tolerate Jews living in their own homeland in a place that was basically ancillary.
I was having a conversation with someone, and this wasn't a progressive.
I can't remember who it was.
I think it was an anti-war libertarian, but I don't want to get the name wrong.
And they were saying the issue is that, you know, after World War II, basically the colonial powers decide they're going to establish the state, and they take the land, and that the people who lived there are the ancestral indigenous who have always lived there, and they were Muslim then.
And these are the people who used to be Jewish, and I was like, whoa, hold on.
The argument that was given to me, and I'm not trying to make this a universal argument for everybody who's critical of Israel, is that...
The British Empire in the United States were trying to find a way to deal with what was going on in Nazi Germany and wanted to establish a homeland for the Jews.
The Jews wanted to do it as well.
Many of them were already there.
And so the problem with it is the war led to the ousting of the indigenous who had lived there the whole time by the diaspora.
The issue I take with it is I'm like, so Muslims come to Israel Forced the Jews to convert by threat of death.
That's what I was told.
And they did.
And now they're there.
And so when Jews who were forced out, refusing to convert, return and win a war and take the land, that's wrong.
But the first one wasn't.
I don't understand this argument that the land was historically theirs.
What we're talking about is eons of conflict that started with an invasion of this land.
unidentified
And we're also, I would just say, for the sort of table setting, it wasn't that World War II caused the creation of Israel.
I mean, you can go back to the Balfour Declaration, you can go back to other documents in international law, and then the biblical and the ancestral ties, but then even the narrative of the Nakba, which the Arab world, you know, calls a catastrophe when Israel, modern Israel, is established.
If you look at contemporary accounts, including from Arab accounts, The Jews did not force the Muslims out of Israel.
In fact, it was the surrounding Muslim countries who said, leave Israel.
Right after this state is formally established, we are going to attack.
And Israel was at war immediately from the modern founding.
And let me just say one more thing, because we didn't really get to the whole, like, how do you explain that Jews support policies that lead to potentially a second Holocaust?
For, as a resident Jew here who will speak and try to give the, you know, the psychoanalysis of this, for liberal left-wing progressive Jews, and it's really the less religious a Jew is and the more secularized typically, it correlates with more progressive, for them the religion of Judaism is equivalent to social justice and progressivism.
They read in the Jewish texts, to the extent they read them, leftism.
And that our job, tikkun olam, is this concept of leave the world a better place.
And they read that as progressivism.
That is the solution.
So for them, they're equivalent.
And so they can see it as, look, Jews, we are the oppressors, and we're the colonizers, etc.
And so this is sort of getting our just comeuppance, like we cause the Islamic world to hate us and want to destroy Israel.
However, if you notice, the religious Jews, and you mentioned the Hasidic Jews who go out there and are like the useful idiots for them, it's a very small sect of them that go out there and do that.
The more religious you get in terms of Jews, Orthodox Jewry, infinitely more conservative those populations are and I think that the Democrat Party has made the calculation we can we can go after Israel we can bash Israel we can bash Jewry essentially and we can say that Josh Shapiro can't be a vice president because he's Jewish!
Because the the leftist Jews are going to stick with us forever and we will never get the Orthodox Jews who by the way are the growing population while the left-wing Jews are the declining population.
Well I'm glad that he had mentioned the fact that they almost see it as social justice because I've done interviews on the ground with literally a Jewish organizer with PSL which is a national socialist group that organizes these mass demonstrations all around the country and I asked him and I was like okay you know where does this alliance really come from I said because you know You have the Queers for Palestine, this movement.
That's the movement that I mentioned.
He says, well, when you look at it from a broader spectrum, it's all one struggle.
We're all essentially, you know, discriminated against.
We are the small guys.
We are the minorities.
And that's really how a lot of these organizers see it.
And then I went on the other side and talked to a Muslim organizer and he said pretty much the same thing, but he says it's a necessary alliance in order to, you know, basically destroy colonialism, which we have seen with, you know, what they say the Nakba was and then the trans issues and everything in the United States.
They see that we are basically occupiers.
So that's really like where it ultimately goes in the team up there is they all see it as social justice issues, you know, whether it's in the Middle East or here in America.
And the ultimate goal of it is revolution of some sort.
I do want to talk about the Josh Shapiro thing in a minute, but I was talking about before the show, I watched this video about the Jihad versus the Crusades.
And the Jihad was over, what, a thousand years?
Islam conquered all of North Africa, started spreading into Europe from both from the south and from the east.
And then the Crusades were only a couple of battles in response to the constant warring.
And you can see that, as we also mentioned, What, you said 50?
I actually don't know the number of countries that are fundamentalist Islam that at the government level are theocratic, but it is a lot.
And I was talking to some friends the other day, and they had traveled to, it might have been, I can't remember which, it was Dubai maybe, or Qatar or something, but they were like, you know, fundamentalist Islamic country, and they said they were walking down the street, and they saw like a jewelry store, and there were these beautiful gold, chain, silver, diamond, platinum, just sitting out, and there were no security guards.
Like walking by an open market with fruit, but this time it was gold.
And she asked them, she's like, don't you need security?
And they were like, no, if you steal, we'll cut your hands off.
And so it's, yeah, they're not worried about that crime.
And I'm curious as to what you guys think about that.
Because in San Francisco, in New York, in LA, we have the progressive policies leading to this rampant victimization of people.
And then It looks like on the inverse, you can, my friend was saying she walked around, woman, in this country, no problem whatsoever, peaceful, beautiful food, streets were clean, no threats of violence, no crime.
What, you know, I'm curious your thoughts on these two, you know, polarized There is an interesting aspect.
unidentified
These societies are societies that have a very extreme form of controlling people's behavior, which may have good aspects and bad aspects, but there is one thing to take into consideration, which is that these cultures are intrinsically not very productive, not very efficient.
cultures and they don't really create much.
In fact, if you look at all of these oil-rich countries in the Middle East, in the Arab world, you will see that the majority of the workforce, the majority of labor is outsourced.
People from outside have to come in, people from Europe, people from India and other places have to come in and work for them to get things done because they themselves don't create, they're not creative, they don't work, they don't do much.
That is part of that very same culture which oppresses people and prevents them from acting in any kind of deviant way, whether you want to regard that as a good thing or as a bad thing.
The hyper-centralization restricts the ability to innovate and expand or to iterate.
unidentified
Well, and if you take the position of the Islamic supremacist, it's a theopolitical ideology that governs every- it's a religious system, but it's also a political system that governs every single aspect of your life, which you can understand would be appealing to some percentage of people.
I think, for example, You can look, and one of the chief grounds or places where you have converts to Islam is in prisons.
Why would that be the case, besides the fact that the Islamists see that as a population that's worth trying to convert?
This provides complete order in your life.
Everything you need is right there in the religion to govern every single aspect of your life.
This gets to Sharia speech codes, which is the most anti-free speech sort of system that you can impose.
This obviously gets to the penalties for stealing.
And it gets to how you conduct every other aspect of your life as well.
And that is analogous to the left.
I mean, the left wants to control every institution and then use that to have power over your life.
But to what end?
They go to different ends and the means to get there are different.
And there's one quote to me that brings it together from Yasser Arafat back in 1969, who sort of You know, kind of the founding father of Palestinian Arab jihadism.
He was heavily influenced and groomed by the KGB at the time because the idea was the Soviet Union would sort of create a petri dish of Jew hatred, Western hatred in the Islamic world and use that to combat West.
I mean, more or less, you know, we're 50 years on.
So this is 1969, a quote from Arafat.
Our struggle is part and parcel of every struggle against imperialism, injustice and oppression in the world.
It is the part of the world revolution, which aims at establishing social justice and liberating mankind.
Now, whether or not he thinks that the progressives are useful idiots, and so this is a way to appeal to those idiot Westerners, and this is good propaganda, or whether this is what they truly believe, that cements to me and that kind of codifies the unholy red-green alliance that exists today.
There's something very useful to remember from history.
Ibn Khaldun, he lived in the 14th century.
He's considered in sociology, actually, one of the forerunners of sociology.
And he wrote a very important book called Muqaddimah.
He has a quote in there which I don't fully remember but I will paraphrase it.
He basically says that Islam is different from all other religions in that it is the only religion where the head of the society and the state and the military is one.
And the only religion that has the obligation to spread the religion either by will or by force.
So Islam has the obligation to always fight and to always wage war, to always wage jihad and to spread by those means.
Which is why, you mentioned earlier, Islam has a very long history of jihad, of fighting.
Islam is the only religion in the world that has a very political, a very authoritarian aspect that still rules over many countries.
And this is fundamental to Islam, according to Islamic scholars and Islamic historians and sociologists themselves.
And the thing is, when it comes to the alliance between Islam and the left, This is what the left fails to understand.
This is what leftists, progressives, socialists generally fail to understand.
And there is a very bitter example to look at, which is Iran.
In Iran, during the Islamic Revolution, which led to the creation of the current Islamic regime, the Islamists succeeded with the revolution not on their own, but with the help of socialists.
of communists, of secularist liberals and others who helped them in the hopes that they would together create a democratic state, a democratic government.
And they all had their disagreements with the Islamists.
They thought, "Okay, we don't want to live in a theocratic regime, but at least if we overthrow the Shah and create a democratic society, maybe we will find ways to include our own ideas." The funny thing is, as soon as they succeeded with the revolution and overthrew the Shah and installed a democracy, the Islamists took over and turned it into an Islamic democracy and immediately began persecuting, locking up
Banning and killing all those who helped them, all the leftists who helped them.
And this is basically what it leads to eventually.
The leftists help the Islamists rise to power and the first to then be persecuted and to die are the leftists who help the Islamists.
This is exactly literally what's happening here in the states when I'm on the ground.
I've literally watched people that are transsexual or gay being converted to Islam at some of these protests, which it's always so crazy to me to see this because in my mind it's like they literally see you as the useful idiots.
They're not willing to admit it, but you're always going to be the one that is persecuted if we do.
You know, kind of devolve into this theocratic Islamic government.
And I mean, time and time again, it is so odd to see them on the ground together.
You see socialist, you know, pamphlets that are sitting there, you know, we stand with Palestine, you know, we stand with our Muslim brothers.
And I mean, they're quite literally changing the entirety of the brand because it's the exact same thing that kind of happened with Iran.
The leftist groups see it as a way to achieve revolution.
I'd say for the most part.
organizations, you know, the Antifa, BLM, it's the exact same groups that are now intertwining with this Islamic movement in this country, and they're binding themselves to it for the sake of revolution.
I'd say for the most part, there are some leftists who think it could help foment revolution, but I think a lot of the alliance on the ground is just because these people buy their own oppression narrative, and it just aligns.
Brown people in a non-Muslim majority country are the minority and therefore are oppressed, therefore they're the good guys.
unidentified
Which is funny because white people are literally now the minority, but they will never actually say that or admit to it in this country.
Mostly because of the mass illegal immigration, which is crazier than we've ever seen.
But the funny thing is, it's not just Islam.
Historically, notoriously, leftist revolutions, the first thing the revolutionaries do...
Is they kill the leftists because those are the ones who foment revolution.
You try to tell this to these progressives.
Who is the threat to the power structure right now?
And they'll say, you know, probably, I don't know, they might say, like, white supremacy is the power structure, so it's us, the activists, we're threatening the machine.
Okay, let's say you and your buddies win, topple government, and then powerful leftist personalities, millionaires with tons of resources, because you know they exist, and they're progressives, take over.
Now, who's the biggest threat to the regime?
Still you.
And so, when authoritarian regimes come in, the first thing they do is they eradicate the revolutionaries.
The run-of-the-mill, rank-and-file, normie population that wakes up, goes to the flour mill, and then comes home from work is no threat.
They need those people.
But listless, lazy, arrogant revolutionary types do nothing for the society and are only a threat to the power structures.
So we see it time immemorial.
Revolution happens, the leaders go and they round up all of the people who helped the revolution happen.
unidentified
It's a good point.
It's easy to believe, as people often depict it, that these leftists, these crazy leftists in their incredibly stupid alliance, are just, are, you know, are pure evil and they're aiming for some, for the destruction of Western society and all of that.
It is more nuanced than that.
It is just, That these people genuinely think they're doing the right thing.
They think that they are genuinely compassionate and they're pursuing justice by standing up for those poor oppressed people, poor minorities and all of that.
But it's just so myopic and it's, again, history repeating itself.
And these people in their pursuit of justice, shooting themselves in the foot and also harming the rest of us in the process.
And you can see this with the current movement of, you know, pro-Palestine, free Palestine.
We have people waving Hamas flags and spraying Hamas on monuments.
And Hamas is an organization that literally, we talked about, you know, jihad and all that earlier.
In English, they are more reserved in their language to appeal to the public.
In Arabic, very important, Hamas has a public speaker named Fatih Hamad.
He is also in charge of Al-Aqsa TV, which is the national TV of Gaza.
This guy goes out and speaks.
Only a few years ago, he gave a speech where he said, in four years, in four years, brothers and sisters, our goal will be accomplished.
The first step is to cleanse Palestine of the filth of the Jews.
Wow.
And the second step is then to establish a caliphate to expand from here.
So remove the cancer, he repeats, of Jews and then to expand the caliphate with the help of the Muslim community.
And then after he says that, he speaks English and goes, we just want our ancestral homeland that was taken from us.
I'm kidding, he didn't literally say it, but this is the narrative you get from all the activists.
So I want to pull this story up real quick from Common Dreams.
I have a dream, and that dream is that Kamala Harris chooses Josh Shapiro and the woke left expose themselves because they already basically are, and it causes Kamala to lose the election.
Progressives warn against Josh Shapiro as Kamala Harris nears VP choice.
They wrote a letter.
I think it was 50 organizations signed it.
And, gee, I wonder what the problem is.
Why are the progressives not happy with Josh Shapiro?
He said something like, I don't think she'll get enough votes, like she might lose a lot of votes from the Democrats because he's Jewish.
And, in the letter, I don't want to mischaracterize it, they're saying his support for Israel in a certain stance.
But we all know, when the Women's March happened, okay?
You guys know the story about the Women's March?
And the organizers were saying that the Jews were responsible for this war, and the slave trade, and started talking about banks.
I'm like, these were Black Lives Matter activists.
They were organizing the Women's March, and the story was there was this Jewish woman who was involved, and she felt like she was being indoctrinated, like they were trying to teach her so she could understand the problem of the Jews and Israel and all that stuff.
So it's no surprise now that, yeah, they're not too happy with the idea of a Shapiro as a vice president, and while they may in their letters be like, it's clearly about Israel, I guarantee you, 100%, I make a bet, you go to one of these progressive protests, And you walk into this crowd of people that are holding up the Hamas signs and say, if you were to say to them, you don't really care about Israel, it's the Jews, they'd completely agree.
They'd say, 100%, turn the camera on, they might say something different.
That being said, I'm sure you've actually met them who have been outright, it's the Jews.
unidentified
Oh, 100%.
I mean, literally multiple times I've talked to them and you're right when it comes to they won't actually say it on camera.
Some of them will, it's definitely in the minority, but then they kind of, if you put a camera in their face and it's always about progressivism, you know, social justice, we have the same goals.
But I want to ask you too, your opinion on how you think the DNC is going to unfold if they pick
Shapiro if they tap him in as a VP candidate because I already think that there's gonna be you know a small-scale riot there there's gonna be some unrest just for the sake of you have the pro-Palestinian group that is going to rally in numbers they tried suing the DNC because they're upset that they can't protest you know super close in the boundaries they want to because and the DNC is like why would we let you guys anywhere near this like you can go protest out here which I do think it's gonna kind of spill over into the actual DNC area and kind of get violent.
They're just going to say that this is a confirmation that the Jews, excuse me, the Zionists, control everything.
I don't know how they can police their own voter base.
There's been reporting for months suggesting that there's going to be massive unrest.
If you want the Democrats to lose, then you're hoping for 1968 on steroids.
The counter would be that you have a Mayor Daley, which does not exist now in Chicago, actually cracking skulls on the ground.
Well, literally in D.C., you know, the park police and everybody that was actually attacked, you know, at the anti-Netanyahu protests that turned into a miniscale riot, they had orders to basically allow a certain level of vandalism or violence and then not to push back super hard.
So we already kind of see this within certain police departments where, like, we can't have, you know, the cameras on us.
We can't do this because this movement is too big.
There's a lot of media that's kind of backing this movement up.
Um, so it's very interesting, but I think at the DNC, you're probably not going to see as light-hearted police officers.
I mean, this is Chicago.
These guys are ready to rumble, so it's going to be interesting if we start seeing, you know, the cracking of heads and, you know, tear gas deployed whole nine yards.
Remember, this kind of started with, and probably didn't start with, but one of the inflection points was, I think in Baltimore, where they said, we need to give people space to destroy.
Yep.
Which is insane.
That was the, and it probably started before that.
Where they put him in the back of a wagon, they didn't train him down, they started hitting the brakes, and then he broke his neck and died or something.
And then they said, yeah, we need to give them space to—I forgot what the exact quote was, let me see if I can pull that one up.
But basically, they're burning down buildings.
unidentified
Yeah, I don't think.
One thing to add is if they do tap Josh Shapiro in, my view on the protesters that are going on the ground in mass, I don't see them as voters, honestly, because they realize that both sides are going to be hyper pro-Israel regardless of who gets in.
That's kind of where the uniparty, you know, kind of collides is, yeah, you have the exceptions.
You have the Rashida Tlaibs, the Ilhan Omars, You know, the Thomas Masseys on the right that kind of come together when it comes to not funding foreign wars, not funding Israel.
But the large majority of both sides are going to be hyper-Israel.
They're going to have hyper-pro-Israel policies.
They're going to give them money.
So I can't really see a lot of this, you know, demographic, whether it's the socialist organizations or, you know, the actual Muslims on the ground, picking a side when it comes to who to vote for because it's a lose-lose situation for what they want as their end goal.
The problem is that the Democratic Party has really turned into a cancer at this point.
And even if that is not a serious voter basis, you can see that over the last year, especially the Democratic Party has very much given in so much to To what people say on college campuses, to what they say in the streets.
Their public statements, their political moves in international affairs and all of that have been seriously affected by crazy people protesting in the streets, crazy people having a say online, and this is actually a massive problem.
She said, It's a very delicate balancing act because while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well, and we worked very hard to keep that balance and put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.
I want to stress something for everybody.
I was there during the riots.
I was in Ferguson during the riots, and the most important thing you need to understand about the progressive left They wrote a story.
I'm actually going to pull this one up.
It's called In Defense of Looting.
And it became a book.
It became a book.
Here you go.
They turned it into a book.
In Defense of Looting.
So, it's about the Ferguson unrest.
When the rioting was happening, and you had a lot of people on the right criticizing the riots, the left instinctively just said, the right is wrong.
And what they said was, is that these are people who are rising up against an oppressive capitalist class that has kept from them.
And looting is an act of revolution.
Because when they take from these stores what they want, they are telling the capitalist merchant class that they can take those resources which are owed to them.
Only problem?
These were small local businesses owned by the community, and actually being there in Ferguson, there was one instance where, and Al Jazeera was there too, several young black men linked arms to protect the liquor store, the corner store, that kicked everything off.
This is where Michael Brown went in, stole the cigarillos.
Several young black men linked arms and were standing in front of it.
I was up there filming, live streaming, and a reporter from Al Jazeera walked up and asked the young man, what are you doing here?
Why are you here?
And he said, the people who are looting our homes don't live here.
They've come from other cities, they've come from other parts of St.
Louis, and they're taking advantage of what happened here to rob our stores.
In one instance, a cop... so the street is shut down.
People are dancing in the street.
There's no real violence.
I have no idea why, but a cop walks in the crowd, pulls a flashbang, and chucks it at a group of people.
As soon as that bang goes off, a bunch of people run full speed to the stores, smash at all the windows, and steal everything and start running away.
Something funny happened when those young men were linking arms to protect that liquor store, which I think was just after this.
The guy who's talking's phone rings and he's like, oh man, it's my mom.
And the reporter was like, give me the phone, give me the phone.
And he answers it and talks to the guy's mom and she's like, where is my son?
And he's like, he's here on West Florissant.
She's going like, oh my God.
And he's like, no, no, ma'am, your son is being very responsible.
He's protecting the store.
He's being a very good member of the community.
I saw that happen, and then I saw this article, and I'm just like, the left is evil.
These poor people who live here.
What they were saying was, we've got a hair salon, we've got a grocery store, we've got a liquor store, we've got a gas station.
These other people have destroyed our community.
For what?
For what reason?
They don't live here.
And then the progressives come here, the corporate news media comes here, and they claim the evil people destroying our home are the good guys.
unidentified
Well, we saw this over and over again in 2020.
Every single time I was on the ground on a protest that turned full-scale riot, that looting took place, burning took place, assault on police took place, I would say a large majority, if not 90% of the people that actually went and engaged in violence or looting were not even from, let alone the same state, but not the same city that actually this event took place in.
So we see it time and time again.
And then you got people like AOC that say, Oh, they're actually just looting to provide for their families, but they're robbing Nike stores.
They're getting their brand new, you know, Air Jordans.
They're going straight to the liquor stores.
They're basically cleaning out businesses.
And we saw in 2020 where they, you know, they are literally attacking black owned businesses and locally owned businesses.
And then you had, in the Summer of Love, there was a black man, who was a firefighter, who saved up money to open a bar and grill, his dream, and they went and destroyed it.
He's on camera crying, and as they're interviewing him, people are stealing the safe from his store, and he's going like, why?
Why did this happen?
It was my dream.
And then the next day, the activists came back and burned the building to the ground, and his insurance didn't cover it.
He ended up getting a bunch of money from a GoFundMe.
I hope the guy, I hope everything turned out well for him.
But a bunch of these businesses, one of the problems with insurance was that insurance doesn't cover rubble removal.
There was something that affected, there's a cap.
So they're like, oh yeah, sure, we will pay to bring you the building back, but we ain't paying to remove the rubble.
unidentified
I would say this is sort of the logical endpoint to where the Great Society started.
And you can look at Thomas Sowell has written about this, and others have written about this as well.
All of the trends in Black America were positive going back to, if you look at from the 40s into the 60s, in terms of wealth creation, education levels, family dynamic, etc.
After the Great Society, from that point on, You have the breakdown of the black family and the breakdown of the black community and all of the policies that were pushed supposedly to help inner city blacks primarily ended up leading to the destruction of those communities and now we're at the natural endpoint which is more policies supposedly to help
Which actually lead to the destruction of, at this point, just basic everyday civilization and existence in terms of criminals can do whatever they want, less than a slap on the wrist, you're back on the street tomorrow, and then all the way to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we're gonna cut a plea deal with you.
But, if you're a J6er, your life is over.
If you're Donald Trump, we're gonna conjure up crimes to get you.
Well now, look at the final evolution of it is almost like a permanent welfare class, and then it only makes that line of people in an even worse off area, and then you get, you know, the drug issues.
They just keep inserting things into this community under the aspect of, you know, reparations for this community, or, you know, social justice issues.
And, you know, sidebar, it's worth noting that I'm pretty sure Kamala Harris's husband is Jewish.
So this whole thing is interesting, and then she's going to probably tap Shapiro as her VP.
So I think the Palestinian protesters and this kind of crowd, which is a mass, is going to be in a very weird conflict once they realize what's actually going on within the Democratic Party.
Democrats are losing Jewish voters over Israel, and she needs to win Pennsylvania.
So she has to choose Shapiro.
I'm just wondering, This is their gambit.
They could lose progressives, but restore their voting bloc among the Jewish population.
The question then becomes, which one is larger?
I have to imagine their cost-benefit analysis is, young people don't vote.
Let them complain all day and night, but we need the older Jewish liberal back.
unidentified
So I was just going to say, I wrote back in 2018, if you look at the trends here, the Muslim population in America is growing and it's expected to double by, I don't know, 2040, 2050, and it's going to vastly outweigh the size of the Jewish population.
As I also noted before, the Orthodox Jewish community is not voting Democrat.
It's growing and it's never going to vote Democrat at this point.
But for the liberals, there are going to be some who, to the bitter end, liberal Jews, are always going to vote Democrat, and the others, it's going to become a declining population.
So from the purely cost-benefit analysis, if you're making a bet on Muslims or Jews for Democrats, you're betting Muslims, because you know that some percentage of the Jews are going to stay with you no matter what, to the end.
Shapiro, and this gets to the bigotry aspect of this, and maybe you can assume ignorance and good faith, but Shapiro himself has said, and I quote, I personally believe Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the worst leaders of all time.
So that's Shapiro's position, but they still hate him.
So if that's the case, I think that kind of points to the asinine nature of it.
You know, yesterday, Someone superchatted Tim Castile saying, you know, use your money to do good, or something like that.
Use your power to do good.
And I said, what does that mean, right?
Because typically for progressive activists, what it means to do good is just to force people to live the way they think they should live, regardless of whether or not it's beneficial to mankind.
And so my attitude, what I described, is we want to find the middle ground somewhere where you've got meritocracy, decentralized power structures, but some power structures that support stability.
So you don't want to go full authoritarian.
You don't want to go total anarchy.
Some people might advocate for anarchy, but I'm not a fan of that.
Somewhere in the middle.
You take a look at what the left offers, and what they're saying is, Criminals are going to be let out of prisons.
Criminals will not be criminally charged.
Anarcho-tyranny.
We're going to arrest J6ers, like you were mentioning.
And then on the other side of that you have, we will chop your hands off if you steal a piece of bread.
And so it's the two extreme ends that are restrictive to human growth and expansion.
And these two extremes are In the United States, not in the Middle East, but in the United States, are fusing to a certain degree.
But with that being said, you know, we're talking about these cities falling apart.
I'm wondering if Muslims in the United States, actual Muslims, actually want to support leftist ideas and are voting for these people.
unidentified
There is a very interesting trend to observe with leftist politics.
When you look into the Muslim world, in the Muslim world leftist politics is hated.
In the Muslim world leftists and Islamists generally hate each other, they despise each other.
Leftists generally fight against the Islamic hegemony and the Islamic supremacy and are more pro-West.
When it comes to the Western world, however, you see there's the ugly alliance that we are talking about between Islamists and the leftists.
And in this case, when Muslims vote left, for example, in the UK, we had some very bizarre developments recently during the elections where Islamists who went out and shouted Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, Jihad, Caliphate is the only solution, went with the Green Party or with the Labour Party.
So they're not doing this because they genuinely believe in leftist politics, they're doing this because the right is not going to support their ideals and is not going to further their goals in the West.
So what they do is to temporarily, and I'm sure you have a lot on this, Is to temporarily align with leftist politics to further achieve their goals of providing compromises that benefit Muslims and Islamic beliefs.
And then slowly they can establish their own power and have their own say in politics.
This is what they're doing in the UK now.
They are beginning to introduce Islamic parties into the equation once they have sufficiently made use of leftist politics.
You have seen, probably the only issue in America that I can really think of where you have seen the tensions actually come to the fore is over radical gender ideology in schools.
That would probably be the only issue so far where you've actually seen a break between the Muslim population and the left.
And to your point, I would say it's actually consistent with Islamic doctrine that when the Muslim population is a severe minority, As a practical matter, to ultimately advance the cause, you have to make common cause with the community that you're in in order to win.
Go back to the 9-11 hijackers, for example, going to strip clubs and drinking before going out and committing the ultimate act of jihad.
Why did they do that?
Well, as a practical matter, in a non-Islamic society, to advance their cause, they have to side with people Who's would have their heads chopped off in their home societies and it's a it's obviously it's a rational thing if you're small and you don't have a lot of power you're willing to make common cause with people who you find disgusting but ultimately the end goal is little by little gain more and more power and you can go back to there's document from the Muslim Brotherhood in America
dating back to around 1990, this explanatory memorandum from one of the senior most members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.
And the Muslim Brotherhood is the tip of the spear of Sunni Islamic supremacism, from which Hamas comes.
And you could point to al-Qaeda and pretty much every single major Sunni Islamic supremacist group.
They say their goal is to make us sabotage our miserable house by our own hands.
So there's been a long running strategy here, consistent with they can point to Islamic doctrine to justify little by little growing in society, immigrating to these societies, start to enter the political system, make common cause with whatever group has power in a bid to ultimately lead us to kill ourselves or make common cause with whatever group has power in a bid to ultimately lead us to kill ourselves That's exactly what they're doing literally here in America with this alliance right now.
Basically a roadmap from the UK of I've talked to Muslims that are very fanatically religious They believe you know through and through in the Islam doctrine, but they want the pro border policy I mean that the pro open border policies because it allows all of their friends and all of their family to literally fly over and then come and basically push their ideology into society.
Oh nice.
I mean Yeah, colonize, which, you know, it's so funny because the left is everybody's colonizers.
We need to get rid of all the colonizers on our land.
But, you know, I used to work for a Muslim man and, you know, he was less on the radical side, but even, you know, he and how they would operate their businesses is they would essentially fly in somebody, whether it was from Jordan or one of these Muslim countries, you know, right along the border, they cross the border and then they would end up being, we're just working for them.
And then that's kind of how they would expand.
So this is exactly what you're seeing in America is what we've seen in the UK.
You have this whole thing in Europe where there is a very big Muslim diaspora from Turkey and other Muslim countries, especially from North Africa.
A lot of people who are in Europe and who can vote for a party in Europe but also for a party in their home country, like Turkey for example, They will often do something very similar.
Where they are in Europe, they will vote for a leftist party.
However, when they vote for a party in their home country, they will vote for a conservative Islamic party.
This is a very, very common trend.
It just tells you everything you need to know about it.
Maybe the real issue is that the authoritarian fundamentalists see leftism as a destabilizing force in enemy nations.
unidentified
That's exactly what it is.
That's what it is.
Because that's what it leads to.
We talked earlier about how Kamala Harris in her campaign and the pick for VP would proceed and whether they would appeal to the progressives or the Jewish voter.
There is one fact that needs to be pointed out.
The progressives, the younger people are a bunch of jobless maniacs.
So they probably don't worry very much about funding from their side.
However, they have a lot of impact on public opinion, which is why they try to appeal to that bit while also preserving some of those, you know, of those Jewish Democrats whom they don't want to lose.
So they want to make few compromises.
However, this is just completely destabilizing.
Trying to, you know, bit by bit appeal to both sides, but throwing out any, you know, relevant stable values.
The big challenge, I guess, is people who are raised without having responsibility, purpose, or any kind of moral philosophical understanding.
They will persist in those views throughout the rest of their lives, and they will vote, and they will counter out, they will counter the votes of those who believe in merit responsibility.
And I think what we're seeing here in the U.S.
is that with the expansion of the welfare state, as often as we've continually done it, and the tax base, and then with the rise of universities, we have created a generation split where half of them cannot function on their own, do not want jobs to be productive, and think food just exists.
Quite literally, many of these socialists think that food just exists.
Well, they think that there's so much food, there's too much food, and the only reason that poor people can't have it is because rich people don't want them to.
Earth is a wasteland of limited resources and overpopulation.
Everyone speaks Spanish.
And then in space, all the rich people live in a space station and they all speak French.
And they have these pods that you could lay down and it'll cure you of all disease.
Got cancer?
Don't worry.
Gone.
And the only reason in this movie that they don't let poor people have it is because they're rich and poor people shouldn't deserve it.
And so at the end of the movie they literally just give everyone, they bring the pods down to earth and everyone's like, yay, now we're gonna be healed and we're gonna live forever.
That is the leftist worldview.
That rich people are just evil and intentionally doing these things.
So I've had experience with...
The story I like to tell is a friend of mine ran a business, mid-level social media marketing company, and as he was expanding, he started by himself.
He went to a local restaurant, he was trying to find work, and he said, what are you doing for Twitter, Instagram, Facebook?
And they were like, nothing.
And he was like, you've got a medium-sized business here.
I mean, you're not doing any promotions on social media?
Let me run that for you.
Here's what I'll charge.
And they said, we'll give you like a week contract, see what you do.
They loved it.
Results were great.
So they said, we want to do a full-time contract.
Business is booming.
And so he takes on this small business, a couple locations.
He then goes to a few more businesses.
He can now show the results.
Look at this.
We've increased sales by this much.
He ends up with a mid-size change, like ten locations.
And he goes, I gotta hire people.
So he goes online, posts Craigslist and jobs and whatever monster back in the day, saying, you know, looking for somebody with social media experience, college degree requirement, blah blah blah.
Hires people.
He said basically the gist of every hire was he would be out doing meetings trying to get new clients and he'd get a phone call in the middle of his meeting and he'd ignore it and then he ends the meeting and he answered what's the problem they say this company posted this thing people are losing it the comments are what do I do and he's like figure it out I'm I got I'm you're supposed to be managing these accounts I'm out here I can't deal with this.
Fired.
Okay, you can't do the job, you don't know how to manage this, you're fired.
So then he puts up another job listing, same deal, looking for somebody who knows.
He kept requiring college degrees, and he genuinely thought getting somebody with marketing knowledge and a college degree was going to get him the right candidate.
He ran out of money, because it was too expensive to keep hiring and firing people, and they weren't getting the job done, and it was straining his ability to pick up contracts.
And so then, He dropped the college degree requirement, posted only on Craigslist, offering an hourly wage, and he found these two people, a man and a woman, from Utah, and then he said, here's the job, run the Twitter, the Facebook, the Instagram, here's what we're trying to accomplish, we'll have posts, your goal is to post three times a day, marketing the business, blah blah blah.
He goes out, he's doing meetings, not a single phone call.
And he gets worried.
He's like, aw crap.
He comes back and he's thinking it's gonna be burned down, that weren't doing their job, nothing got done.
And he walks in and he goes, how'd it go?
And they're like, all good boss.
And then he was like, no problems, no problems.
And he was like, nothing from the clients?
He goes, ah well there was some post they had on Instagram that they posted the wrong thing, people were getting pissed, I took care of it.
And he was like, Okay.
And then he told me, he's like, it was a revelation.
The kids who had gone to college had only ever been told what to do.
Their teachers, the dean, whatever, it was always, come here at this time, do this thing, and then you're done.
Food was always given to them.
They'd show up for lunch, the food's pre-made, and the money was coming from somewhere else.
And the people he ended up hiring, because he was in, um...
Orange County.
He was like, it's people who dropped out of high school, moved to California to live, to pursue a dream.
And he was like, you know what I realized?
These people were trying to figure out their own problems and solve them, and they didn't go to college.
And the college students were just doing exactly what they were told and couldn't solve their own problems.
So now what I see is, you know I love that story by the way, true story, shout out to Jeff, what I love about that story is he accidentally discovered the reality of what we are doing with this generation in the universities, creating a generation of people who don't know how to work, Don't know where the money comes from, don't know what to do on their own, and we're telling every kid to go to college and gain that experience, they then get out and guess what?
It doesn't matter what cause they latch onto, they will be useful idiots.
They will vote for policies that are continuing the welfare state, straining the meritocratic individual, and being exploited by people, be it fundamentalist religious groups of any faction or whatever, but people want to see the U.S.
unidentified
suffer.
I would bet you, if you were to look at the ideology of professors and then teachers from K-12 onward, that the most left-wing cohort in America is probably In academia, in education, there's a reason they went to the school systems because where do your kids or future kids, where are they going to spend most of their waking hours being socialized into society?
It's in schools.
These are indoctrination factories, and there's probably an inverse relationship between education level and common sense.
The more educated you are, the more removed you are from society.
And it sort of makes sense because universities are the furthest removed from any reality of what the world is actually like.
I mean, they don't have to exist on a capitalistic sort of basis.
There's no merit really involved.
It's one of the most political institutions.
Possible.
So if you wanted to take over a society and indoctrinate everyone in a worldview that leads to massive power for those in government, take over the schools.
That is the place.
Break down the family, take over the schools, create an economy where half the population or more is ultimately going to have to be reliant on the existing power structure to survive.
And you've taken total power.
And that's the that's the leftist worldview and where it ends up in a nutshell.
Well, that's the entire point of the Rockefeller school system.
And that's exactly what it is, is through, you know, elementary, middle school, high school, and then you transition to college is the final stage of indoctrination.
It literally exists to make you a mindless factory worker.
I mean, you're supposed to just take orders, do what you're told to do.
And it's so funny that, you know, you see, like Tim mentioned the story of the social media stuff.
The people with the work drives, they expect to be told what to do every single step of the way.
And you see corporate companies hiring people.
They all have college requirements.
And then their social media absolutely tanks.
And you see this time and time again.
But then you see some Gen Z-er who's never gone to college, who just graduated high school, who is making memes for some of these accounts.
Like KFC's account is a great example.
They spit out memes.
And it's hilarious.
And it works.
It's good for advertising.
So it's so funny to see the shift.
Social media, specifically, is the fact that Gen Z, I'd say, is the best at this.
It's literally just people, these kids that have a work drive, that have some sense of humor, that are now overtaking the entirety of social media and now growing these accounts.
There's this whole culture of entitlement, of saying, you know, I have this job, so when can I be in charge of it?
When can I get whatever I want?
When can I get more benefits?
They have a gender studies degree.
Yeah, I really don't want to do much.
I really don't want to work hard.
When can I get more stuff?
This has so much become part of the culture and this leads back to the whole alliance between the leftist progressive movements and Islam, where you have Islam coming in as a different culture.
Imagine the Western world.
You have a bunch of people, to make it very simple, you have a bunch of people working very, very hard to create something great here, to create a great culture, create functioning societies, create fantastic cities.
Imagine these two guys, these two European guys on a hill thinking, wow, look at what we have built.
We have worked so hard to get this done.
Now, what should we do?
And they turn over and look at the very dysfunctional, the destructive Islamic society that hasn't produced anything.
And they think, let's just invite those guys over here.
Let them live here.
And then you have the leftist culture of entitlement, then thinking, okay, those guests, the Islamic minority that just arrived, they don't have to work.
For whatever is here.
They should also be part of it without contributing to anything.
Because this is what we learn in college.
This is what we learn.
This is how we grew up.
This is our culture.
This is what is virtuous.
To just share with everyone.
To give to everyone without expecting them to put any effort into it.
We should just take without working for it.
We should just loot businesses instead of building businesses.
And those who oppose us are probably white supremacists.
Someone who is not working, demanding of the state and community to support them without doing any work?
unidentified
There are varieties of approaches to that situation.
The thing is, in certain oil-rich countries, for example, it is very common to expect foreigners to come in and to work.
The rich natives generally don't want to do the work, they just want to spend the money they have through different means to then employ different people.
Some countries, I think Saudi Arabia actually at some point put rules in place where businesses are required to have at least such a minimum of local workers, of native workers.
Which is just a whole reversal of the DEI hire.
They have to hire natives to make them work.
The oil money also, in a lot of instances, funds the welfare state.
And they have permanent underclass, essentially.
And also, it's worth noting, many of the jihadist groups, including Hezbollah, for example, you have people like John Brennan, for example, former CIA director, would talk about, well, there's the political arm, and then there's the military arm of it.
They actually have set up social welfare entities within the jihadist groups, because, you know, that appeals to the populations, plus it gives them plausible deniability.
They can say, well, look, we're a political organization, and we also, you know, kill the unbelievers.
Well, something that's worth noting is whenever I do border work and I'm down there crossing the Rio Grande with immigrants that are coming into this country, whenever I see somebody that is of origin, that is of the Muslim faith, every single time, I have not seen it a single time where it's different.
They are dressed out in Balenciaga as they're crossing the river, in brand new shoes, wearing gold chains, and it's like, these guys already have money that are coming over here, and then they come over here and they're actually willing to work in society And then a lot of the times they end up becoming business owners that are already tapped in to connections here in America compared to like the Venezuelan side or the Honduras side.
You know, Venezuela is setting up gangs in Denver in New York right now.
And then the Hondurans are setting up fencing gangs, you know, and they're selling all the stolen goods in California.
So, but you see a very weird difference between the immigrants that are coming here, but almost all the Muslims that come here, they already know somebody in America and they're immediately tapped into some sort of business once they come and arrive here.
We talked earlier about virtue and contribution among different parts of society and leftists and progressives.
There is a very interesting data that I recently encountered, which studies the charitable contributions by religious groups in America.
The findings are basically that religious people generally contribute much more in charity And Christians, as they get more conservative, as they get more traditional, contribute more.
The Jewish population actually, I think 75% of Jews make charitable contributions.
It's the highest in America.
Secularist people who are non-religious contribute much less than religious people to society.
Those who are younger and more educated, more on the leftist side, make much fewer charitable contributions.
Which, in my opinion, says a lot about... How much money do they make?
Wasn't meant to be a joke, but you know, you can laugh.
I mean it literally.
So many of the leftists that I've talked to think that money comes from a job.
And I'm like, no, the money comes from someone else who's trading that money with you.
And then, of course, you can talk about fractional reserve banking and the creation of debt, blah, blah, blah.
But I mean, like, quite literally, if you want money to buy a thing, you need to only figure out how to trade with someone.
But they don't understand basic economics.
unidentified
You actually need to serve someone to be able to receive compensation.
And it makes sense why, if you were the evil authoritarian force and you were looking to ensure that there wouldn't be any competition, you wouldn't want there to be a functioning economy.
Once you actually have to operate in the real world, and then, God forbid, once you start to form a family, all of these developments in your life make it so that the facts of your life are essentially conservative, even if you don't realize it, and even if you don't want to admit it.
So, if you keep everyone in suspended adolescence, essentially, they will never come around to any other political system.
If you have to operate in the real world, which they definitely do not want, you're going to have a permanent voter base forever.
You know, I watched a documentary a long time ago about cats and dogs.
How they came to be domesticated.
You guys know the story.
People think that cats got domesticated because we wanted them for hunting rodents.
Not true.
Cats are an invasive species that we tolerate.
That's just it.
They would walk around where we lived and we thought they were funny and fun and they would come up and rub your leg and you'd scratch them on the head and that's what cats do.
They're independent.
Terriers, or dogs, that's what we bred for hunting rodents and stuff.
Dogs evolved through a natural process with wolves coming near human camps and eating the refuse.
And the human tribes that tolerated the wolves nearby had less encounters with predators because the wolves' scent and urine would keep other predators away.
The wolves that were Less aggressive towards humans, we're more likely to feast on the refuse of human camps and survive and have babies.
Do that for 10,000 years and eventually the wolves are walking around in the camps.
Humans are totally fine with them and we call those proto-dogs.
And then eventually the humans figured out, those wolves are tracking down some animal.
Let's go find... Ah, too bad for the wolves though, it was a bull or something.
Some large animal they couldn't take down, but the humans had spears.
They team up.
What ends up happening is wolves end up as proto-dogs and then as dogs, and dogs are effectively permanent adolescent wolves.
The way dogs behave, happy and goofy and doofy or whatever, wolves are fierce, aggressive, independent, and this is why they're so dangerous.
Why wolf dogs are dangerous.
Because you have to command their respect in order for them to actually be willing to listen to you.
Dogs love you unconditionally, and they get sad when you yell at them, they do something wrong, and they keep their heads down, and they're demure.
What's happening now, whether on purpose or otherwise, is this is what we're seeing with humans turning into permanent children.
Did you know that McDonald's has adult Happy Meals now with toys in them?
No joke, toys.
Adult millennials going into McDonald's and buying a Happy Meal so they can get their little toy, and then Soymouth on Instagram.
It is, in essence, a form of domestication in turning human adults into permanent children.
unidentified
Well, and then you have these, I mean, the leftists, they literally see, I mean, throughout the food, the water, pretty much everything, I mean, everything's poison, and they're the ones that are engaging in a lot of this, and basically taking in, you know, it's always the soy jack memes, and it's a perfect example, like, these people love soy, you know, they want to eat the bugs, they want to do all these things, but then they go through the college process, and it indoctrinates them to an entirely different level, but the biggest thing is then they see the owners of businesses that they're working for, they don't understand the economy, they don't understand where the money comes from,
But they see the owners as quite literally slave drivers.
That's what they see.
They think them working a normal nine-to-five job is equivalent to what slavery used to be, and that their expected handouts are expected things every step of the way because they simply don't understand how the world actually works.
Yeah, it's on X. Just look up White Dudes for Harris.
And holy crap, like, sitting through three and a half hours of that call, every single time I'm screenshotting the people that are popping up.
And it's like, this is a perfect example of what leftists truly look like here.
Aren't white dudes bad, though?
I don't get it.
Yeah, that was one thing.
Did they actually brand it White Dudes for Harris?
They did, yeah.
White Dudes for Harris.
So white identity politics are now okay for them.
It's funny because they actually opened up with a black man who criticized everybody in the chat, and that was actually a part of the call saying, you know, you got to, you know, where are the oppressed ones?
You guys need to do this good thing in a rally.
And then they closed with a woman that talked about the same thing.
The White Dudes for Harris call opened up with a black man and then ended with a white liberal.
So the message is basically, we are white dudes, we are guilty, we feel ashamed, and now we want to vote for Kamala Harris.
That is the premise of Satanism is that you are your own god.
You're in control of everything.
And it's sad to see, you know, as a Christian, it's like, we are literally called by God.
This is one thing that Islamic people do so well, is they spread their religion to even people that don't want it.
But as Christians, we are quite literally called to do that exact same thing.
Our goal is to be here and to make, I mean, to make Earth as heavenly as possible and to bring as many people to heaven with us as we possibly can.
That is what we are called to do as Christians.
We want as many people as possible to go to heaven.
But you see the modern-day Christian, we're just cucked out, and you know, they take the, you know, turn the other cheek way too seriously, and it's like, no, we are called to instate Christian policies.
And then you see all the attacks against Christian nationalism coming out, because they're actually scared of it.
Because if Christians actually had a backbone, they can make a massive difference in the country, but they just don't vote.
And Tim, I shot you the DM of that graphic if you want to look at it, because I know it's hard to find.
It's only been in recent history that the Republican Party has begun to sign up more, register more voters and more party members than Democrats, largely due to the efforts of people like Scott Pressler.
But before this, Democrats as a political party has always been larger than the Republicans, and Democrats do not represent those who are going to church.
The Republican Party has always been, at least in my life, the much more Christian and religious faction, but they, for some reason, have a smaller political party.
Until recently.
unidentified
I was just going to add that if we ultimately get to the endgame, where I don't know if we'll be existing anymore at that point, but if the leftists and the Islamic supremacists ultimately duke it out, the reason I think I give the upper hand to the Islamic supremacists is because they actually do have doctrine and they have Allah at the end of the day, and that has to be more powerful ultimately than Man as God.
I think between the two, having a theological basis that you can point to will make people do things that a man-made system with no doctrine at the end of the day.
And the only other thing I'd say is the irony of all this is the Jews is the one religion that we're talking about here that is inherently anti-expansionistic.
Jews don't want other people to join Judaism.
You can hardly convert.
If you want to convert, They say, no, you're not allowed to convert.
You have to kind of prove your way as to, you're not just doing this just to get married to someone who's Jewish.
It's the exact opposite.
They don't want non-Jewish people to marry Jewish people either.
That's a very big no-no within Judaism, from what I'm aware of.
But the biggest problem we have with Christians, too, is you have these pastors that aren't willing to talk politics or apply it, you know, apply Christ to the real world, And that's what you see, you see all the trans flags hanging at Methodist churches and all this ideology seeping into the church.
And my pastor literally held a sermon, he had me invite Phil Lyman and other candidates from Utah, the Sunday right before the election that was held for the governor race and all the other races.
And he said, you should be talking to these people.
He said, you need to be mobilizing yourself and voting because we have basically an issue from God to actually make society as Christian as possible.
And I think if pastors and priests, popes, pretty much everything, and the pope in particular, he has a lot of power, whether people want to admit it or not.
If he came out and said, you need to vote this way, That's what you see with the LDS Church in Utah, and everybody listens to what the LDS Church wants in Utah.
That's why you get people like Governor Cox and all these terrible candidates propped up.
Who would the Pope want Americans to vote for, though?
I think at this point, I mean, the Pope is no good at this point.
He has been saying some pretty interesting and funny statements recently when it comes to, you know, the gay stuff in the church and the trans stuff in the church.
But I mean, the Pope is inherently leftist from what I've seen, which is a shame.
The thing is, it's very easy to convert to Islam.
We're talking about Islam as an expansionist religion, whereas Judaism, for example, is the opposite of that.
Judaism has a tradition, a history of teaching.
If somebody wants to convert, they are welcome, and a convert is usually very highly valued, but they are supposed to be told three times, no, so that they can go away and learn and have proper intention.
And if they still want to convert, then yes, teach them everything, have them convert, make them part of your group, and so on.
With Christians, Christians want to spread the religion, but somebody who converts to Christianity is actually expected to actually change and to act like a Christian.
With Islam, it's not like that.
Converting to Islam is very easy.
You have people, proselytizers in, I don't know, California and other places go around, put up a stand, talk to people.
Somebody comes along who has never heard of Islam before, knows nothing about Islam at all.
They have a conversation with that person for five minutes and then urge that person to simply repeat the phrase, there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger and that's it.
You are now a Muslim.
Now go away, do whatever you Well, and also another problem is, you know, at least with Christians... I just want to add, so, when it is like that, when you spread the religion this way, and you just make people convert simply for the sake of it, and this is the highest value, that you must spread the religion, and when you spread the religion you are rewarded, and you do it now willingly, diplomatically, otherwise you do it violently when you have the power, this is where you get.
And I disagree with the point, actually, that Islam has a strong foundation and that Islam would sustain because it has, you know, it is founded on theological or on the idea of God.
I think, yes, having God at the foundation, having religion at the foundation, at the core, is something, is strong, it is significant.
However, Islam is also, on the flip side, too destructive, too aggressive, too hostile, too unproductive and also Most importantly, too self-destructive.
There's always infighting, there's always commanding, there's always dissatisfaction, there's always a rejection of creativity, which we discussed earlier is very important for a functioning society.
And there's always the tendency to self-correct and to persecute eventually those within who go astray, which is why Islamic societies always ended up fighting, fighting, and then destroying themselves.
I would say the left has its problems and has a lack of such a strong foundation, but at least they have the means to further develop and explore different ideas without butchering each other in the end.
The problem we see with the Christian voter base, too, is it is very easy to convert to Christianity, too, because the big premise is you take Christ as your Savior, and now you're considered a Christian.
And that's great, but he's supposed to change your heart, and in turn that's supposed to change your actions, which in turn should make you go and vote at the ballot box, but most Christians nowadays, sadly, are Christians and Christians in name only.
I mean, they don't read their Bible, they actually aren't trying to change the world, which is what they're called to do, because they never actually open up their Bible, they just say, yeah, I'm a Christian, but they don't act like a Christian.
Does Donald Trump win and then, you know, we see a Christian resurgence?
I think that the biological issue, the fertility rates, are going to result in this country either becoming Muslim or Christian.
But I think leftism just sort of implodes on itself because they abort their kids or they sterilize their kids.
unidentified
I think we have a problem.
Our topic today was mainly focused on the alliance between the left and Islam.
However, it's not just the left.
As we pointed out, over the last half year or so, we have seen a lot of developments also on the right of people who are giving in to the idea that Islam is not actually that bad and we should make common cause and all that.
Which is a very, very dangerous idea, a very dangerous thing to play with.
And I just think that it's important for people to acknowledge this.
When we talk about why the leftist Islamic alliance is so destructive and so dangerous, we should also point out that it is just as dangerous when conservatives and certain right-wingers, because of their hatred for Israel or Jews, for example, or for other reasons, Come to us and say, you know what, we have learned all kinds of bad things about Islam but Islam is actually not that bad.
We should do common cause and we should work together to fight degeneracy and we have certain conservative values that are actually quite good and the Islamic world does very well with the whole LGBT stuff and we should adopt that and we should be like them and all that.
And I think this is mostly in regards to, like, they don't tolerate gender ideology, but I'm pretty sure I don't know, if I'm being generous, maybe 97% of this country would outright be like, the overarching policies of the Middle East towards gay people is just abject horror.
unidentified
I hope so.
Yeah, but they're definitely gonna- You have to respect other worldviews.
But there probably are some very fringe elements that like what the Middle East does to gay people.
I mean, Iran forces sex changes on people.
unidentified
And to that point, I would say in practice, and I might differ a little bit in terms of where the Democrat Party is broadly on this, with Middle East policy, the Obama-Biden policy and then the Biden-Harris policy was to make Iran the strong course in the Middle East, constrained by where public sentiment is in America.
Israel is in a seven-front war right now, essentially, where, with respect to Gaza, the Biden-Harris administration position is force a ceasefire, exchange whatever hostages remain alive for 10 or 15 or 30 times as many jihadis, let Hamas survive, start the creation of a Palestinian Arab terror state, which is what it would be.
Also, Israel, within one week after October 7th, don't strike Hezbollah, Which has caused tens of thousands of Israelis who live in northern Israel to be refugees in their own country for months on end.
And also, when Iran hits you, don't strike back too hard.
You want us to defend you, right?
You want us to protect you?
Houthis, you know, we'll let you control waterways.
The entire policy I disagree.
Iran first policy.
So the Democrat policy today, I would argue, even though, yes, they'll say, look, we give Israel munitions and we're going to help them defend themselves, defend themselves, but not actually ultimately deter all the adversaries that's around them, because we don't want to get into a fight when we really don't want to escalate.
Let Iran do these things so that you can get a cast's belly.
So that you can go to the rest of the world and say, look at all the horrible things they've done.
We better go in.
unidentified
See, I take the contrarian position, probably, which is that this administration would never go to war with Iran.
And by the way, and let me just say, my position broadly is what the Trump position was, which is starve Iran of their resources.
Bring the Sunni Arab world plus Israel together to counterbalance and check Iran so that the U.S.
doesn't have to do anything in this region and we can focus on China and other adversaries around the world.
But if you look at what the Obama-Biden worldview was, it was, we need to get to a nuclear deal, so-called, which legitimized the nuclear program, which flooded a regime which is a dying, decrepit regime with tens of billions of dollars.
Ultimately, look at what the outcome is of the policies that they're pushing.
The policies they're pushing are Hezbollah dominant to the north, creation of a Palestinian Arab terror state on two sides, protect Iran at all costs, legitimize its nuclear program.
I think that is all lining up a circumstance where they can make the argument, oh, we've tried to be such good stewards and they want to leave us alone.
Oh, no, now they're attacking us.
Oh, help us, we have to go to war!
And the counterpoint is with the... Joe Biden is an extension of Obama in so many ways.
Stuxnet.
You know, we can talk about all the deals they're trying to cut, but the U.S.
literally waged... The United States directly attacked Iran with the Stuxnet virus, blowing up nuclear centrifuges.
So, the only reason we didn't go to war is because Iran chose not to retaliate, or if they did, it was cyber attack or subterfuge.
I think this administration desperately wants war.
I think that the Democrats... I mean, look, You look at the neocons who fled the Republican Party to the Democratic Party, all of a sudden changed their tune, and all of a sudden are like, we don't actually want to go with Iran.
All these guys that flipped on Trump, they were Republicans, and you look at the Lincoln Project guys, you look at these other neocons.
These are the people, during the Bush administration, who were in favor of policies that led to a, you look at Afghanistan and Iraq.
We are surrounding Iran with military bases, and the target was always Iran.
General Wesley Clark said there were seven countries the U.S.
wants to invade.
Iran was one of them.
We didn't get there yet, but we got the rest of them.
Granted, we didn't do well in Syria, largely due to Donald Trump getting in office and putting a kibosh on these things.
I look at Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton.
This is the uniparty establishment.
Neocons have joined them because Donald Trump is shutting down their long-term plans.
You go back to 2009.
You had the report from The Guardian in 2012, and in 2009, the United States government internally decided they were going to invade and remove Bashar al-Assad from Syria.
It was very difficult, but lucky for us, the Arab Spring happened, and then there was a civil war, and it just turns out Bashar al-Assad's the bad guy.
ISIS rises, and somehow they end up with U.S.
material.
unidentified
A couple things on the Arab Spring, though.
One, where was the Biden administration, Obama administration silent?
Iran.
Number two, those regime changes, what did they lead to in every single instance?
Jihadist insurgencies.
Who did the Obama administration help topple in Egypt?
Well, topple the relatively secular dictator for the Muslim Brotherhood.
In every single instance, the regime change policies, which maybe you would say the neocons, and they probably were, were for, to get democracy.
The democracy always and every instance led to more hostile regimes to the West.
Real quick, it's because Obama was hoping that ISIS was going to destroy Syria.
And what's the problem with Syria?
The U.S.
has wanted to build the Qatar-Turkey pipeline for a very, very long time because Russia's control over gas prices in Europe.
This is why you have the Burisma scandal.
It's why there's currently war in Ukraine.
It's why NATO wants to gain control of Ukraine, so they control the Gazprom pipeline, which is about 20% of the gas into Europe.
When Syria said, you will not build a pipeline through our country, the United States all of a sudden went, oh, well, gee, Bashar al-Assad's a dictator.
And Syria quite literally stated, we will not allow you to build a pipeline because it will disrupt our ally Russia's gas sales into Europe.
ISIS rises, oh whoopsie daisies, Obama drone bomber, they call him Obama, couldn't figure out how to deal with the problem of ISIS has expanded rapidly as we continually Let's just say behind the scenes we're hoping that they were going to get rid of Bashar al-Assad.
Donald Trump gets in, ISIS gone.
War in Ukraine, freezing.
Basically the conflict starts drying up.
What I see from this regime, and it's not even fair because I can only go back so far, I'm not old enough.
You see, the United States, and the general surface-level argument is, the U.S.
and Europe operate as a shared bloc under NATO.
The U.S., which is basically the principal power, wants Europe to expand.
They need cheap energy.
Russia is not aligned with Europe.
They're more aligned with themselves, to be completely honest, and so they want to They want to sell gas for what they can sell it for.
The U.S.
is trying to compete to get cheaper energy into Europe to allow economic expansion.
Russia is basically blocking this.
You look at more modern history, and Donald Trump was not supposed to win.
Hillary Clinton was next in line.
They were going to continue the expansionist policies through Eastern Europe into Ukraine.
You already had the conflict.
2013, you had the Euromaidan protests.
The accusation from Russia and other countries is that the U.S.
was funding and supporting it.
The Venezuelans thought the U.S.
was supporting it.
Barack Obama loses, Ukraine freezes.
ISIS is obliterated.
Abraham Accords.
Things start changing dramatically.
Donald Trump calls off the airstrike on Iran, which was supposed to be retaliation, then he says, OK, we can't do this, there'll be too many dead.
What I see from the Democrats is, you do not have public support for this.
People greatly despise what's going on in the region.
Among populists on the left and the right, none of us want to be involved with Israel and the war that's going on there.
But the United States needs a justification for how we're going to war with Iran.
And this is all greatly speculative.
I could be wrong about everything.
What the working theory right now with the Donald Trump assassination after the miss hits Trump supporters, killing and critically injuring two.
You have this narrative pop up just briefly for about 10 minutes.
Iran was planning an assassination on Trump.
Was that the goal?
And now the FBI said the social media accounts of this guy, Crooks, was anti-Semitic and anti-immigrant.
Was the narrative going to be that an anti-Israel right-winger, a Groyper, Who hated Donald Trump for his support for Israel, didn't want Donald Trump to get in office and fund Israel, so with Iranian backing and funds was able to pull this off, thus the U.S.
would then have a Nikki Haley as a candidate for the RNC, she's the second highest most delegates, or Joe Biden or Kamala, and the only outcome then is we have to retaliate against Iran for what they did to Donald Trump.
unidentified
The issue here, Tim, is that Trump was generally anti-war, and we can agree on that.
However, there is one thing that he was very firm on, which was that Iran is the bad guy in the Middle East.
He hired Bolton.
He toured the entire Middle East, went to the Arab nations, went to Saudi Arabia, gave a speech there and pointed out in that speech, while praising everyone for their contributions and for how everything is going, he said, we all know that there is one player that is doing all the bad stuff here, basically, and we need to confront them.
That is Iran.
He was consistently very much anti-Iran.
And Iran is, according to speculations, pretty much terrified of another Trump administration because it would be a stronger United States.
The sinister thing is that whether America wants war with Iran or not, Iran actually wants a war because it is part of the Islamic regime of Iran.
It is part of their ideal that there would be a future Which might come soon, where a religious war will be waged, and Iran will be on top of it, where they will destroy America and destroy Israel with the help of divine help and all that, which is why they have official slogans, death to America, death to Israel, which will continue.
And there are religious groups here who want that to happen, too, because they think it's what's required to bring about the return of Jesus or the first Messiah.
John Bolton in the Trump administration said, I think it was 2017, next year we will be celebrating in Tehran.
And then he gets fired.
Stabs Trump in the back.
I don't think Trump is going to bring us into war with Iran.
I think they are going to get us into a war with Iran first.
That way, if Trump wins, he can't back out of it.
It won't be as easy.
You look at what's happening right now with the airstrike in Tehran killing the Hania.
I mean, that's... Look, man, the only thing stopping a large regional war from breaking out right now is whether Iran decides to pull the trigger.
Because they just got bombed in their capital.
unidentified
So I would say, and again, this is a contrarian position, Go back to the signature Obama foreign policy, Iran nuclear deal.
What did that do?
It recapitalized the regime.
And that was in the second term, mind you, when JCPOA was ultimately executed.
And also I understand Obama was operating within the confines of American political sentiment.
Political sentiment has shifted in this country.
So my view is that Obama world, which really dominates the Democrat Party, they're true believers who actually believe that we can just have peace with Iran if we just appease them and it'll be just like China.
And oh, by the way, And this is, I think, for a lot of the real power-hungry people, the endgame is we need to open up Iran to Western investment because this is going to lead to a massive, massive windfall.
Who poses the greatest threat to that massive, massive windfall?
It would be Israel, and then it would be Israel Allied with the Sunni Arab powers in the region.
The whole policy was make Iran the regional strong course.
I do not believe it was, we need to get into a war with Iran and this is somehow going to lead to, you know, America engaging in the ultimate regime change operation.
Totally agree with you.
Donald Trump would not get into a hot war with Iran.
The entire goal of the Abraham Accords was to get us out of the region and not have to deal with the problems there.
But what is preventing the massive war today?
The US just rushed warships into the region after those assassinations.
Everything it is doing is to restrain Israel from being able to punch back really hard.
I know these assassination attempts are treated as massive, but the pattern has been strikes on Israeli civilians and other targets infrastructure.
Israel's allowed to take out the commander who called in the head or the architect.
By the way, Israel just took out a guy who was a mastermind behind an attack on Americans that killed over 240 troops and injured more than 100 more.
The entire pattern is Iran and its proxies can hit Israel.
Israel can hit back with a limited amount of force.
They claim, because they want to de- our government claims to de-escalate the situation, but it ultimately leads to escalation.
And you're saying that's by design.
I don't think it's by design.
I think they really believe if we can just restrain Israel, that nuisance in the region, and we can get them surrounded so they can't do anything, then the world that we want, which is an Iran-dominated Middle East, will prevail.
Iran will open up to Western investment and we'll all get rich off of it and there'll be balance in the region.
I don't think they believe they're going to convert Iran into an economic ally or whatever, but I do think that there is a possibility their strategy is isolation.
Surrounding them, Iraq and Afghanistan, cutting off trade routes, choking them out with sanctions until their government collapses.
unidentified
This administration is sanctioning Israel right now.
Iran already has an expansionist policy and ideology, and they have been at this for many decades.
They just haven't been very successful with it.
The entire plan is to... They are already isolated because they are a Shia, a very religious Shia Muslim country, which is not very popular among Sunni Muslims.
Sunnis generally dislike Shia Islam.
They want to be a contender and they want to become a major power in the region and they think that one of the best ways to do that is to establish proxy fighters in different countries like Hezbollah, the Houthis and now also Hamas to then exert more and more power by force and to become a major player and to take down the others, the rivals like Saudi Arabia for example.
Working with Saudi Arabia right now, as much as I hate it, I think Saudi Arabia has a disgraceful, disgusting regime.
However, working with them is much more beneficial to America, whether it's Republicans or Democrats, than working with Iran.
Iran is not a country in the current state with the Islamic regime that either party would want to collaborate with.
They are all out for the destruction of America and Israel.
People have a lot of criticism whenever Israel responds or whenever Israel takes somebody out.
Seriously, screw these people.
Israel is surrounded with enemies, with Hamas, with Hezbollah, with Houthis, with all the others that explicitly and repeatedly say, we will kill you all, we will eradicate you all.
No other nation in the world would be expected to have restraint and to not strike back, to be careful and all that.
Other nations wouldn't act like this.
Other nations would forcefully respond to those who want to eradicate them, and they would be justified in doing so.
Israel has suffered enough, and Israel should be striking back.
The issue with the current administration and with the Democrats is that if Kamala Harris is elected, Israel will probably not have much support in their current war, and there will be more support for the establishment of another terrorist Palestinian regime.
I just... Trump doesn't want.
Trump is firmly against it.
He also explicitly said he wants to help Israel.
Trump wants to help Israel in their war to finish Hamas.
I can't follow this train of thought, I don't understand.
It's the third time I've heard it in two days.
Why would the Democrats, who have aligned themselves with the neocons, just abruptly, today, decide to stop funding Israel after decades?
unidentified
They wouldn't stop funding Israel.
What they would do is to pacify Israel and to continue this whole trend of saying, we will support you as long as you deal with restraint.
When you deal with Hamas, when you fight Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and the problem with that is Hamas is a terrorist organization that wants to destroy Israel.
There is no way that these two groups can coexist.
But the Democrats want to force Israel to do that.
Inherits something called Operation Olympic Games from George W. Bush and ramps it up exponentially, which is a... I don't care what the tactic of a strike is, would be akin to them launching missiles and blowing up Iranian nuclear facilities.
This nuclear deal is meaningless to me.
That's public surface level appeasement for the international community.
That's meaningless because we know that Barack Obama launched a military strike on Iranian targets and blew them up.
unidentified
But one thing about Stuxnet, after that though, what happened to Iran's nuclear program with American funding?
Ramped up dramatically, now infinitely more hardened with new facilities and centrifuges spinning, and infinitely closer at least according to the open source.
What's the reason that Barack Obama would blow them up and then fund it?
unidentified
I think ultimately he was constrained by the conditions on the ground politically in America.
In Israel, he probably viewed this as this is the least impactful and destructive way that I can ensure that I have political cover prior to executing.
How could you possibly, the cognitive dissonance of Stuxnet, but then We're going to legitimize your nuclear program, or we're actually going to pledge U.S.
protection to your nuclear assets, and we're going to sunset the provisions in this plan so that your nuclear program is legitimate and totally above board and accepted.
How can you reconcile those two things?
And to me, ultimately, it is it's the domestic politics of it, and it's the wheels that were set in motion prior to him being president, because the whole second term was all about, I mean, Why would you push so hard for the Iran nuclear deal and put pressure on Jewish Americans, the New York Times, and elsewhere to say, oh, you're siding against this.
You're disloyal to your country because you're against this deal.
Or you have dual loyalty and you're siding with the Israelis.
And the last point I would make is aid.
So aid, we haven't really talked about it that much.
And for my money, cards on the table, I would love a world where U.S.
aid is de minimis everywhere.
And that includes in Israel.
And there's a great sort of symposium that Tablet did about this months back from people who are pro-Israel and people who are pro-US national interest who say, yes, we should get rid of aid.
And Israel, by the way, should have its own domestic defense production capacity, just like we should have our own domestic defense production capacity.
The aid package that Barack Obama negotiated with Israel Was in part to shut Israel up about its opposition to the Iranian policy and a slew of other policies that the administration engaged in.
But it was also because it turns Israel into a client state rather than an actual ally.
So the aid is leverage.
Which binds Israel in a situation like it faces now where it's in a seven front war.
It can't go over the U.S.
at red lines because you don't want to risk the 3.8 billion dollars in military aid that we provide every year.
So even the aid which is presented as we love Israel and we're gonna throw these billions of dollars at you is actually a form of power control and leverage.
And at the end of the day again I would say an independent Israel and an independent U.S.
would be infinitely better all around.
See, I don't think I can buy into the idea that the military-industrial complex, if Kamala Harris is elected, that they're just going to all of a sudden show restraint and not back Israel.
I mean, we hear this on both sides that Israel is our greatest ally.
We give them basically infinite money glitch year by year.
We give them bombs to drop on people.
And the idea that Israel has to hold restraint because of the U.S.
is kind of crazy to me because we have seen, there's so many videos of what's going on in Gaza that is not restraint.
But Gaza, if Israel had executed the operation they wanted to execute, I mean, the U.S.
controlled the timeline.
The U.S.
controlled the weapons that were used.
The U.S.
controls where you're allowed to go in and where you're not allowed to go in.
The U.S.
negotiated already the ceasefires.
This could have been executed much more swiftly and decisively, probably with fewer casualties on both sides.
If Israel had been able to go in with maximum force immediately because, as you know, in war, and we've seen this with the US, when you get into these ground invasions that are plodding and slow and you're going house by house, that ultimately leads to quagmires.
If you go in with decisive force, if you take out Qasem Soleimani, that's infinitely more effective than going house to house in any number of countries in the world.
So I would argue, and I know it's a contrarian position, we wouldn't be plodding along months and months into this right now Were it not for, and also with rules of engagement imposed on Israel that have led to one of the lowest military to civilian ratios in the history of modern warfare, and certainly lower than the US, this wouldn't be happening if Israel had been able to do what it wanted to do originally.
But the administration has micromanaged every aspect.
I mean, the ultimate goal, though, is war with Iran on both sides, in my mind.
I mean, our entire involvement in the Middle East, that hasn't benefited the United States.
We're not gathering natural resources.
We're not being a colonial empire.
I mean, if you're going to go in, in my mind, at least take some oil, take some things.
And that was a lot of, you know, kind of the narrative that we were sold.
But pretty much every war that we have fought in the Middle East has been in benefit for Israel.
But when we took—see, I disagree, and here's why.
Iraq War.
Who took over Iraq after that war?
It's the Shia militias and Iran's proxies.
We turned, idiotically, Iraq into Iran 2.0.
Why would you do that?
How could that possibly be in the U.S.
national interest?
Or to get into war with Iran?
That allows Iran to expand its power massively and now you have what they call a ring of fire in the region where you have Iran and its proxies everywhere.
Why do we give billions of dollars in aid and in military money to the Lebanese Air Force and to Lebanese forces?
It's all for Hezbollah!
I want to clarify something Ben just said in response also to your remark about Gaza.
So one point is that the Democrats would not cut off their support.
They would not stop funding Israel.
They would simply change their expectations of Israel or maintain basically what they expect from Israel right now.
But forced even more restrained.
There is an expert, John Spencer at West Point, he's an expert on urban warfare.
He pointed out, and even Netanyahu repeated this in his speech recently, he pointed out that Israel has shown more restraint and has taken more measures to minimize civilian casualties than any force in the history of urban warfare so far.
and has done more to prevent civilian casualties than is actually expected by international laws.
So Israel is doing a very, very good job under the current circumstances with the operation in Gaza, but they are very much restrained and can't do what they want, which is to go in and take out and finish Hamas.
Hamas has to be finished.
There is no other way around.
If you leave Hamas alive, if you leave them in charge, There will be more suffering, more pain, more deaths in the very near future.
And the Democratic Party is making compromises for the progressives and for the others, and to keep the Palestinian party happy.
And they want to prevent Israel from going all in and finishing Hamas.
So let me just say, just to sum it up, I think, what the dispute ultimately is.
I'm sympathetic to the view that what's good for the military industrial complex?
War is good for the military-industrial complex.
And why are there all sorts of, you know, sinister and nefarious reasons that you can explain why things happen in national security and foreign policy?
But I think the dispute lies ultimately in my view is that Iran first is the policy of the Democrat Party.
You guys think that that's a ruse essentially to the extent it even exists and you could point to Stuxnet as as a counter example and say that actually we really want war with Iran but I would just point to all these conditions on the ground that suggest we are funding, aiding, abetting, and enabling them and I don't think it's at the end of the day to then fight a war with them.
I would put money down that the Biden administration would never get into a hot war in the way that we would normally describe it with Iran.
And then the shipping of weapons to an insane amount, to the tens of billions of dollars every year into Israel as a staging operation because we want to blow that country up.
It's fascinating to me that there are people who think Israel controls the United States.
It's just like the most insane thing I've ever heard.
Because the United States wants direct control, and they want someone who's going to serve the military-industrial complex.
I shouldn't even say the United States.
It's the Western forces.
Oh boy, the media got really mad when I called it the Western forces.
Yeah, because it's Europe, it's NATO, it's massive corporations.
Some of them exist in Southeast Asia.
These are companies that want control over the region, and you don't win wars by standing up and going, I'm gonna go fight!
You win wars with subterfuge, manipulation, false flag attacks, and how do you rally public support behind you for a massive war in Iran?
You need a castus belli.
You need a 9-11 style event to justify a war.
So for what reason did the United States invade Iraq and Afghanistan?
No legitimate reasons.
Osama Bin Laden turned out he was in Pakistan the whole time.
Apparently there's been numerous reports we knew where the guy was, but for some reason, and I'll shout out to Family Guy for making the joke, when it's like, they made a 9-11 joke where Peter's like, wow, some Egyptian, he's like, so because of 9-11 we gotta go to a war with Iraq?
And Brian's like, no, it wasn't Iraq, it was Afghanistan?
He's like, it was some Saudis, some Egyptians, et cetera, et cetera.
It's fascinating that, after 9-11, it's like, well, time to go invade Iraq.
And I think most Americans, because of their lack of understanding of Middle Eastern geography, didn't really stop to think, hey, wait a minute, Iraq and Afghanistan surround Iran!
unidentified
The thing is, Iraq was a counterbalance to Iran.
So, like, the Iran-Iraq war, from the perspective of U.S.
national interest, is the best thing ever, because you have the Sunni and Shia fighting each other and not focused on us.
Why would you destabilize and take out Saddam Hussein To then turn Iraq into an Iranian proxy.
government is incompetent, I will agree with you 100%.
My perspective would then be, what logical reason would there be to set up, to invade Iraq and Afghanistan These are the western and eastern borders of Iran.
unidentified
Afghanistan was more... I mean, I think you have a better logical argument.
Like, there are al-Qaeda camps here, al-Qaeda struck us.
That's a more reasonable line, if you were taking it at its face, than the Iraq.
Iraq is harder to defend.
Afghanistan was totally justified.
Afghanistan was harboring and making excuses for the very people who took responsibility and who were responsible for 9-11.
I mean, we create proxies and then fights proxies and then those proxies don't work.
But what about the Sunni and Shia to fight each other?
And you know they didn't want to leave and Donald Trump negotiated with the Taliban.
They lost their minds over it.
And then Joe Biden basically nuked the Afghanistan withdrawal in the most psychotic and absurd way that no one could think was a rational plan.
I look at this like, Wesley Clark said, Iran's last on the list.
To me, it looks like it's all part of a bigger play for control in the region, and I think it would be silly to assume that the military strategy of the entirety of Western forces is, we are going to wear our plan on our sleeve, Publicly declare we will walk to the doorstep of Iran, knock, and then say we hereby declare war.
It's always going to be manipulation, narrative manipulation, subterfuge, cyber attacks.
And once again, in the modern age, especially with mass media, it used to be very easy to generate a cat's belly.
You could literally just say, our ship blew up!
Trust me!
And people would be like, how dare they?
Well, now you've got a discerning population that says, show us.
Well, what do you get?
You get the Gulf of Tonkin.
Where it's like, oh, oh, heavens help us, they bombed our ship, oh geez, that was a lie.
And that was the castor's belly for our involvement in Vietnam.
The United States is not going to declare war on Iran without something that pushes the American public sentiment in that direction.
Perhaps the assassination of Donald Trump would have been that if it succeeded.
unidentified
So the question would be, what is the objective of Middle East policy for our regime?
And to me, I think that typically it's always been stability.
Maintain status quo, don't have oil prices, shoot through the roof, etc.
And if that was your objective, and you're of the worldview that it's really They could be doing a lot more to support Iran than just, like, unfreezing money.
They'd lift sanctions.
of the region, then you side with a strong course and you want the strong course to be Iran.
That's that's ultimately I think they and what we should be doing a lot more to support Iran than just like unfreezing money.
They lift sanctions.
They'd start they they'd literally send pallets of cash.
unidentified
Well, we have not imposed oil sanction here.
We haven't imposed oil sanctions, enforced oil sanctions, rather, on Iran.
So the regime has gotten tens of billions of dollars in oil monies that it wouldn't have had under Donald Trump.
The nuclear program continues advancing, and my point is just that they, and we should bifurcate between what do military people want and what do the political civilian leaders want?
Because there are differences, I suspect.
But ultimately, at the end of the day, The Democrat Party is constrained by American sentiment, so they can only push it so far.
They can't say, we're for regime change in Iran.
They wouldn't do that.
And I agree, subterfuge certainly is a huge part of it.
The only other thing I'd say is on Crooks, my read on the whole Iran thing, because like Iran has assassination bounties on the heads of Most of the Trump administration senior officials, and there have been threats on them, and there have been threats on Trump from them for a long time.
Throwing that out there, to me, it's a head fake to make this about a foreign influence thing.
I think it's a... I don't trust anything when it comes to... The intelligence community says this about foreign interference in our elections X months out.
You know, just like they said Russia prefers Trump over Biden again, you know?
I think we have to be very careful about what they're throwing at us.
It's hard for me to try and understand why the neocons and the uniparty Democrats, this weird alliance that formed with Donald Trump, what's their goal then?
unidentified
Well, they don't like Russia, they agree on that, because Trump-Russia.
However, I think probably those neocons that you're talking about, like if you ask Hillary Clinton, what is your ultimate objective for the Middle East?
She wanted war.
She definitely wanted war, but to what end?
She wanted to conquer Syria.
But to what end, though?
It was for jihadist insurgencies and for the Islamic supremacist parties to come in.
Yeah, because the military came in and started killing them all.
unidentified
Yeah, but not America.
I mean, that wasn't what Barack Obama wanted.
He wanted democracy in the Middle East.
And democracy in the Middle East, oftentimes what the voters vote for is, well, they voted for Hamas in Gaza.
They voted, you know, they wanted the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Look, I just want to say we can speculate forever about what our government, what our governments want to do with Iran.
There is just one fact that I think we should keep in our minds, which is that Iran officially wants to fight America eventually.
It is still part of their official policy.
They still say, in fact, the day Ismail Hani, the political leader of Hamas, was finally killed, he visited the parliament in Iran.
And on that day, as he was in there, they honored him by shouting all together, death to Israel, death to America, death to Israel, death to America.
Keep that in mind.
See, but the idea to me that Iran is an imminent threat to America is absurd.
I mean, they're halfway across the world.
These people are not a threat to us in this aspect.
We've made Russia the current boogeyman because the military-industrial complex always need a boogeyman, and now Iran is now becoming that next proxy setup for us to be dragged into a larger war.
So I don't think we'll solve the entirety of the military industrial complex strategy, but gentlemen, it's been a blast for having you.
Do you want to shout anything out before we go?
We'll go through the...
unidentified
Yeah, I have a YouTube channel, Apostate Prophet, visit there.
I talk a lot about these things.
I also want to quickly remind people that there are lots of hostages still being held by Hamas in Gaza, in captivity, civilians, including babies, one that just turned one year old.
So we need to do everything to bring them home.
And we even have American citizens still being hostage.
Hard to follow that up, except to say the book that I wrote, American Ingrid, kind of predicted where the Democrat Party would land on a slew of these issues.
We won't agree on what the ends are ultimately of American plans and the jihadist plans, but I think all of us want to see America strong, our national interests protected.
I think we'd probably all agree that America being a dominant force that does not have to be used, and only when goes into operation, is used prudently and with overwhelming force narrowly to avoid getting ourselves involved in all sorts of things that ultimately undermine the country.
We should be strong, use our force prudently, and pursue our national interest at the end of the day.
Everyone can follow the company I work for at WatchTenant now.
Obviously we're streaming there now, but follow us on X and TaylorUSA on Twitter.
And I just want to say we shouldn't fund Israel.
We shouldn't fund Ukraine.
None of this stuff is in our final interest.
We have really no interest in that region.
It does not benefit us.
I'm strictly America first.
Let's take care of our homeless veterans that went and fought worthless wars in the Middle East and are now traumatized and are not taken care of here in this country.
