Sulaiman Ahmed joins Rex Jones and Tim Tompkins to dissect Iran’s protests, alleging foreign exploitation—Mossad infiltration and U.S.-Israeli regime-change schemes—while predicting a Trump-era air strike. He frames Hezbollah/Hamas as resistance movements, contrasting them with Saudi-backed extremism, and blames U.S. policies for Europe’s decline via NATO cuts, Brexit, and Ukraine/Israel funding. The trio debates Venezuela’s collapse (304B barrels of oil, production from 3.5M to 600K barrels/day), sanctions, and "Dutch disease," linking it to U.S. corporate greed and politicized PDVSA mismanagement. Reparations for systemic inequality spark tension: Ahmed advocates targeted aid, Jones rejects racial divisions, while callers clash over immigration enforcement, welfare, and election fears—all underscoring how elite policies deepen global instability. [Automatically generated summary]
I mean, it's like it's so easy to when you don't, when your closest neighbor is literally thousands of miles away, besides if you're living on these coastal maple syrup people and then we got sombrero people, and that's all we have to deal with.
And also, Canada, I know you guys are another country, but basically America and Canada, I can't tell the difference between a Canadian and an American.
That's not good because of the chemicals, because of the printer paper and the ink.
I mean, I've smoked a lot, but I wouldn't do that.
That's a little crazy.
And I'm not going to make the point.
NASA protests in Iran have not stopped for two weeks, even though the Islamic Republic has been cut off the internet and is killing people across the country to silence the demonstrations.
Dozens, perhaps more, of unarmed civilians have been killed.
And yet, people like this continue to take to the streets.
Everyone seems to find a video that keeps circulating online from previous time periods.
And this is why I kind of like Grok, because when you just, somebody just in the chat, I mean, sorry, somebody in the comment section, all they have to do is ask, hey, Grok, is this from like today?
And you know what's very interesting about these things, dude?
The people who are the police men, the guys in the riot gear, they're citizens too.
So they could have a lot of the same beliefs as the people protesting, but because they have a job and they have somebody who's telling them what to do and where they have to be and what they, you know, have to kill, who they have to kill, you have to take your orders.
And I'm seeing people make the conclusion, and there's a very good argument for this, that the United States and a lot of our allies, especially Israel, are going to be using this as an ability to potentially make some attacks.
Now, the U.S. is starting to move assets around under the, like, they're creating like the same thing they did with the B-2 bombers where they're creating distractions and moving assets, but we're moving closer to Iran.
But when you have a guy like this, once they fled, I think once him and his family fled, I mean, the Western society like United States, UK opened these open came, let them in with open arms, almost like when Russia lets in people who fled their countries for like extortion and all those things.
The thing is, it's like I find us as Americans, we look at the operation, it's like, well, like, can we do this?
Can we get this done?
Can we achieve our objective of liberating the area or whatever?
And my question is, why should we?
Like, what business is it of ours to mess with these people to be in their space to take their stuff or even make them feel like we're taking their stuff, right?
And like the version of America that I think is great is an America that cooperates with other countries and other countries like us based on what we can do for them and what they can do for us in a cooperation relationship.
Yeah, I mean, look, I do look at some of the content they may post on X, but I don't really religiously watch anyone's shows or religiously watch anyone's opinions.
Yeah, well, with Iran, they've wanted to basically overthrow Iran for the state of Israel for a very long time.
And the reason, obviously, is because Israel wants autonomy and control over the region.
Now, the hope or aim was: I mean, I don't know how far you want to back you want to go on this, but yeah, I mean, even if you look at it historically, as you know, when the Brits found out that there was oil in the 19th century, there's always been this need or want to have control over Iran.
And as you know, basically after the world war, the kind of bait and switch the Americans did, they kind of took control over the resources in Iran.
And you had the democracy, they helped overthrow democracy.
Then you had the monarchy, and then they overthrew the monarchy.
And then now you've basically got the kind of like theocracy, which is basically been represented by the ayatollah currently.
Now, the issue with Iran is obviously it is religious, it's based on Shia Islam.
And what the problem, the main problem they have with Iran is that it's a negative view of Israel.
Because if you look in the region, it essentially is that whichever countries, because you've got Muslim countries there, you've got Muslim countries who have good relations with Israel and the United States of America, and then you have Muslim countries that have not great relationships.
And so, therefore, being a Muslim clearly isn't the factor that comes into whether you're going to have a good relationship with Israel and the United States of America.
But what in reality is whether what your relationship is like with the with Israel.
Now, as you guys know, like through the clean break memo and various other documents, it's quite clear that Israel's plan or the United States are both in conjunction.
I mean, I believe Israel is controlling the US, but I understand other people may think it's the other way around.
But the plan was always to take control of that region to expand Israel.
Some people call it the Greater Israel, Israel Project.
But even if you don't consider or believe in the Great Area Israel project, because that will result in taking a certain part of Saudi Arabia, what is clearly the case is there is this expansionist idea that has occurred from 1948 to date.
And Iran is a clear problem for that.
With that, Iraq was initially, and they've obviously were able to throw overthrow Saddam Hussein.
And Iran is the major problem.
Now, they believed, if we bring it to recent history, they believed that during the 12-day war, that was going to be enough to take Iran out.
There was a 12-day war.
You saw the full might of Israel be used against Iran.
You had all of its allies against Iran.
So, for example, you had Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Jordan, Egypt were intercepting missiles.
Saudi Arabia were helping with, and Saudi Arabia were helping with military bases.
The other GCC countries were helping with refueling.
Even Qatar was helping with refueling.
You had, which call it again, you had the United States of America, UK, France, all helping with refueling.
So, despite all of that, what you found was that Iran was penetrating Israel.
The defense missiles were running out.
Iran was hitting them hard.
Haifa port was taken out.
A few other parts were taken out.
Military bases were taken out.
The Mossad headquarters were taken out, which were in civilian areas because they use humans as shields, as human shields.
But that being said, what the problem was is they had to, and they basically got to a situation where they knew they couldn't take Iran out.
Iran was able to go a lot longer.
Well, Iran's problem was, is, and this is why Iran agreed to the deal, is they had, they found out on the first day, because that's actually where Israel succeeded.
They exceeded on two aspects.
The first one was Trump lying as per what LBJ did in 1960, in the 1967 war, right?
Which was to say that, look, Israel's not going to attack you.
You can't trust Israel or the United States of America.
But so they thought there's a negotiation going to happen.
So they would, they basically did not, they weren't ready for war.
They were even doing military exercises on that day.
And also, in addition to that, what happened was there was a lot of Mossad agents in Iran.
So Iran had Israel had successfully infiltrated Iran, which is easy to do because they have a wide range of ethnicities, a wide range of religious beliefs, a wide range of philosophical beliefs, and a wide range of ethnicities and cultures.
So they were able to infiltrate.
So if you look on the first day, that was the most successful attack by Israel.
And actually, if they that was their best chance to take Iran out, because Iran was able to regroup and recalibrate, they got stuck.
So, and what happened was after that, you basically had a scenario where Israel had ran out of defense missiles, they were struggling in the war, and they had to go to Trump and then Trump negotiated a ceasefire.
The reason Iran did was because they wanted to get these infiltrators out of the country that killed a lot of the science, that killed a lot of their military personnel.
So that's what they've been doing for the last six months: to weed out the Mossad agents and to replenish.
So that was the reason the agreement occurred.
But what they saw was this was a problem.
So they had Trump kind of do the B2 bombing.
In my view, it was very minor because I believe that Iran had actually been tall because, and I believe that they were, you know, able to take out some of their important nuclear assets and various other things.
It was, there's no way, there's no way that they knew that they didn't know at some point.
You know, that was clearly in the playbook.
And if we just went and attacked them for no reason without them knowing, it could have escalated into something bigger that the United States doesn't want to get pulled into.
I think you're very close because, and we're all just speculating, but the aim was this protest, which you just mentioned.
That if these protests had been successful, the ones that basically they even had Mossad agents on the ground, this has been confirmed by even U.S. personnel.
If that had succeeded, they would have basically not required the war.
It would have been like an overthrowing of the government and they wouldn't have had a problem.
Now that those have failed, because the protests have decreased, the largest protests were on Friday, according to my sources in Iran.
And since then, they've diminished significantly.
And don't get me wrong, people in Iran, even people connected to the government with whom I've spoken, they say that the protests initially were legitimate.
There is economic issues without a doubt in Iran.
Obviously, those, in my view, are based on the sanctions placed by the United States of America, which I think sanctions are a very demonic, evil thing to place on any country and any human.
Because as you know, Rex and Tim, that when it comes to sanctions, sanctions never are placed on the rich, the oligarchy, or the government.
The people who are harmed most by sanctions are the poor working class people, because the aim is that they're going to struggle, they're going to starve, and maybe they'll do a coup.
So the sanctions are applied to those people.
So no doubt.
And so I think it's very evil and demonic.
But that being said, that it has resulted in economic issues.
So they were protesting for a legitimate reason.
But the problem was, is then what happened was they got the infiltrators involved, they got Mossad involved, and it escalated.
And Friday, you saw a massive escalation.
A number of institutes were burnt down.
A number of mosques were burnt down.
And just think about it logically.
Iran is a Muslim country.
And even if you disagree with the Shahs, you know, if you disagree with the monarchs, you wouldn't burn down a mosque.
My thing for you, though, is like going and not to mess up your train of thought, but if we go back to the original 12-day war, unless we put boots on the ground, Israel and the United States, there's no way that you could actually take over Iran.
I mean, it's too big, too many people.
I think part of it is, yes, making the statement to like put them down and take out some of what of their to disin to disincentivize them from taking an attack anyways based off of the stuff that's happening in Gaza because Iran is very closely tied with Hezbollah and Hamas and Hamas and is like acting as almost like a proxy for those things.
And I think also sometimes the United States, as well as Israel, their game plan with these things is like, we attack you first.
That way you don't even think twice about actually doing something about this.
I think what the actual aim of the attack is going to be, and I agree with you, I think it's going to happen within the next six weeks to possibly three months, but I don't even think it's going to be that long.
I think it's going to be within the next four to six weeks.
Now, the reason for the attack is going to be, because you're right, there's no way they can do boots on the ground.
If the United States puts their soldiers boots on the ground, they would lose.
unidentified
Just like if Iran was to put boots in the ground in Israel, Afghanistan and your home.
And so because they can't do boots on the ground, because it'd be much worse than Iraq, their only option is to bomb from the air.
So I think what I believe the U.S.'s plan is going to be is they're going to bomb from the air.
They're going to hope that by bombing significantly and ferociously that the people are going to lose hope and then they're going to only logical reason for what they would do because if they bomb Iran, Iran or I mean, the government, again, my sources have told me that they've got their weapons ready for Israel.
They've also got their weapons ready for specifically U.S. military bases in the GCC.
It means you're putting Qatar on the target.
You're putting a UAE on the target.
You're putting Saudi Arabia on the target.
These people will not be able to stomach missiles being hit in their country and their US allies.
So in reality, what's going to end up happening is significant escalation.
So I think that's the aim.
But the aim is, I just understand the logic because once you bomb, unless you have immediate regime change, you're going to see the consequences.
And they're not going to be able to do a Saddam change, I don't think.
I think they weren't even able to do that.
I was going to say, I don't think they're going to be able to pull that one off as well.
It just, for me, the people of Iran, they're angry, they're upset.
But like, you talk about like the things that the United States and Israel is doing.
Aren't there some systemic problems with what the government in Iran is doing?
I've heard a ton about how people are unhappy besides what the Western influences are because of the decisions that they're making.
Like, don't the people want a different person in charge to actually make the country better?
Because if they were to, I don't want to say adopt Western practices in a sense, if they were to have their own, if they were, I know it's, it sucks, right?
If they were to take almost like the Saudi Arabia route or the Qatar or like where they keep their, they preserve their actual like ethnicity and their culture and stuff, but then they come into the Western, is that not something they want to do?
By the way, look, one thing, I know I'll come out harsh on Exit, but do not feel concerned about asking me any tough questions.
I'm pretty chilled out.
I always think discussions are the best way to deal with any kind of issue.
Now, in terms of there's two points to your question, in terms of Western values, and the second point is, can Iran deploy the same model as Saudi Arabia?
The answer to that question is yes, they can.
And if you speak to any person, whether it's Iran, Lebanon, Syria, all of these countries, and you speak to even the people within those countries, they love Western society.
And in my view, they worship even the white man, right?
And so in reality, when you've got this kind of psychology, the only impediment to that is actually Israel, because what Israel doesn't want is these good relationships with Iran, because Iran has no logical reason for having negative relations with the United States of America.
Actually, any opportunity there's been for any form of negotiations, they've always been willing.
So I think Iran would definitely have peaceful and equal relations to the United States of America, similar to Saudi, but it's Israel who doesn't allow it.
In terms of your second question about whether the people in Iran are happy with the current leadership, I guess my question to you is, and I'm not asking in a harsh way, I'm genuinely asking because, but I know what the answer is going to be, but what in your view, just based on the media that you disseminate, based on the information that you get, what do you think that they have in their kind of society that you think is not congruent with Western values?
As far as I think there is a certain level of, and maybe this is more Afghanistan more than Iran, right?
It's more of that super orthodox, more religious base where they're stomping a lot of the traditional things.
Like right now, you're seeing a change in like Saudi Arabia, where they're allowing women to do a lot more than they used to.
Now, I know Iran is a little bit different where they're granting some of those freedoms, but some of those things that, you know, the young demographic sees on social media, they can't do those things in Iran.
What I'm saying is, is that like the world is moving towards some sort of global cooperation, minus what Trump's doing, because I really don't like the way that he's handled this and America's not on the right side of history with these things.
But there is a scenario where all the countries can cooperate in the future.
Might not be the near future, but far future.
The younger generation all wants the same thing.
But what I'm saying specifically around your question is in Iran, the younger population consumes media just like we do.
They see the fancy cars, they see the women having fun, all those different things.
And the older generation of Iran doesn't like those things.
And maybe I could be wrong, but that's what I see, the dissonance of like our culture would not fit what Iran wants currently, especially the leadership with Khomeini.
Like they don't want girls around doing that type of stuff.
And I did have quite a few debates in Amfest about this.
Look, the issue is this.
When you basically got a scenario, which basically, I think what you're alluding to is women's rights and women's rights, whether it comes to dressing how you want, maybe acting in you the way they want, maybe clubbing, maybe education or whatever those things are.
Now, there's two important components.
First thing is when it comes to Iran and women's rights, I would argue in my view, because I'm extremely anti-feminist, in my view, they probably give women way too many rights.
Because in reality, they've got women in as professors.
They've got women in government.
They've got women in these number of high-level places.
They've actually got more educated women than anywhere else.
Now, in terms of women's rights or this idea or this notion that we're speaking about, this is actually the liberalization of society.
And you, as you, as you know, I think most, I think all three of us, from what I understand, are more towards the right wing in those ideas, I think.
But even if we're not, the liberalization of society, I don't see it.
And I think people don't see it as a negative, as a positive thing.
And what I mean by that is, if you look at the United States of America, I think we can all, I mean, I'm not sure if you all agree, but we can discuss this.
But in my view, the United States of America was created by white Protestant religious men.
Right.
And the reason it was, and it was, and why I say Christian and Christian men.
And why that's important is because even though Christianity wasn't kind of the religion, the religion of the state, those values did permeate.
And whether it's Christian values, whether it's Jewish values, or whether it's Muslim values, the woman doesn't have the role that she has in this liberalized society.
And so specifically Muslim and Christian values, you don't have like pornography.
You don't have a woman going out to work.
The man is the leader of the family, the leader of the household.
And actually, you could say maybe that system, you don't like it because it's archaic.
But in reality, it's much, it's but what the problem is, we're seeing the result of that because now we've seen the liberalization of society.
What have we seen?
We've seen the actual problems with feminism because we've seen society being collapsed.
And we've seen this thing where Americans, we pointed a country, go, Venezuela, oh, evil drug lord dictator.
We have to take him out to save the world and bring it to America.
And then we look at a place like Iran and we're like, oh, like they make them cover the women up and whatever.
We have to do something about this, fix something about this.
The state of Israel gets to declare biblical genocide on a group of people in a city called Gaza, in a land called Palestine, and gets to bomb them and kill them and shoot them and do whatever they want to them because they're Amalek, they're subhuman.
And that the U.S. government endorses that.
So for me, where I look at all this and I just have a hard time with it, not just being completely absurd.
And it's looking at a country like Iran, like, of course, they'd want to do what's in their interest, right?
Like, just like we would, just like any other place.
And as someone who does speak to people on the ground and even people in the diaspora, there's a very, it's very similar to Madoro, actually.
Actually, it's not so similar to Madoro.
So there's no doubt that hardly anybody likes the Shah.
Hardly anybody is, maybe other than PBD and a few other people in the United States of America.
Because remember, when they left Iran, a large part of them stole the wealth of Iran.
And if you look at them, this is why you probably may have met them in the United States of America.
They're quite wealthy.
Or even if you go to the UAE, quite a lot of them are wealthy because they basically stole the wealth of Iran and left.
So the chart doesn't have that much support.
What you have is, and there's no doubt about this, when it comes to the current government, it has support, but it doesn't have overwhelming support.
People like him or people don't like him.
In terms of percentages, we'll never know, but I'd say it's a mix, a mix of people who like him and a mix of people who don't like him.
But this is normal.
Like in a normal society, we have it where people disagree with the leadership and agree with it.
I'm from the United Kingdom.
Keystarma has like 10% popularity rate.
People want him out, left-wing, right-wing.
You look at the United States of America, you look at it and look at the streets that people are protesting.
If people externally were to apply the Iran method or the Iran terminology that people are saying, what is it?
People want people in the United States of America want regime change because the regime's police assassinated a woman.
Now, I know people on the right will disagree with that.
And that's not my position.
But what I'm saying is you can frame anything in the manner you want, but you're seeing huge protests in the United States of America, America, for that reason, because people politically do disagree.
So then my question is, because there's something missing here, right?
Like I know for a fact, like Europe, specifically the UK at certain points, has been responsible for the mess that happened between Palestine and Israel and how they tried to do that whole UN charter and decide how the borders were decided and promising both sides access to that area.
Okay, fine.
But not, I can't say every single factor for Iran has to deal with the United States and some of its European allies.
Like there's some things that like here's the propaganda.
It could be propaganda or it could be misunderstanding on our part.
Part of the issue that the United States has, especially with the citizens, is the terrorism part.
It's not really about the women and how they dress and all those different things.
It's the backing of the Hezbollahs, the terrorist proxy groups and those types of.
So, I mean, it's definitely framed from the United States standpoint, right?
Clear terrorist is somebody like Al-Qaeda, where they actually bombed.
We could say it's a false flag.
We could say it's a false flag and stuff like that.
I'm just saying, like ones that specifically, like it's all one big negative feedback loop where you don't know where it started, but there's something fundamentally broken between the relations that's not allowing us to actually get along.
Because I would say as an American, I have no hatred towards the average citizen in Iran.
I think the governments from Iran and the United States have propaganda that they're feeding both citizens and getting them to hate each other.
Is it not true that the CIA is fond of a particular strain or sect of Islam and they kind of empower those groups in areas like Saudi Arabia, like al-Qaeda, like ISIS to rise them up?
And notice they attack the region, they attack Syria, they attack everywhere else.
So I think you've partly answered the question that Tim actually posed, because in reality, when you look at Iran and you look at what is claimed terrorism, and the word terrorism is basically a word applied by Israel for any of its enemies in reality.
But in terms of, if you look at it, Hezbollah, Hamas, they've not committed any terrorist attacks in the United States of America.
They are Shias.
They've not committed any, and I'm not Shia as well, by the way.
And they've not committed any terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom.
So Hezbollah is what?
A resistance group that resists against Israel in terms of from the perspective of Israeli invasion into Lebanon.
If you look at Hamas, Hamas is a resistance group that resists against Israel in terms of the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, but specifically Gaza, if you want to look at it recently.
So they have not committed any terrorist attacks against the United States of America.
Now, in terms of what Rex said, it's completely accurate.
Actually, if you look at it, the United States of America has very good relationship with Saudi Arabia and they've had it for more than 50, 60 years.
If you look at the brand of Islam that comes out of there, which is Wahhabi Salafi Islam, that is the Islam that dominated.
That's the Islam that was promoted, funded by Saudi Arabia and the United States of America.
There was a wiki leaks from Clinton who said that they actually directly funded ISIS.
So you basically have the ideology that's promoted by Saudi Arabia.
You have the ISIS and al-Qaeda functions that are promoted by the United States of America.
And you bring that together.
And those are the extremists and terrorists.
And we don't like, like, so I'm a Muslim.
I don't agree with that extremism.
And I'm not Shia as well.
So I don't agree that I'm like a Sufi Muslim.
But the point is, I just look at it from a geopolitical perspective.
And you see that actually what you, what people consider as terrorists are actually the people who align with the U.S.
And actually, when they apply that word to the Iran proxies, in reality, these two groups don't like each other.
So that's the irony of it.
So if you look at Hezbollah, we're fighting with ISIS in Syria.
And I will give you that like ISIS, the United States is directly responsible for that.
When we went ahead and toppled the government, we basically allowed the people in Iraq.
What ended up happening at that point was the police and the army and the military, we didn't give them jobs to actually subsidize the income that they had prior to the regime change.
So they're all poor.
They don't know what to do and they're disenfranchised.
And they're like, all right, well, now, brother, if you want to go against America, come join this group.
And so, yes, there is that indirect response to things that we do where we try to play big bully in the world and try to force our way into certain situations and we create unnecessary enemies.
Well, just on that, there isn't, and I apologize for Masanami, but and by the way, I'm actually pro-America in terms of if you asked me, who do I want to be the world global power, I would choose America over China all day long.
But that being said, there is no doubt, right?
Because I'm a geopolitical expert and a historian.
There's no doubt whatsoever that when you look at it, the United States of America has been involved in the invasion and the destruction and that and previously UK as well of a large part of countries, whether it's like, and this is the problem we've got is when you look at, for example, Americans or some Americans on the right who complain about, for example, or not Americans, even Europe, in the West, who complain about, for example, immigration or Muslim immigration.
First of all, I deny the fact that that even exists in the sense of in the level that they're claiming.
But let's say some immigration from Muslims is happening, which some of it is.
It's not to the level that people are claiming.
But they're immigrating from countries that are being destroyed.
So if you look at, for example, Minnesota now and the whole situation with Somalia, what's Somalia, but basically a country that has been ravaged and destroyed by America, right?
Because I would say there's part of it as America, but they also the civil war that was created during that time period in the 90s, in which, yes, the Soviet Union and the United States was kind of somewhat involved for that.
It's all it's great powers playing with little states and the little states end up broken and the people that live in little states go home to the great powers.
And well, you're right in the sense of, because the USSR kind of had control over Somalia and then they went to Ethiopia and basically went on their side.
And then the US end up taking Somalia's side.
But then even after that, when that basically disagreement changed, you basically had it where Barre.
So Barre, as an example, was funded, financed, and supported by the United States of America.
If you know the whole situation with Somaliland, which is basically really the Isak clan, because remember, Somalia is basically different clans of Black America, Black Africans.
You basically had it where this clan or Bare was funded to basically commit, I would say a genocide because he specifically targeted a specific clan.
But he was financed and funded by the United States of America.
And so in reality, when you look at the civil war that's occurred and then kind of after that and the funding and financing, it's always been the United States of America.
So the issue you've got is when, and then people migrate away from that country because of the problems that are occurring.
And then you basically have it where they go to, for example, the Western world.
And then you have it where people are like, what are these Somalis doing?
And so on and so forth.
So I think the complexity of it is, first of all, to be clear, I don't think there's a Muslim migration issue.
If you look at the US, you look at the UK, it's not Muslims migrating to these countries, nor do they have positions of power.
But that being said, also, when you look at these people in these countries, they're only there because of that upheaval that's happening.
And I'm not even talking about Muslims.
I'm talking about all Africans.
I'm talking about, because it's happening in many African countries.
I'm talking about Middle Easterners.
I'm talking, I'm actually, I don't think of it as a religious issue.
I see it as a destruction of our countries happening by outside forces when they don't need to be there.
You stay in your own country.
You don't need to destroy another country.
And you see that with Venezuela, this destroying of their country, the stealing of their resources.
And this is the problem I have with the U.S. that they are diminishing and they're declining because of these wars.
They worked for a while for the military-industrial complex and the financial industrial complex, but it's no longer.
But then also sometimes we don't even lead with diplomacy where we realize that these places have people in power and you just need to be able to communicate.
More people want to actually be higher up and actually reach that first world status.
But hypothetically, let's assume it wasn't the Russians, right?
That weakened Germany significantly.
It economically harmed Europe significantly.
And that's just one example.
You look at COVID, you look at, for example, as you mentioned, the support of Ukraine-Russia war, the support of the Israel genocide, the Israeli genocide.
You look at all of these things.
Brexit was another example, which again, what they did was they pushed the UK out of Europe, which weakened both of them.
And so the aim is to weaken Europe, asset strip Europe.
Then you have a scenario where they become a weakened shell.
They become almost like a vassal of the United States of America, but extremely, extremely weakened.
Now, there's a number of reasons for that, and the U.S. remains dominant.
And actually, another reason is because, in my view, the aim, I think what's going to happen in the future is while when America, I know it's a, it may be not per view to this show, I'm not sure if it is, but when as America declines in terms of the white populace, because as you know, it's only 58% at the moment, some say 56%, I believe that if they weaken Europe significantly, they'll then be able to bring that labor, white labor, white European labor to the U.S. as well.
We're saying, you're saying, and I understand what you're saying, is like, okay, the United States is trying to weaken Europe.
But at the same time, if you look at the fact that we're trying to pull out of these different agreements, like UN not providing as much money to NATO, and then Trump explicitly saying, look, you guys need to start building your militaries because we're fronting the bill and we're fronting all of the protection costs.
And you guys need to be able to be self-sustaining.
I think part of the issue is not just like, it's very easy to make the claim that it's an America thing, but if you just look at the cultural aspect and of how Europeans just live in general and productivity, it's a very vacation-y type of like environment.
I mean, that's a problem because in reality, in the US, you've got socialism for the rich, but not for the poor.
But that being said, in terms of what, let's just cover the first point.
So in reality, what Trump did with the UN was this, right?
He said to them, guess what?
This Ukraine-Russia war, I'm going to pay less.
You need to pay more.
So this war that's between Ukraine and Russia, it means Europe now has to foot even more of a bill.
So it does weaken the economy a lot more.
So that's actually, again, a very smart move from Trump.
The second thing is in terms of productivity in Europe, I agree with you.
There isn't an extreme culture of working that you get in the United States of America.
As someone who spends a lot of time in the US, I'd be shocked.
Like people have got like two, three jobs.
People are working 60 to 80 hours, but that's just the working class.
Unfortunately, they're going through struggle in the US.
In the UK, I agree with you that in terms of you do kind of have this psychology, but the reason the psychology, the reason the psychology has been created is because they're seeing the oligarchy, the rich become richer, the poor become poorer.
And even if you work like 40 hours a week or 60 hours a week, which most people do, 40 to 50 hours a week, your economic situation almost remains very similar.
And so I think that's the greatest problem that people have that now the people and it's resulting in this black pilling where people are just not seeing a future in terms of from an economic perspective, in terms of a social perspective, in terms of a marriage perspective.
And I think that's the major issue.
And actually, that's what you're finding both in the United States of America, actually the whole Western world.
Like I was talking about, Italy, Greece, Germany, and that, like Italy is very vacation-like essential if you were to go there and actually all unionized.
What's your perspective?
Do you not think that's driving a productivity issue and why they're not actually their GDPs are falling?
Well, everything in our economy is grift related, right?
It's about like what you can scam, what you can steal, what system you can get into that's just beginning and you can be a part of the pump and not the meme coin.
The meme coin, I mean, Trump did it.
He literally has a meme coin.
But looking at the EU, this is one of the questions I wanted to ask you.
Aren't they trying to give Ukraine a loan against the Russian assets?
Because when I heard about this, it blew my mind.
Like, okay, well, we have 300 billion or whatever in seized assets.
We're going to issue Ukraine 120 billion loan or to ourselves.
I forget who it was to buy weapons or whatever it was, whatever it's for.
We're just making it up.
And hey, when we win, we'll just take it from Russia on our balance sheet.
So it's fake money.
What do you think about this grift world we live in?
Like all the money it took to actually strike Venezuela, put Delta 6 in there, fly B2 bombers and all of these air refuelers.
By the way, every single cent of that dollar came from tax money.
So it doesn't help us at the end of the day.
You're right.
I mean, we're not getting that money.
And people understand that.
And the whole thing of this America first and what a lot of these people voted for, including myself back in 2024, was enough of the foreign involvement and entanglement.
And let's focus on the things that matter from a local perspective.
Is my life getting better or worse?
That is all people care about.
They don't care about Venezuela.
They don't care about Iran.
They don't care about Israel.
They don't care about the billionaire's interests.
And for me, it's sad to see, sad to see people cheer for essentially what is the neocon regime.
And when I, all the proof I need for why I can say, like, I'm no longer a Trump supporter and I disavow is when Lindsey Graham is up there on the plane chuckling about the next invasion.
And then he gives a speech and he's like, we're bombing all the right people.
We're cutting your taxes.
And our taxes aren't being cut.
It's the people up top that are getting their taxes cut.
The only reason the polling's like that is because Democrats have Trump in power.
So they're like, we disagree with it.
But if it was Biden doing it, they would agree with the exact same thing.
And you're right.
Like the average Americans, like, it's our oil.
We're going to take it, but you're not benefiting.
And it's Axon Mobile and Chevron benefiting.
And why that's important is this: because some people I've seen some commentators say, look, we supported, we were against the war in Iraq, right?
Because that wasn't in our interest.
But this one is.
Now, I understand the logical argument, but the debunking of that is very easy.
When you look at the Iraq war, the people who benefited were the military-industrial complex.
So American military-industrial complex, which I think are Zionists, but that's a separate point.
But the American military complex benefited, right?
So they benefited financially.
The average American did not benefit.
So in similar to this situation, where they've taken the oil, Chevron and Axon Mobile and Paul Singer, who is a Jewish Zionist billionaire, they're the ones who benefited.
The average American didn't.
So if you, but then these are American companies, which I believe are Zionists as well, but let's put that aside.
But American companies still benefited, but the average didn't.
So what's the difference between the two?
So either you have to say you agree with both or neither.
But when they say we didn't agree with Iraq, but we agree with Venezuela, that makes no sense.
And then second thing is from a Christian perspective, it goes against just war theory.
It goes against the writings of Augustine and various other things.
So there's like, and I'm talking about Catholicism mainly.
I'm not, I don't know the Protestant position as much, but it definitely goes against those ideas.
unidentified
So this is I'm Orthodox and I would I would I would agree with you.
I guess we should call it a sect, kind of like what comes out of Saudi Arabia that's cropped up here in America over the past like 125-ish years with the Schofield Bible and other such writings, where you have the class in America that has all the power is the old people.
It's the boomer.
They have two-thirds of the wealth.
They have all the good old boy connections and interests.
And that's who runs our government.
That's who's in power at the end of the day.
And those people were brought up in it.
They're like, well, the Bible says that Abraham's seed is Israel, and therefore we must support Israel because those who bless Israel be blessed, and those that curse it will be cursed.
And like both of our theologies, even though they're different, would outright reject that based on the scriptures and the text.
And the whole thing that's wrong, and there's a whole reason why there was a push in the early days for the United States to have a separation of church and state was for these fears that people would use religion as a basis for attacks and different things as like in order to actually push an agenda.
And so we're seeing that like the inconsistent ideology behind, well, this is what God would do.
This is what Christians should do.
And it's like, if you actually look at what would Jesus do, he wouldn't do any of this stuff.
Because, and the reason I don't think so is because if you look at it, as you said, Muslims respect Jesus.
And I think the kind of religious perspective is very similar.
Like you won't find something in Islam that you don't also find in Christianity, whether it's a view on feminism, homosexuality, liberalism, war theory, all of these things are found.
Now, was there Muslims and Christians in the past who did not fulfill the tenets of the Bible or the tenets of the Quran?
Of course, if you see the expansion of Islam, if you see the expansion of Christianity, in my view, both of them did it in a manner that didn't go with those religions.
If you look at the Arab expansion or the Islam expansion that happened, or if you look at both of them going into, for example, Africa, Africa wasn't Muslim, Africa wasn't Christian.
Yeah, both of these religions expanded into those countries, which shows the kind of almost colonization that happened to those to that area based on, for example, those religions trying to evangelize.
But that being said, if you look at it from the actual religious sense, I don't believe that both of those religions have those tenants.
And so when you look at it, and I do think that, as you mentioned, that group does try and cause a separation between Muslims and Christians.
There was a study recently by the Israeli Foreign Ministry two months ago, and they said that, look, the world is against Israel.
Even the United States of America, which was the most pro-Israel country, the vast majority of the American public now is anti-Israel.
And so what happened is you've basically got it where they did it.
They did a study and they looked at trying to find out what's the best way to get Americans and the Western world back on our side.
And they said, look, we can't be pro-Israel or anti-Palestine.
It's just not going to work.
So what they said is that the best way to do it is to promote and propagate anti-Muslim propaganda.
And so that's what they've been pushing through the media through various other things because that's an easy way because the Muslim sometimes does look like the other.
And so that's an easy way of redirecting attention.
And so what I see about that is as like a Zionist explanation.
I think that's such a powerful point because you look at two guys and like they're from the Middle East and one guy is an ISIS person and one guy is a normal person.
America would just look at them and call them both terrorists.
People look at me and I get so angry sometimes at the fact that like they're like, oh, well, black people are committing crimes.
Course, there are black people committing crimes and they're committing 20% of the crimes statistically compared to like the subsect of people who are actually committing.
But if you look at it, that's only 5% of the black population.
What I want to understand is when it comes to the Muslim community, and I hate to take the religious aspect, but there are some things I have to address, like the Prophet Muhammad and some of the radical teachings that are in the Quran about, you know, conquering your enemy and anybody who's not converting to Islam and those types of things.
Like, where is the distinction of what the modern day practice is for people?
Because I'm sure you're not like that.
And you're not going to sit there and be like, well, I support that.
So there, but there are extremists in every group that would take that literally and actually do the crime.
Like, I always think discussions and conversations are always the best way to, you know, weed out these ideas.
So in terms of like the black crime, first of all, I disagree with that.
I think that there's a number of factors for that.
For example, socioeconomic and every race is violent.
Just the way they propagate the violence is different.
So you mentioned about black people specifically within the United States of America, but what about brown people and white people who, as you, as I just mentioned, went to different continents and subjugated people and basically took over continents and killed and murdered people.
So once you take that into consideration, the percentages aren't as similar, as you say.
So what is it that I'm reading when I'm going, when you're going online?
And I know there's always propaganda out there, but like there are people pulling scriptures and verses from the Quran.
What is it that I'm seeing?
Because if I go and talk to the, if I go talk to specific other Muslims, there's some people that say, well, yeah, it is written in that way.
Or there's like an actual subsect of people in a certain area that like they say like, this is what the terrorism is built off of, because this is what the Prophet Muhammad says that we should do.
The first thing is, when it comes to anyone who's extreme, they can take any verse out of context and use it for the manner that they want to use it.
Just like, for example, you must have seen the handmaiden's tale.
It's kind of like this kind of elucidation of kind of a strict version of the Bible.
And there was like this draconian dystopian society that would be created by it.
But if I was to ask you, you would say, guess what?
The Bible isn't like that.
The Bible is like what was a Z.
And similarly, it's like with any text, you can take any text.
If you take just that sentence out of context, of course, you can present it in any manner you do.
And some of these extreme people will do the same.
So someone like ISIS will use the text in an extreme manner to try and propagate their position.
And what they'll do is then, but then also with the complication with people like ISIS is they are like paid for hire as well.
So they'll be paid for hire men who use it out of context.
I will say this.
There's nothing you will find in the Quran, nothing, no position, whether it's homosexuality, apostasy, war, anything that you don't find in the Old Testament or the New Testament, but in a much more harsher, stricter manner.
For example, let's take homosexuality because people say, oh, they're here gays or whatever.
So, homosexuality in the Quran, it says it's a sin, right?
It says it's not allowed.
So, it's definitely a sin.
But in the Christian tradition and in the Torah, it literally says kill the homosexual.
So, in reality, you've basically got it where it's a lot strict.
So, they all three agree, but it's a lot more stricter.
So, my position when it comes to the Quran is that it's when it the positions overall are the same as Judaism and Christianity, but Islam is more lenient, whether it comes to that, whether it comes to like women's rights or whatever it may be.
I just wanted to say this: like, we have disagreements on theology, on religion, whatever.
Putting that aside, ultimately, to me, growing up as a kid, growing up like around my dad, around the Obama administration stuff that we covered and talked about, I came to a very logical conclusion as like an eight or nine-year-old where I was like, Look, if I was a kid in the Middle East and my dad died in a drone strike or a bombing or an attack, then I would then not like America and want to wage war against it.
Like, it just kind of makes sense at the end of the day.
Obviously, not saying people's actions are good when they do terrorism, but there's a very clear cause and effect.
But how do you find out if something's authoritative?
So, what happens is you, and even the authoritative hadith, they are considered probabilistic knowledge.
They're not certain because even when you go through these narrations and you say, Guess what?
I'm going to find out if this is legitimate or not, you understand that you could be wrong, right?
Because I'll have a mechanism to find out, and you'll have a mechanism to find out.
I'm talking about us if we were like ancient scholars, and we disagree.
And so, even if it's an authoritative narration, it could be still probabilistic knowledge, like from a hermeneutical perspective.
It means it could be right, it could be wrong, but we're accepting it.
So, the narration that talks about Aisha being six and then basically consummated at nine, that's a hadith, that's not the Quran.
So, it's first of all, it's probabilistic knowledge.
The second thing is the collection it's in in Bukhari, in the exact same collection, you have another narration because remember, hadith are not certain knowledge, so they can be conflicting.
And if they're conflicting, it's like, wait, what's going on here?
One of them is going to be fake, one of them is going to be real, right?
The other narration says that she was 10 years older than her sister, and her sister was born on the basically there was a certain battle that occurred.
And so, based on that, one's able to determine that her sister was born when the battle occurred.
Therefore, Aisha got married in this year, therefore, she's 18 in the same collection.
Also, the narration that says she was six and married at nine, it was narrated by a guy, his name is Hisham bin Uruba, who had memory issues when he was 80 years old.
So, even scholars said that when he's above 80, when he went to Iraq, his narration shouldn't be taken.
And even his teacher basically also did not, Imam Malik did not take his narrations.
So, I'm telling why I'm telling you all this is to demonstrate that actually, the first thing is very important because obviously you're probably not bothered about all that.
But the first thing is it's not in the Quran, so it's not certain knowledge.
The second thing is that it's basically you have a conflicting report in the same collection that basically indicates that she was 18.
And uh, society just on the last point, by the way, that's in difference to the Talmud, where the Talmud literally says that if you have a relation, if a Jewish person has relations with a three-year-old Gentile, then you need to kill the Gentile three-year-old girl because she defiled the Jewish person.
So, that's kind of where the Talmud is.
But, in terms of your other point, in terms of Jizya, so Jizya itself is a taxation system.
So, what I mean by that is, let's say, for example, the Muslims did conquer.
I mentioned it to you.
I disagreed with it, but it definitely happened.
I'm not going to pretend it didn't happen.
It happened.
And then they applied Jizya.
What that meant is you'd go into a nation, you'd say, Look, do you want to convert?
If they said, No, we don't want to convert, we want to stay in our own.
You said, No problem.
You need to create a contractual agreement with us.
You're not going to serve the army.
You're not going to be part of certain things that are required of you, but you need to pay a taxation, a 20% taxation.
Sometimes it was 7%, sometimes it was a much 25%.
It varied throughout the entire Muslim history.
But again, that's not unique to Islam.
As you mentioned, you have Judaism that has that.
Even Christianity had that, right?
So, Christianity actually had a position.
I believe it was Pope Innocent IV.
I think it was, it's been a while since I checked this.
I believe Pope Innocent IV literally said that in the exact same situation, that those people don't give jizya, they are in perpetual servitude.
So, what that means is you're going to be a servant or a perpetual slave.
Sometimes people believe perpetual servitude could be slavery because you, you know, you need to buy yourself out of the situation.
So, basically, conquering armies, whether it was Christian or Muslim, kind of had that position.
And I would say the Jizya position was a lot more lenient compared to the other two positions, but they definitely were there.
But in general, like I think all humans, depending on whatever you look at or whatever religion you practice, we all miss the point.
And there are some people that don't have the best intentions.
And we're playing a game of telephone.
Way, we don't even know who wrote the Old Testament.
In reality, we're going off of hearsay, off of hearsay, off of hearsay.
No, i'm saying no matter what it is, you can go back in text.
I'm not even saying specifically like whether it's like anyone 10 000 years ago or 5 000 years ago could have done something maliciously in order to change the narrative.
However, and then humans later down the line that's king, that's congruent with his position.
Yeah, with the Muslim position you're talking about, there's an ability for that to happen, no matter what religion you practice because, at the end of the day, none of us were born during this time period and it's a translation and a pass down of knowledge.
So all i'm trying to say is, even no matter what you practice or what you believe in, every religion, I think everyone has this fundamental belief system that they just want a good life and something to actually believe in, that hope in life, and I think sometimes we miss that wider point, bring in the aids and we bring in.
We have to conquer this and we have to do that.
Everyone just wants, at the end of the day, and just, is that not true?
I like I like golden rule, I like doing to others as you would have them do to you.
I think that's a good way to try to live your life.
And I, I think that it's like you're saying, like those there there are, you know, we aspire as humans towards kind of these positives and then we kind of require a route to get there.
I say that my belief is that look, all man, all human, is equal, irrespective of race, religion or creed, and it doesn't matter who you are.
You've been created by god and the aim is to connect with your lord uh, connect to him in a spiritual manner that you know.
You're basically acting in the most moral, ethical way that is possible.
Yes, and I don't believe.
But religion, of course there are people, evil men, who may use religion, but not also religion, because I had this conversation with someone who wasn't religious.
Ideology, because even they use ideology.
Even atheism is used.
Communism was used.
Various ideologies, capitalism has been used.
Various ideology has been used by those in power, by the evil man, in order to manufacture consent, by those that he leads, in order to do evil, and it's the duty of a man to be an individual, rational thinker.
This is why in Islam, it says there's a verse that says they took their rabbis and priests as lords.
Now, it's not talking specifically about Christianity and and and Judaism, but it includes Islam as well that you take your leaders as lords.
You think that whatever they say is true, rather Rather than use your own mind, your own rational thought.
And if one was able to do that, you would be able to differentiate between right and wrong.
And so when Trump invades Venezuela and steals the oil of some poor country, you would be like, wait a sec, my religion says I shouldn't steal.
My religion says I'm not superior to this other individual.
My religion says that this is wrong.
And then therefore you would say, look, this is wrong.
I disown this and I diminish this.
And if that happened, you wouldn't have the mass expansions that you saw, whether it was the Muslims, whether it was the Christians, whether it was whites, whatever it was, you wouldn't have Arabs or whoever it was, you wouldn't have any of that happening in terms of colonizing, in terms of harming poor people, taking over continents, taking over countries.
None of that would have happened.
And I think that's it.
But then these ideologies were used in order to do so.
Because I think about it and I'm like, part of the issue is, is everybody thinks their truth is the truth.
And they try to either, and there's groups that want to shove down their ideology down this person's throat or push it because like I believe I'm correct or he believes he's correct and all these different things.
And we forget that a lot of these religions have very similar overlapping beliefs.
And that's the thing that I pay attention to.
It's like, okay, what is Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism?
What do they all say that's universal?
And then you can say, like, well, if there's one true God or the universe, maybe that's the actual message that was supposed to be hit, not all the nuances in between.
All you have to do accept that people are going to make minor mistakes or there's going to be minor differences and it ain't that big deal.
And so, and I'm talking when I say everyone's wrong, I mean even people within Islam.
So my point being that when you come and not in terms of the Quran, obviously, because that's what I believe, but the point is, so when you look at the theology overarchingly, I do believe they believe the same thing.
And I think once I studied theology to the extent I did, because I was doing my PhD in philosophy as well, I find that actually, you know what, the disagreements, whether it's intra-religion or inter-religion, I don't think they're that much of a big deal.
Well, ultimately, it just gets back to the core thing of like, no ideology gives you the right to steal or murder or invade, especially in the modern age.
Because if you just look at the fundamentals of humanity as a whole and how just the laws of life work, regardless of what religion, things only work in construction and constructive, in a constructive manner and in which there's collaboration.
The reason why humans cooperate with each other is because if we didn't, we wouldn't have anything that we built.
You and I wouldn't be talking telepathically through a microphone and a headset if we didn't all cooperate.
And that is the main mission of, I think, what society needs to start waking up to is that these ideologies like you talked about, whether it's religious or whether it's capitalism, all these things are creating divisions in which they're creating narratives in which people are just latching on to their onto the guy onto the guy who is telling them this is what you should believe.
Whereas I completely agree with what you're saying.
You need to be able to think for yourself and actually understand, okay, what is actually right and what is wrong just from a net positive society?
Is killing somebody just for no reason something that's net positive just because you can stealing?
Right.
So I think we all agree on that.
And I don't think enough people are having these conversations and they're just focused on the slop that happens out there.
Like I heard your, I hopped in one of your spaces when I think Cardone's brother came on and he laughed and he was like, you guys are sitting here arguing about bullshit that doesn't even matter.
When the real people and the real situations that are happening, you should be focused on that because they're robbing you and they're doing all these different things behind closed doors.
And like that's your thoughts on like Americans because I see this like, you know, I spend a lot of time in America.
And by the way, I agree with what you're saying.
So I'm just asking your viewpoint.
What's your thoughts on the fact that like you've got these working class Americans, people working 60, 70, 80 hours, you know, and then they have this injury.
Well, I think it comes down to what does it mean by America's the greatest country in the world?
And I would make the argument that we're not the greatest country in the world at anything but war, but we've had the money and the potential and the time to spend that money on something else, which would be to take care of the American people.
And I'm someone like, I'm pro-life as you are as well.
I'm sure you're anti-abortion.
I view a situation as, okay, we've killed 60 million people here in the U.S. We've done that.
And not only have we done that, we've said, oh, you know, we're not going to offer you support, child care, time off, food.
We're not going to do that.
We're going to make you suffer so you make this horrible decision.
And I view that as incongruent with my beliefs.
So I have to say, if I'm pro-life, I'm also pro-people getting food.
I'm also pro-people getting free healthcare.
And like for me, that's my position.
I hate seeing like the MAGA Chud side of things where, you know, we're supposed to be proud about how bad the country is and losing our rights and the little freedoms that we do have when, hey, an invasion goes on.
That's cool, right?
We won the war, but then at home, people are dying.
I agree with you, man.
Like, I want people in my country to actually be able to call their country the greatest.
I think, yeah, I agree with what both of you are saying.
I think what we have to do, and I would add even more than just healthcare inside of that equation, I think you have to have a baseline of bare essential needs that actually allow a human to just exist and function and have like, you know, like food, clothes on his back, those types of things, access to clean water.
Like, just if we don't have to do that, even housing, I would put that on that list too, right?
Anything above that, where we're talking about like phones and like internet and cool stuff, like, and things that you technically don't need to get by on, and they're just luxuries, then meritocracy and a little bit of capitalism comes into play there.
If you want to make more, you go for it, but we're not even meeting the bare minimum.
So in reality, when I look at this, and it's actually just the rich benefit.
And so all of these wars, as you mentioned, whether it's what's happened in Venezuela, if you look at all these decisions that are made in the financial market, when you look at all these trade deals, it's only the rich that benefit and the poor never ever benefit.
And so in reality, what's happened is we need to go to a situation where we understand that this we look out for the poor, we look out for the working class.
As I said, I spend a lot of time in the United States of America and I've never met an Uber driver who doesn't have two jobs.
They almost always have two jobs and they're almost always working 60 to 80 hours.
It's crazy.
And so we need to have a situation where they're given basic human rights and they're being given these opportunities.
I'm not saying give free stuff out, right?
But there needs to be a basic middle.
For example, now, look, I told you I made it, but I think there was a look.
Maybe I was a bit smart and a few things came my way.
But my children are going to easy, right?
They're going to have it a lot easy.
Your children are going to have it a lot easier than you guys did.
This is literally the way of things.
And so it's not really based on merit.
It's actually based on what you are.
Actually, I wanted to ask you, Tim, what's your thoughts on reparations?
I don't think that the people who are alive, I certainly wasn't alive during that time period.
And to punish somebody now who had no idea of what their ancestors did and say, well, you owe me money or like you shall be punished by this particular action makes no sense.
I think it's a cheap way sometimes to be able to say, like, well, I'm in a bad economic system or situation, and I'm there.
It's a cry for help.
And their only thing is to just go and look at, well, you've got money.
You've got something I don't have.
Whereas that's the government's role to be stepping in, not necessarily Rex as a white guy to be like, all right, well, pay me $2,000 because your great, great, great grandfather robbed me and took all of and took me from wherever.
Because I'll say, to be honest, this is a hot take.
But I'm glad to a certain extent that, you know, my ancestor was one of the ones that got put into slavery and brought here because I get to live here.
I'm not in Africa in the Democratic Republic of Congo sitting there with like mercenaries shooting around.
And I'll add you one more thing to that argument right now as it's there are systemic problems.
Like, yes, the average black American are growing up in an environment that like they weren't taught the right things.
They're not in the right environments to learn the correct set of skills to actually climb.
I was born into poverty.
My parents were as well.
I'm like the first of my generation to kind of get out of that because I had access to private school to be on the better education.
So it talks to your point of we have to educate people.
But now we're not in the 50s and 60s anymore where to like, once I have the knowledge, there is nothing that is stopping me from achieving the levels that I want to in society.
But then your mom managed to get it based on a certain policy that gave her the opportunity.
Do you get what I'm trying to say?
And if you hadn't had that, let's say there was like a situation where you weren't trying to help the community.
I don't know which specific program it was.
You wouldn't have got that opportunity.
And so like with the reparations, I kind of changed my opinion quite a lot on it.
I initially thought, oh, it's bad.
And then I thought, actually, reparations would be good if it was done where the government kind of went into these kind of working class neighborhoods and started funding those neighborhoods and giving them better schools.
Very interesting when you look at the black population in America.
You talk about the times a long time ago during slavery.
I'll talk about times recently, like Jim Crow, and then through LBJ and other time periods, you had a community that I think had a single motherhood rate of around like it was around 20%.
And then you got LBJ that comes in.
He literally says, I'll have these bleep voting Democrat for 200 years.
And he implements the systemic but very selective single motherhood welfare policies designed to damage the fabric of y'all's community.
And then the CIA comes in and says, We got drugs.
We got all the drugs you want.
And this is the cool culture.
And this is what you're supposed to do.
And then you look at it 50 years later, and sadly, because of the U.S. government, in many cases, it's a disaster.
It's very agree vehemently with what you said there, Rex.
Obviously, I think the Zionists were behind it intentionally, but obviously we can point out another time.
But I agree with you.
And LBJ, we know his history and what he did for Israel.
But in terms of what you said, so I do support reparations, actually.
And my reason for this is this.
And you may disagree, but the way I see it is this: like wealth is transferred.
So what I mean by that is, for example, me, my child is going to be rich because I've got wealth, right?
And his child is going to be even more because how what happens is you accumulate wealth.
So wealth is inherited, right?
And this is why we're against this major taxation of wealth because we accumulate the wealth.
Why is it the government trying to take our wealth?
So if one accepts that wealth is inherited, and what that means is it goes from one generation to another generation to a third generation, you're able to accumulate that wealth.
So if you accept that wealth is accumulated or inherited, then also debt or the inability to get wealth is also inherited.
So for example, a person who's part of black man right now, even though he wasn't in slavery at that time, but his the fact that he was not able to accumulate wealth all that time, whereas someone like Donald Trump, who became rich because his parents were able to accumulate wealth and then he was able to build on that.
So you see his son now, he's already got $100 million, the younger son, Baron.
So based on that, I would say that there is actually a right for a, it doesn't mean it needs to come from Rex, maybe from the government, but there is a right for a person who has and is a product of slavery, so who basically had debt inherited and the inability to inherit wealth to now have an opportunity to get some well, former wealth.
And some of them, as you said, may waste on some Jordans or some PS5 or whatever it is, but some of them, and then that will be their own fault.
But then, and just like when a rich guy, when my son inherits it, he could use it and become a drug addict, or he could use it and build on what I've done and become even richer.
And so that's why I think that there is a strong argument for plus.
Yeah, it's a punishment more than a how do we get forward because they're angry and they feel disenfranchised.
I see that argument that comes out more where they're not speaking to the government to necessarily do these programs.
They're asking for Rex or some random Joe Schmo who has nothing to do with it.
Like you should be paying that punishment instead of us working on the system itself.
So when you're talking about the things when it comes to reparation and investing in the community, that is the part that I agree with because that's the only way we saw a little sample size of what it would look like if we just gave people blank checks and just let them do whatever.
And if it was up to their decision.
And that experiment was called COVID-19.
And if you were here in the United States during that time period, people were making more from the stimulus checks than they were from their own jobs.
And I watched so many people make the wrong decisions with that money because they didn't have the education.
And so that's what I mean.
It's like the parent doesn't just give the kid the money.
He teaches him how to use the money and he puts him in situations.
My parents, to get me out of my situation, didn't just like say, all right, Tim, here's the $10,000 you would have put into your education.
We're just going to give it to you.
No, they said, all right, we'll put it in the system that we know and force you to go through that system in order to actually get better.
I had to move all the way to Massachusetts to a town called Hopkinton, which is right outside of Boston, in which the black population is 0.0001%.
And the black people can't afford to necessarily live there.
My mom made the sacrifice for us to go there too, right?
All I'm saying is, is that that school had a lot of money and was given a lot of programs in order to actually teach people the right things.
And the public schools where I came from were complete dog shit.
So yes, that's where the reparations and the building of the system, you have to go into these communities, which they are trying to do, but it's not at a large enough scale to actually make a debt like it should be.
Well, I'm just saying, like, you know, I say Israel's a terrorist state.
I would say the same is true for our government, right?
And I would say that all the money that's spent or most of the money that's spent on defense should just be given directly back to the people and whatever social program needs to be set up.
That's my position.
I don't agree on any kind of racial or class-based punishment necessarily, except for taxing the billionaires.
But it's a very interesting perspective.
I'd never heard an actual logical argument for the reparations.
I don't agree with it, but I can, it's grounded in logic and fact.
But I actually, just to clarify my position, I do believe in giving the money to the community, but also to the individual as well, because of this idea of where do you see the breakdown, though, in terms of like just giving it to the individual?
And that will happen probably majority of the people.
And so, but the point is they've given the opportunity to do that.
So just like my son, he's going to get the money.
And as you see, some of the billionaire kids, they'll, you know, drug it up and they'll be in, you know, they'll become a drug addict and, you know, whatever it may be.
Or some of them will use it and build more.
But that's going to be his choice, just like I believe it's going to be the choice of the black person to do it.
You need to educate and illuminate and elaborate, illuminate, and give them this kind of understanding of how to use that money in a better manner.
Because we've only done that through experience, right?
So myself, even though I was educated, I don't think I was, I think only until probably now I realize, wait, I should be doing this with my money.
Probably this thing I did, but I thought I was going to become a millionaire really fast within a few days is probably not the right way to do it.
So some of that has happened through experience and making the wrong decisions or whatever it may be.
Some of it, like you said, is probably happened due to education.
It happens through a wide range of things.
So I agree with you that those things need to happen.
But also I'm saying because wealth is inherited, therefore, and debt is inherited.
Therefore, these people should be given that money.
And then if they spend it on Jordan's, then guess what?
It was your fault.
But I don't believe it should be taken out of Rex's pocket.
I believe it should be taken out of the government's pocket, the people who are basically becoming rich.
And, you know, in that wealthy situation, the government who basically ensures that they enrich themselves and enrich the corporations, they should be giving it to the, not someone like Rex or a working class person.
But you know, at the end of the day, by them consuming all of that candy, they'll end up with cavities and all these side effects long term as they continue to consume the candy.
Let's say they had infinite amount.
Would you still, as the parent, knowing the outcome, actually let them make that decision?
Well, what you're saying is that that's going to happen for certainty.
So what I'm saying is, let's say, I've got three kids, right?
So likely what's going to happen is if we look at the data, not in terms of data, because we don't know what will happen.
So let's just make an assumption.
Let's take your position that the majority of them will end up wasting the money, which is likely the case because most human beings are like that.
Most human beings will waste the money.
This is the nature of man.
They're not very smart.
But the thing is, like, let's say I've got that candy and I can give my children it.
Now, as you, and I agree with you, they need to be educated.
Now, once I've given it to my children and they've been educated, let's say two of them end up like eating that candy, getting a disease and not being able to do anything with it.
That's their problem.
They inherited this ability to get that situation where they weren't able to give candidate.
Now, to make it fair, they've been given candy, just like, for example, your kids already had candy and Rex's kids already had candy.
My kids never even had an opportunity for candy.
Now it's like, you can have candy.
Two of them are idiots.
They end up spending it.
That's fine.
One of them thinks, you know what?
I'm going to take this candy and I'm going to sell it.
I'm going to use that money, buy more candy.
So then he'll have an opportunity to build.
And he's like, actually, now I'm much more richer than my dad.
I see where you're going, but I'm going to raise another counter to that.
If you look at somebody like a Donald Trump or some of these other people, because I grew around a lot of wealthy white kids, right?
The teachings are there with the money and it's passed.
The knowledge is passed down through generations.
So you're not, you're not taking that into consideration.
You're not taking that in consideration besides the money.
The percentage of people that end up like having a bunch of money and just doing a bunch of drugs and the kid coming out that way, it's all about probability.
The probability of that happening versus them to go like make a good living, an honest wage, do something with their life is higher than them becoming the drug addict, right?
It's all about probabilities.
So I'm saying that in reverse, the probability of them wasting that money is higher than them making the smart decision.
It's all about choosing the right option.
It's all about probabilities.
You should, as a person who understands statistics and what's the right thing for society, you have to push things in the right direction when it comes to those statistics.
Otherwise, we just end up in a chaotic situation, right?
So I agree that the probability that this person will waste the money is higher.
And Rex is quite right.
Actually, with rich people, the reason actually the best way to accumulate wealth is probably not only the wealth that you have, but then also to use that wealth through your network of people that you have.
So that person maybe won't have that opportunity immediately.
And so someone like, for example, your mom, I'm assuming she probably didn't have the same opportunities.
And now your network has grown a lot more than maybe your, than your mother's was.
So I agree with that.
But that being said, it comes back to the same point that I agree with you that the majority of people will make bad decisions.
And so even if you put them in education programs, let's say we said every single person we're giving reparations to, we're going to force them to do three years of an educational program, which will educate them and illuminate them on the way to deal with money and how to deal with it in the correct manner.
Even when you do that, I still say that probably the majority of people may not use it in the best manner possible.
And despite that being the case, where we're in agreement, I'm saying that just because the fact that Rex managed to get 10 bags of candy because his father gave him it and his father had five bags of candy and he gave him 10 and then Rex is going to give his children 20 bags.
And similar to you, your mom gave you five bags and now you're going to give your kid 10 bags.
They've got the candy.
My child has no candy.
They've got no opportunity and no chance.
They've got no they've got a very, they can get the candy, but it's going to be very, a lot more difficult for them.
Your families inherited the candy.
And so I'm saying that they should get the candy.
And then, yes, majority of them will waste it.
We'll educate them.
And even when we educate them, they'll waste it, but at least a large portion won't.
And I would say the last thing on this topic is it's all about you got to put a clause and you got to separate the adults from the kids because teach putting an adult in a class and getting them to do that is a lot harder for than you know what people are willing.
And people are habitual by nature.
And there's an inflection point where you really can't teach an old dog new tricks.
You have to start at the early ages is what I'm talking about.
So you don't just give the kid a bag of money and let them go and do that.
You start at the education level at the younger ages and let the parents have access to put their kids in that.
And you have to start with a new generation.
I'm not saying that there's no saving the current generation, but it's really hard to change a whole group of adults that have already built in and sedimented in whatever practices that they did, which is why I'm saying it's just, it's, you could take that money that you would have wasted on the people that would spend the Jordans and actually invest on the new generation is what is where my macro level argument comes from.
You can do it where you give money to a specific community.
I'm saying both are needed because you need to put money in the communities, whether it's working class white communities or working class black communities, whoever it is.
Those communities need to be benefited, I think, irrespective of race.
But separate to that, I'm saying this specific thing needs to be like an additional thing because of like this whole reparation argument.
I look at the whole thing and I just look at us as a country and I look at all the money that we've spent.
I look at the six billion or six, not six billion, look at the six trillion dollars in Iraq, look at the 3 trillion in Afghanistan, the untold billions in Ukraine, untold billions given to Israel over the years.
And I look at us here and it's like you said, with your experience with domestic U.S. life and American people, people are working a lot and they're not getting anything out of the system.
Right.
So I think we can all come together on the universal constant of wanting people to do better and wanting people to treat each other nicer based off being able to actually live and not being perpetually angry because that's the only state you're allowed to live in.
Because if you're not angry for a moment, you think about what your state is actually doing to you, you'll go into psychosis.
Every time we have a guest on, literally every guest we've had has been great talkers, great communicators, and they've provided a lot of depth and information that we, frankly, we don't have.
We're trying to acquire it.
You know, we're trying to buff out our political positions and our thinking here.
Obviously, you might get a bit harsh, you know, because the audience maybe disagrees with some of your opinions of your father, but that's not you, which I've clearly, you've clearly identified.
And this is the problem.
Like we all have different opinions.
I have different opinions to my parents.
They're like very, very different in their viewpoints.
And so you come on and it's good.
It's a good conversation.
It trains your debating skills and like it's fun.
So yeah, would it be an honor and a privilege to have both of you on those spaces?
And yeah, if I come in the, when I'm back in the U.S., if I'm in your area, I will definitely link up as well.
And that's why like we as Americans, we cannot, and I make this message every show because it is so key.
We cannot do the football thing anymore.
We cannot do the Star Wars thing anymore where you're on a team and the team is down and you're the underdog and it's the evil guy, but you just got to take him out and win all the while the person that set up the fight that you're in is profiting and betting off it on the sidelines, right?
We're not doing that anymore.
And the thing is, you don't actually even have to fight harder.
You literally fight less.
You walk away.
You just say, I'm not living in your delusion anymore.
I'm not living in your like the pussy hat lib tar world.
I'm not living in the MAGA Chud world.
I refuse at all.
I want better things for Americans, for my family, for my state, for my country.
And for guys who have not been part of these Sunday segments, we always try to start off with a little bit of just conversation, giving you guys updates on news, then trying to have a phenomenal guest.
And now we're about to start getting into the section where it's my favorite.
I take time to spend talking about a specific topic to give you guys insider knowledge and just history context of the things that are happening today and what you need to know about it.
These social tensions start to come into play, like in many resource-owning countries around the world, where people start to question, are we as resource owners benefiting enough from our oil reserves?
unidentified
In 1960, Venezuela became a founding member of OPEC, a cartel of oil-producing countries that managed supply and thus prices.
And by the mid-70s, these were skyrocketing.
This brought enormous wealth into Venezuela.
By the end of that decade, its entire industry had been nationalized into the company Petroleos de Venezuela, known as Pedevesa.
People in Venezuela at that time lived quite prosperous lives.
You had stories of secretaries flying to Miami for the weekend to go shopping.
You later have beauty pageants and things like that that Venezuela sort of became known for, sort of showy wealth.
Well, I mean, they're a founding member of OPEC, right?
I think they're the only South American country to be a member of OPEC.
And whenever you look at a country like that, whether it's Venezuela or you look at a country like Turkey, where you have both NATO and BRICS membership, they're kind of unique geopolitical realities, but it got cracked, didn't it?
You constantly have to reinvest in the new technology and keep up with the maintenance of these machines that actually run the system.
And in manufacturing, that is a very big no-no to just let your machine run for decades and put high output without actually having general maintenance programs in place.
So now we set the stage for this political control to replace the operational management.
And so we'll talk about Hugo Chavez.
Okay.
Hugo Chavez, this is the guy that everybody talks about.
But when he took office in, let's actually, let's actually play the clip because when he took office, a lot of things were actually good at first.
He passed a number of laws in the early 2000s, which effectively meant that Pedevesa, the state-owned oil company, has to own a majority share in all the joint ventures across the country.
Dude, it's like, you know, it just seems like it should just be common sense that you should just do the right thing.
And I see why he would have wanted to actually nationalize and take control because they were afraid that these American companies were actually robbing the Venezuelan people and that they didn't have the best interest.
And at the same time, it's like a catch-22 situation where you kind of need them in order to actually keep functioning to do the job, but then you actually don't want them because they're actually making most of the benefit more than yourself.
Like when Chavez took control in 1998, and you can go ahead to this next slide, I will.
The oil prices were about $25 per barrel, right?
And then if you look at 2008, it surged to $146 per barrel.
And now part of it is not just everything that he did, but there's also other countries and OPEC that's involved.
But he did pretty good job up to this point.
Right.
And so a lot of the reinvesting of the oil revenue and the maintaining the wells and pipelines and upgrading refineries and training engineers and diversifying the economy, they didn't do it.
Right.
So if you look at the supply, now go over to the next slide.
You're going to see like what happened after eventually the actual contribution to the oil, the world oil supply actually started to drop off drastically.
You're taking the country that could potentially be the biggest producer of the resource and you're essentially you're saying, oh, like we don't need the West.
We're going to figure this out ourselves.
And they lose the ability to run their own operation.
So if you look at it, like the social programs, the rapid expansion of like healthcare, food subsidies, and assistance program, like they weren't doing the things that they needed.
And like many of the like projects that they were doing, the long-term funding plans or oversight didn't exist.
And numerous programs that they tried to do just stalled or disappeared and the revenues failed.
They basically just misspent the money on what they were trying to do.
So then they also had a politicization of Perevesa in which like they had thousands of experienced engineers and managers that were removed from like for labor disputes and replacements were often for those guys were politically aligned but less experienced.
Like you were just putting your best buddy that actually agreed with you in the same position that an experienced an experienced engineer would actually hold.
Right.
And so then payrolls expanded and then the technology capacity has declined.
So you're basically giving everybody pay raises, but the stuff the money actually needs to get spent on is not is not getting spent on.
So, imagine having all that money and just mismanaging it.
And so, like, a lot of the oil also were reflected, were actually sent to regional oil commitments.
So, oil was supplied to like foreign partners under like discounted payments and delayed payments arrangements.
And so, like, the near-term revenue and the foreign currency inflows were reducted.
So, like, a lot of these Colombian areas, I mean, sorry, a lot of these Caribbean areas, they had deals set up with them where they would give the Caribbean countries like discounted oil where they say, All right, look, you can pay at a discount rate and then basically pay us back over two years for that particular amount of oil that you bought to give them like preferential.
I don't know why they did it, it didn't work out long term.
And so, overall, the oil revenue is flooded.
Um, you know, the oil revenue-funded food, consumer reports, and then stick shrink.
So, a big part of it is what is it?
What is it called?
There's a term for it, and maybe I'll talk about this later.
It's called Dutch disease, where all of your revenue comes from one resource, and then you become specifically reliant on that revenue from that source that all the other sectors fall.
So over time, this country forgets how to make anything else.
And so that's the Dutch disease that I'm talking about, where one resource crowds the rest of the economy and lets the other sectors decay.
And then you can see what Saudi Arabia and a lot of these like Middle East oil-rich countries are trying to do.
They see what can happen to them, especially if the world doesn't become reliant on oil anymore.
They're cooked.
Right.
Because most of their money that is allowing them to have these lavish spending, it comes from oil.
So now they're trying to incentivize the youth in those regions to start taking up like engineering.
And let's, hey, guys, you guys should probably do this and you should probably do this other thing that benefits the country because there's a knowledge gap because they don't do anything else but just mine oil.
I'm against it on its face, but it does make sense for the U.S. like, oh, okay, you're not doing your things over here, and you're having China come over here and poke around.
Well, here's the thing: like, it's those things between headlines and realities.
And Suleiman was hitting upon that at certain points where he's like, look, the immigration on certain things is being exaggerated to a certain extent.
Like, most of the immigration happened to those other South American countries.
And I don't know if they really care that much because it's like a lot of the similar culture aspect.
I haven't talked to a guy from Peru or Brazil or Uruguay, but like the Venezuelan I talked to told me that the rich ones came here.
So, one of the things that we also need to talk about is about Maduro, right?
So, one of the things that we'll do a separate deep dive on this.
We won't talk about a separate dive on the invasion button as well.
Well, that and then specifically Maduro and the whole fair elections thing, because there's a lot of controversy over whether he won legitimately or illegitimately.
Too big of a heavy topic to actually cover in something like this.
Um, but let's say, like, for example, it's kind of widely understood that it wasn't that straightforward.
And if he blocked elections, basically, it led the United States to back the opposition, is what ended up happening, right?
So, under Donald Trump, he started sanctioning.
And you can see when he started imposing those sanctions in 2019, it was about government officials being sanctioned, banks.
You had the state oil company of Pedevesa being sanctioned, and those sanctions reduced the oils and sales and access to cash.
So, the collapse had already started before the sanctions, but it worsened as the United States had taken that hardline stance where they didn't have access to certain resources that they did before.
So, the oil is still there, but the rest of the economy had been allowed to fall apart.
Then Biden came in, reversed a lot of those things.
He tried to take the democratic approach to say, Hey, let's do this with a cooperation type-esque thing and incentivize them to actually do business with us the proper way.
And then you can see the investment going back up.
So, I mean, in conclusion, you know, the Venezuela collapse and all of their money wasn't caused by the lack of oil.
It was caused by declining reinvestment, politicized institutions, over-reliance on one single resource, and then the erosion of the technology and the capacity to actually mine the oil and actually keep up with the maintenance.
I didn't realize how monopolized their industry was around one commodity, right?
And I think a lot of the times when you do these deep dives, and I make this point nearly every time you do a deep dive, people will be like, Oh, I know the information.
And it's like, well, no, like ultimately, we all need to know the basics.
The basics are the foundation of life ultimately.
And if you don't know the basic facts about a country and what happened there and when and how, then how can you make a rational geopolitical argument about holding a position about what should happen to that place when you're unfamiliar with the information?
And sometimes we, like I said, the United States takes some of that for granted where like we don't really have as much as the skill problem when it comes to things because of the fact that like we kind of suck up all the brain around the world.
And not even just that, we have a lot of smart people here.
So like a lot of the reason why the United States is flourishing is because of like the amount of like technology and advancements.
We don't need other countries to come in and refine our oil for us or do some of these technology advancements and rely on other countries.
That is a big part of it too, because we already have access to it.
I feel like the Trump administration, the whole thing is too much too late to change to change all these things.
They're like, when you, when you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Right.
So it's very interesting to get into all of it.
I mean, like we were talking about in the transition from the interview to the deep dive, or like I was talking about when you were taking care of business, right?
The gray area, we've got a lot of things lined up this year.
We've got a lot of things set in our minds and our hearts.
We really want to get accomplished.
We really want to do.
And like the biggest thing y'all can do to support that journey and to support both of us is by, if you're on X following Gray Area Talks, and then you're probably watching me already on X, this feed.
So if you're following me, that's cool.
If you're not, I suggest you follow me, but follow Tim because we're trying to get both of our accounts up to where they need to be in order for us to bring these high caliber guests on literally every Sunday and more to you.
So that's what it's all about.
And if you want to contribute to the show, we have Primal Core at goprimalcore.com where you can get a physical product and support the show and help us fund having new things and building out the studio and making things better for live guests and we have them in person.
But you can also just follow or subscribe.
Like if you're a YouTuber or Rumble user, you can just go to Gray Area Talks on YouTube or Rumble.
You'll be able to find us because we're the one with the small subscriber count.
And we try to actually give you guys information in a way in which we talk about the history, we talk about the past.
So that way you can make better decisions and understand what are people talking about.
Because the more informed you are, the more you actually get to sift through the slop, you know, and understand, okay, what are people actually lying about?
What are people telling the truth about?
And that's the thing I really appreciate about Suleiman is like, dude knows a lot.
And that's what we require to have someone on as a guest on the show is we require an expert.
This is not the thing where you're wearing the black rifle coffee hat and you're trying to sell people on Trump.
We're trying to have real discussions about the future, about things that impact the future and how we potentially can change the future through positive human action that's proven and pro a solid future for America and for the world.
And like, like I said, you can choose to support us by going and getting a physical product and go to goprimalcore.com and check out these great offers we have for you.
And people have called in about Elemental Drive specifically and what it does.
The whole purpose for people who don't know what Primal Core is, we took the concept of like, there are things that have always worked for thousands of years that humans have taken.
And that's so phenomenal to realize because all this is, is the highest quality, highest quality minerals, highest quality form of the minerals, five of them that you can find in Elemental Drive, all designed to support cognitive function, nootropic function.
If you're a guy, they're designed to support testosterone and free testosterone specifically.
And what is ashwagandha?
I mean, Nick Fuentes takes ashwagandha.
Tons of people take ashwagandha.
What is ashwagandha?
At the end of the day, ashwagandha is something that we call in the supplement industry an adaptogenic herb.
And that means that herb has metabolic effects on your body's processes, specifically to lower cortisol and raise testosterone.
So when you take this blend together in concert, when you take the ultimate ashwagandha, which lowers your cortisol and raises your testosterone, according to all the studies, and you take it in concert with the elemental drive, which boosts your body's natural capacity to do all the things you should be able to do already.
And that's the key.
And it's like you say, we're not offering people steroids.
So like for the wackadoodles and for the people that consider themselves to be, you know, the height of being informed, we review and try to give our takes on.
If you are now in the host room and you manage your calls from the Collins Studio web interface, guy sitting on the moon that knows everything, maybe our show isn't for you, right?
But then you have to ask if you're that person, like, why haven't you fixed all the world's problems yet?
They're like open the lines up talk talk, and like we're giving you guys a chance to actually talk to us and like only like one or two people want to talk.
Now we've got another person in here, but it's it's like, guys, there's 6 000 people.
I'm sure there's a couple people that just want to have a genuine conversation.
We're not dangerous, we don't bite, we just having fun.
We just want to have fun with you guys and let you guys enjoy and on the fun with us.
I luckily got to be able to hear pretty much majority of from start to finish, and it's just a nice to kind of just hear different views um, and like kind of a safe space where people can disagree or I can have like some curiosity to do my own research right because, like in my own perspective, like over time.
I mean I get, I get the media, just like everybody else growing up.
You know you talk about Islamic terrorists.
You talk about I mean I also have friends who are from all different types of religion.
I hear their perspectives and you know, it's just been interesting to see a show where you know all three of you guys can just have a nice civil discussion and ask curious questions without you know someone attacking each other um, and it just felt like really nice.
unidentified
And then, of course, i'm gonna do my own research because I didn't agree with everything he said either.
It's about like you talk about, like growing up with the media and whatnot.
Very oftentimes the media does not deliver, just never.
They never deliver you an expert.
They deliver you someone that their job is to read what's in front of them right, and then the expert that they have on is a guy that's paid by the network a million dollars a year to come on and push whatever agenda right, and that's through the network sponsors or whoever's running the network.
We get into it.
But like we're trying to do something here on the ground level where we're able to get higher quality guests than cable news, because these people are available 100, they want to, they want to have their voices heard and they are experts.
And it's like you say, like you don't have to agree with anything or everything.
Uh, someone says and I I certainly like I have my disagreements with things that he said, but there are also things that I do agree with and really it's just the core rational thing of being like, okay, we can actually have these discussions and we don't actually hate each other because at the end of the day, we're all you know.
I feel like we scratch the surface on just some of these beliefs and are just like mentalities on our own things.
And I mean, I'm a fan of educated people.
I'm educated myself.
So I always like hearing people who are scholars and, you know, did the work to learn, you know, what they believe and, you know, fact check themselves to an extent from the education system that they went through.
So it was cool.
unidentified
Although that discussion about reparation killed me.
Well, I mean, I never revealed my race to everybody, but I'm actually a black woman.
And I, too, don't subscribe to the whole hand me money because my ancestors, African Americans who built the country or whatever, like you're going to hand me a nice Sydney wish check and all of a sudden it's going to make me have rainbows and rainbows and loads of money and I become a millionaire overnight or something.
Like that's just stupid.
And like I did the hard work to get into college.
My parents did the hard work to get all of us, get me educated.
And I worked hard as an American.
I think every American should work hard for whatever they value, regardless of what their upcoming was, right?
Regardless if they came from poverty or regardless if they came from rich family, everything requires hard work in America.
And I think that we all can agree on those American values.
That's what America, that's what makes America amazing.
Amazing place to live is that we have social mobility.
We have abilities to climb from the bottom up and make something of yourself.
And so I think reparations is almost like a cop-out to say like, well, you know, you came from what the circumstances were, but I think that's a defeatist mentality.
Like it's almost playing into the victim mentality that someone needs to be saved.
Now, I do agree that people need to be educated, all people, regardless of race, every single America needs to have a foundation of education so we can continue to make this country great.
For me, so like he talks, he talked about reparations, and he also talked about social welfare programs and then how reparations could kind of resemble something like that.
My thinking is I think every American is owed by the government because of what the government has done in our name for the past few or several decades, depending on how you look at it.
And I looked at it as a thing of, okay, we are an American experiment, an American project.
We have prior existing good and bad relationships with each other as just groups of people or as how we identify.
But there's one universal constant is we're not getting what we deserve because the people in power don't represent any of us at all.
They represent old people live in Florida.
And that's it.
So, for me, I look at it as something that's like, why does it have to be racial?
And, like, if people are poor and more people are poor in minority communities, why can't we just help poor people in general?
And, like, why do we have to be like, no, this is actually, even if it doesn't punish anybody, even if it's from the government, this is a punishment on white people.
And then the black people get the money because of the evil white man.
And I just, we live in a modern age.
Like, we got to let that go.
We really got, we really got to let that go because if we don't let it go, we're going to live in ashes and huts.
And like, yeah.
It's time to be civilized, time to not hate each other.
I see all the work that's being put into all the elements of the show.
I see the solo show you did, Rex.
I tuned in for a little bit for that.
And I definitely stay tuned to more things that you guys are doing.
And I'm excited for the next people you guys have been going on.
I forgot to say the two people you said you're going to have on for the for next week, but yeah, I guess drop information about that because I want to figure out who these people are.
I didn't have no clue who these people you referenced.
unidentified
And so I was like, we should do a thread on the show.
As an American, as an American, I don't care what foreigners from another country have to say, honestly.
I mean, that guy seems like he was well put together, but at the end of the day, this wasn't my, you know, was it, wasn't my thing, which I'm sure is, you know, it's on brand for me.
I'm sure that doesn't surprise you guys, but, you know, I mean, at least he was.
There's a difference between something that's made of like precious metals and then consuming something into my body and or, you know, prolonged, you know, exposure, like cleaning products and stuff.
Like I just kind of put them in different categories.
Like I said, wasn't necessarily my cup of tea, but it doesn't have to be.
I've been keeping, you know, the whole wars, you know, going on different places.
I've been kind of keeping my eyes open for the things that are going on, particularly with Venezuela and our domestic illegal roundup that we're trying to do and things of that nature.
So that's where a lot of my focus has been.
And by the way, Rex, I think I found the first thing that I really disagree with you on via the ICE raids.
The issue, the issue I have it is when the guy in front of the car, when she puts the car in drive, whenever she comes forward on him, the first shot he fires is justified.
He's in front of the vehicle, right?
And she's ultimately, you can argue what speed it is, she's in the process of running him over.
But the two follow-up shots, when you're clear from the vehicle and you have your gun, you're braining out an American citizen.
And then we're like, okay, well, we have to have, we have to have the, we have to have ICE at the level of operations they're at.
And they have to be able to do these smash and grab operations and get these, get these illegals in a truck and out of here by any means possible.
I just say, well, look, if we're going to do that, then what happens when President AOC comes in and uses DHS to take people's guns?
And it's like, oh, well, the precedent's already the Republicans that they did it.
And then we can make the moral argument of, oh, when we did it, it was right and for the right reason.
When you're doing it, it's wrong.
And it's for the wrong reason.
They're still going to do it.
That's why I'm against it.
ICE was doing it in 2003, along with the Patriot Act.
That's why I can't support it at the end of the day.
Well, you know, practically speaking, if they go hard enough now, he'll have time to decommission it before he exits office if he stops being a pansy about it.
So the problem with it is not necessarily going in and like deporting people who are illegal in terms of like criminals and maybe people who shouldn't be here.
The problem is, is they set a quota, right?
They put pressure on the local law enforcement.
First of all, not everybody who's an ICE agent is actually trained in ICE.
They actually took people from different orgs because they didn't have enough people to do the mass deportation.
Trump set an expectation.
He set an agenda and he said, this is the number, hit it regardless.
So when people do that, there's called the top-down authority pressure that happens from there in which your boss says a number, you better hit it.
And we all hate when the cop pulls us over to pull his quota because it's the end of the month.
They set the quota at like 3,000 illegals a day, right?
Which isn't even like humanly possible with the amount of resources they have.
And then they added another clause where they said, well, in order to hit that, because we can't investigate everybody, anybody you see that looks like under reasonable suspicion that they would be an illegal, go and capture them too.
And that's the problem.
That's the problem I have.
It's like there's no due process to really like investigate.
Like you know, you have a list of the guy who like actually committed a crime, went to prison for it, or maybe got booked in jail.
And there's a whole list of those people.
Go after those ones, not the woman who's walking down the street with her kids that kind of looks suspicious.
Real quick, where I have the different position, whereas you're making the argument of moderation, New Groyper's making the argument of getting them all out of there.
It's how you get that done.
And I think that Trump had an opportunity to get that process done or to start getting that process done in a non-offensive way that could be carried on and over into another administration as a policy that was proven to be good.
And then with this, like we're just with the performance, I know New Gripper, you're not happy with Trump.
We're not happy with Trump.
At the end of the day, he is the representative of the Republican Party, right?
The thing we're all, oh, we're supposed to vote for it because the Democrats are so evil.
But when the Democrats get in, they're just going to use it as an excuse to go even harder.
The immigration crisis we have is unlike anything we've ever seen before.
It was a foreign invasion.
It was designed that way by the leftists.
Not only should.
you know, these immigrants be snatched up in the middle of the night, the Democrat politicians who were responsible for the fraud and everything else should also be snatched up and sent to or something because it's ridiculous.
It's high treason.
You know, it's like that lady.
And, you know, everybody talks about this lady who got iced out.
And frankly, I'd have mag dumped her too.
Because here's the thing.
You have no idea, like, like when you're in a high stress situation, right?
And somebody is trying to murder you with their vehicle.
The time of calculated response is over.
That is attempted vehicular homicide is what that is.
That is attempted murder.
And she knew that.
But the thing is, is she had never in her life ever had consequences for her actions.
So she literally thought that she was going to go in there and impede a federal operation, a lawful one at that, and then attempt to run somebody over to get away because she didn't want to get pulled out of the car.
And amongst a myriad of other things, not to mention half of these actions are coordinated artificially through NGOs and power structures that be on the left.
I agree with you on the point that one of the issues that I voted for was the illegal immigration and going after specifically the ones that I was like, crap, these guys are criminals.
We shouldn't have them.
The problem is, like I said, the system that they set in place to actually go after the illegals is not working because they set a quota and they have it's the wild west and it's creating chaos.
The situations where they literally grab the people who are actual citizens and they just look Mexican.
I'm like, for real, dude, you guys couldn't just do your homework and like ask for an ID or something.
The states issue IDs without them, you know, and issue, they issued them social security cards and all these types of things.
And frankly, you know, I would say this for ICE.
I like it.
I would send in the military.
I would send in the entire freaking military and grab every, because here's the thing: here's what we don't want to talk about.
Everybody talks about, oh, we're just getting the bad ones.
First of all, if you step crossover onto our country illegally, you are guilty of a federal crime.
You are a felon, right?
Unlawful entry is not, it isn't, is a crime in and of itself.
And so these people, there is no innocent party.
I mean, maybe like kids who were like born after the fact.
And yeah, that sucks, but that isn't like there is an aspect of, you know, when your parents are retarded and do something stupid like this, there is going to be some level of consequence that you inadvertently have to bear as their child.
And that's why, you know, like, like I said, our schools are taxed.
And I don't care if we send it to the military or if I'm, I go ahead.
I can be center and conservative and lean right.
And then sometimes I have more maybe left ideology.
I think it's easy to throw blanket statements when there's also nuances in these situations that we don't account for.
And like, if you just look at it, there's no possible human way that we would ever like I came to the conclusion there's no possible way the damage is already done.
There's no way that we could go and take all 20 million people out.
It's not, they're already ingrained.
It already happened.
So what I'm saying is, is just from a macro level is like, look, the damage is done.
No, see, I'm not like you're definitely like, I understand how you're moderate, you're moderate in that sense.
But me, I'm done compromising with these people.
Like, I want here, here's, here's my, here's my goal: if you break our laws, if you lawlessness and are a negative on our tax structure and take all our tax money, I want you to be gone.
And if you can't be gone, I want you to be hiding in a corner until we can get you gone for one reason.
It's like we, if there is one problem with our government, it is the government's inability to put us and our well-being first.
Money for Israel, not for us.
Money for, you know, to drop billions of dollars in Africa to these tribes for different aid purposes when we have homeless people here in America.
It's our country refuses to put us first.
And this is one of the, and like I said, I am so critical of Trump.
This is one of the only things that I am willing to even give him some level of props for because it is America first to deprive, like, you know, to restore balance back to our country.
So, and, you know, here's the last thing I'll make in conclusion.
I see where you're going, and I know there's a large demographic of the population that's going to sit there and be like, okay, that's the way that it should be.
America first, we're always, there's always agree to disagree.
But like, all I'm just saying is, are you, are you just going to evict somebody or just because they look Mexican and just go after them?
Like, I'm just saying, you've got to have, I want them all gone, but I want them all gone over 10 years.
I want a program that's sustainable so that we can actually get people out of here and we can't have, you know, the polar opposite scenario reversed on us in four years again.
So no more calls, no more interviews, no more pontificating.
We're done for tonight.
We just want to reiterate: if you're still on here and if you're all interested in us and want to support us, just go to the Gray Area Talks YouTuber Rumble page.
You know, if one thing has taught me this year in general and just in society, as I just take a step back and look at everything, just extreme methods never work out in the long run.
You can go ahead and do whatever action and say, all right, look, this is what we got to do.
This happened, this situation, and let's lock and load and just make it accelerationism.