Maajid Nawaz SHOCKED Over THE Reason Why Murdoch Fired Tucker | PBD Podcast | Ep. 262
PBD Podcast Episode 262. In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Maajid Nawaz and Adam Sosnick and Vincent Oshana.
FaceTime or Ask Patrick any questions on https://minnect.com/
Subscribe to Maajid’s Substack: https://bit.ly/3oE1RQ0
Subcribe to Maajid’s Rumble channel: https://bit.ly/40HuGIH
Want to get clear on your next 5 business moves? https://valuetainment.com/academy/
Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL
Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N
Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list
Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Yeah, why would you bet on Goliath when we got Bet David?
Valuetainment, giving, values contagious.
This world of entrepreneurs, we get no value to haters.
I be running, homie, look what I become.
So the goal of today's podcast is to help me be better at pronouncing names, words, different kinds of words, right?
If it's Wedding's Day, if it's government, if it's lethargy, things like that.
That's the goal of today.
And I'm willing, I'm open to it, just so you guys know.
We have a special guest with us who came all the way from UK, Majid Nawaz.
If you don't know about Majid Nawaz, he's a founding chairman of Killium, a British think tank focused on counterterrorism specifically against Islamists.
He's a former member of the Islamist group, Hezbollah Tahrid.
That's good.
You got it.
In 2012, he published an autobiography, radical, and has since become a prominent critic of Islamism in the UK.
His second book, Islam and the Future of Tolerance in 2015, co-authored with Atheist Author Sam Harris, was published in October of 2015.
Majid, thank you so much for being a guest.
It's good to meet you guys.
Yes, we've been looking forward to this.
This is an interesting conversation to have with you.
So for some that don't know your background, if you don't mind taking a moment and sharing your background, that'd be great.
How long do you have?
Yeah, we got two hours.
I could start from the beginning, but I'll give you the shortened version and you can unpick it as you like.
So I joined Hezbollah Tahrir at the age of 16 after facing some very severe, violent racist attacks where I grew up in Essex in the UK.
Being the number of people that looked like me, you could count on perhaps one hand.
And it was a very different time.
We were the first generation born and raised in the UK to Muslim parents.
And so it was an interesting experiment because we are the fourth, I'm 45 years old now.
So we were the first generation to have these questions around identity in the West being Muslim.
Our parents as migrants never really had to face those questions because they were always the migrants who came.
So they were still always, in my case, my parents came from Pakistan.
They were Pakistani migrants in Britain.
But we being born and raised there had to kind of grapple with these questions of what it meant to be a Muslim born in the West.
So when we were facing a lot of that violent racism, and I'm talking machete attacks, hammer attacks, when I say violent, it was brutal.
I witnessed my first murder at 17, stabbing to death.
Who was doing the attacking?
These were born British?
This was a group of neo-Nazis.
They affiliated with Combat 18, which is a, it was formed as a paramilitary organization in Northern Ireland by serving soldiers who were fighting the Irish republicanism there, and they became uber nationalist in that sense.
And 18 stands for the order of the letters in the alphabet of Adolf Hitler's initials.
So A being one and H being eight.
These were guys, they weren't messing around.
Multiple friends of ours had either had hammers put to their heads and stabbed all over their bodies.
And I'd been, as I say, before that murder at 17, but most of my I witnessed more knife fights in my teenage years than most people and participated in, than most people will have in their entire lives.
That has a brutalizing effect on the psychology of a young boy.
So at 16, with the Bosnia genocide unfolding in Europe against, again, Srebrenica in particular, against Muslims, I became very, very disassociated from society, became very angry with the world.
And at 16, as I say, joined Hezbollah Tahrir.
That took me on another sort of chapter.
It was a long journey.
I ended up on their leadership.
I ended up exporting the group from Britain to Denmark, to Pakistan, where I was one of the first British Pakistani members to co-found the organization in Pakistan.
Our aim was to create a global theocracy in the name of my faith tradition, which I still adhere to and do not reject whatsoever, just to make that clear to everybody.
What I critiqued was the politicization of that faith tradition.
But the aim at the time, we wanted to create a global theocracy that would impose one reading of that faith tradition over society by law.
Ironically, a very European Westphalian concept, which owed more to colonialism and the inter-war fascism period than it did to the tradition, to the pluralistic tradition of Islam.
But that's what we discuss in that book you mentioned with Sam Harris.
But I ended up, as I say, exporting this revolution to various countries, ended up in Egypt.
I landed one day before the 9-11 attacks, and the security climate around the world completely changed.
And we, though we were non-violent, we were, if you like, we were the Trotsky's to the Stalins of that kind of world.
So we were more on the intellectual revolutionary side as opposed to violence.
9-11 changed the calculation for everybody.
And in Egypt, they had a security roundup after 9-11.
And we were rounded up with hundreds of Egyptians.
We were then blindfolded.
We had our hands tied behind our backs with rags.
They'd run out of handcuffs.
They'd ran it up so many people.
We were then taken into their dungeons where they began torturing everybody with electrocution.
Eventually, we were, after a period of solitary confinement, I think about three and a half months, eventually we were put on trial and I was sentenced to five years as a political prisoner, tried by an emergency court in Egypt, not under the constitutional setup, but tried in the state of emergency that Hosni Mubarak had kept in that country since the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981.
The country never left the state of emergency.
So they were able to arbitrarily detain people.
They had, forget Guantanamo Bay, to be honest, it was a picnic compared to what we saw.
They had people in prisons without charge and without trial for over 20 years.
But in addition to the torture, which wasn't just stress positions, as it is, and I say just, obviously, every form of torture is abhorrent.
But what we see in the press about Guantanamo Bay and even Abu Gharaib was nothing compared to what was going on inside these prisons.
All, mind you, while Tony Blair was taking free holidays being hosted by Hosni Mubarak while we were in those prisons, as the letters have recently been leaked, where Sherry Blair, his wife, has been discussing those free holidays.
I don't forget things like that.
But either way, we were sentenced to five years, at which point we were adopted by Amnesty International as prisoners of conscience, because, as I say, there was no suggestion, even in the trial, of any violence.
And I spent the next five years for and a bit, to be precise, in Masratora prison with the surviving assassins of the former president, Anwar Sadat, with the leaders and founders of all of the jihadi as well as Islamist groups in Egypt at the time.
The leaders and founders of Gama al-Islamiyah.
You're all in there together.
In there together.
As I say, the assassins of Anwar Sadat were there, those who weren't executed in the case, they all became friends of mine.
The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Dr. Muhammad Badir, who wasn't the leader at the time he is now.
Mohammad Mursi, who's since died, he became the leader after Mubarak was overthrown.
Ayman Nord was a liberal prisoner from Hezbollah.
So we had pretty much, it was a political university.
How long were you guys all together?
For the entire time in that prison.
So I was there for just over four years.
So If I'm painting a picture in my mind, was this daily conversations, debates, you know, going through history, you know, ideas being talked about?
Is that kind of how it was?
Absolutely.
I was a student at the time I was studying Arabic.
I'm a graduate in Arabic, in the Arabic language from SOAS, the part of University of London.
And that's ostensibly why I went to Egypt.
So I continued with my studies.
I spent that time in prison studying all aspects of Islamic theology, Islamic exegesis, Quran recitation and memorization, Arabic language, the Fushha, the classical Arabic language, which is the jurisprudence, alm al-Hadif, the science of hadith interpretation.
Because we had people in there that there was no rhyme or reason as to who was thrown in there other than suspicion of a dictator.
So you had genuine scholars in there as well.
And I spent most of my time studying and debating.
Who was most convincing and simply because they were good at debating?
And who was most convicted in their beliefs?
I have very little difficulty differentiating between polemicists and substance because I spent most of my life training other people in how to argue and convince people.
So for me, it wasn't about polemics.
You spend most of your life teaching people how to argue and debate.
Yeah, because Hezbollah Tahir's methodology was ideological propaganda.
We trained people in some of the tactics you saw during the COVID period, which we can come to, weren't new to me at all.
We would train people in the methods of dissemination of ideas for the purposes of ideological warfare.
And that's why we were put in jail, because that was deemed very dangerous.
Our purpose was to recruit army officers and to eventually convince them to instigate military coups to.
Did you succeed?
I've recruited a few army officers, yeah.
In Pakistan and mainly in Pakistan, actually, the people I spoke to at the time.
So if you can go back and again, for you to be in there, it's kind of like a story of somebody saying, yeah, you know, I was in Brucker Park and I was there and for about two years it was me, Michael, you know, such and such and Kobe and all these.
I mean, obviously these guys come from different eras, but if you put all of them at the same time and they're all think tank for two years, what are those games like?
So what are the conversations like?
So for me, what I'm asking you is, who was most convincing where you sat there and you said, that's a very good point they're making for doing this.
For example, if we make an argument of US is the biggest enemy and here's what they're doing, you're like, okay, that's a very good argument I've never heard before, versus who was 100% convicted that you couldn't sway them at all based on your memories.
So by the time we got in, there was a movement afoot in Egypt and across the Islamic world of what was called the Murajaat, which is the revisions of jihadist ideology.
And there were books written by some of the leaders of these jihadi groups, by the leaders of Gama al-Islamiyah, for example.
I still have those books at home in Arabic with my handwritten annotations on the sidelines of those books.
And these were revisions of jihadist thought that I think were profoundly impactful and they were genuine and really influential in convincing a lot of these more hardcore militant ideologues that violence isn't the way to bring about change.
Isn't.
Yeah.
Terroristic violence is not the way to bring about political change.
So they were conversations we were having, as I say, with former members, founders and leaders of Gama al-Islamiyya.
The assassins of Sadat had also come to those conclusions and had abandoned their former jihadist ideology.
If Islamism is the desire to impose one version of Islam over society, jihadism is the use of force to bring about Islamism.
Just to be clear, and when I use those terms, that's what I mean.
That's very distinct from Islam and jihad.
Islam is a faith tradition that is known.
It's one of the Abrahamic faiths.
And Allah in Aramaic means God.
Jesus, when he spoke Aramaic, would say Allah or Elohim.
Allaha.
Allah's.
Allaha.
When it's Assyrian Aramaic, we say Allaha.
Absolutely.
So it just means the same word.
It's the same source.
God, I don't use as a word because I think it's loaded in the English language.
So even in English, when I'm speaking, I prefer to say Allah, just so people understand that ultimately we're speaking of the same subject matter here.
And Islam in that sense is distinct from Islamism, the desire to impose Islam over society.
Jihad, coming back to those terms, again means struggle.
So in the verb, you can say, ujiahidu, it just means I struggle.
And then, of course, there are many various manifestations of struggle.
Primarily, we are our enemies is within us.
And our solution, often and always actually, is within us as well.
So struggle should be seen in that context of the struggle to overcome ourselves.
It can be a struggle against the other in many instances, such as occupation.
I'm no pacifist.
If somebody invades Britain, I will fight.
And so I think that jihadism, though, is the use of force to impose Islamism.
So that's why I define these terms.
So we're not talking of Islam and Jihad.
Back to your question, I haven't forgotten.
In the prisons, there were people that were still subscribing to the Islamist and jihadist ideologies and wanted to either use force to impose that on others or take over a system and do so.
But most of the leaders and founders of those organizations by then had come around to this idea that violence wasn't the way.
So ironically, we were the ideologues when we entered that jail.
Now, ordinarily, when you go through torture, it makes you even more angry, even more entrenched in your view, and even less willing to compromise because of the anger and because of the inability to separate the pain and the anguish and the trauma from what you experienced from being able to think clearly.
I don't know for whatever reason in my case, I spent those five years debating and discussing.
By the end of it, and I read all those books I mentioned, the Muraja At or the revisions in the jihadist thinking, by the end of it, even though I didn't leave the group until a year after my departure from Mazalat or a prison, I could no longer sustain my own conviction that what I had thought was Islam, the faith, and therefore needed to be proselytized, was what I'd come to believe.
I could no longer sustain that conviction, and so I had to leave.
So I'd say I became influenced by these people that you were asking of, those that in their older years had matured and specific one above the other.
No, no, it was collective.
Yeah, it was a collective group of, and it was so diverse and different.
I mean, I mentioned Ayman Nur from Hezbollah Ghad.
He was a liberal political prisoner.
We had Sa'ad-Din Ibrahim was quite a well-known Egyptian sociologist who was jailed for questioning Mubarak's attempt to give power to his son afterwards, Jamal Mubarak.
And yet we had communists in there.
Obviously, the majority were Islamists and jihadists.
But just to give you an idea, there were people that are converted to Christianity that were thrown in jail for being apostates from Islam to Christianity.
And there were people that converted to Islam that were thrown in jail.
And we had a running joke at the time in prison that under Hosni Mubarak's Egypt, if you change your mind from anything to anything, it doesn't matter which way you go, thinking is what would get you put into prison.
So imagine the diversity of thought.
It was really, for me, that was my real university, to be honest.
I bet.
I can only imagine.
I have a question for you on this diversity of thought and this sort of conglomerate hodgepodge of completely different ideologies.
I kind of want to get to the heart of the biggest differences and the biggest similarities between all these quote-unquote terrorist groups, right?
So ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, the list goes on on Boko Haram.
They're not all the same.
They all have different ideologies.
What is the most common thread with all these groups and then distinguishments between all of them?
The common thread is that they are all being weaponized and manipulated by various intelligence agencies across the world.
That's the common thread.
They're being weaponized by intelligence agents?
Yes, and manipulated.
Yeah.
How?
So these are proxy wars.
What you're seeing in Sudan going on right now is an example of a proxy war.
But let's take ISIS as an example.
By now, it's well established.
I'll give one case study, which is actually a human and sorrowful story.
Shamima Begum is a former British citizen who had her passport stripped.
She was an underage child when she was groomed online by ISIS to convince her to travel to Syria for the purposes of marrying an ISIS fighter.
And I say marrying because it wasn't really.
It's child sexual exploitation.
She was underage.
She was in school.
And she somehow managed to get over there.
Long story short, she's now in one of those camps like Camp Al Haul.
She's in one of those camps where they're holding the wives and children of ISIS fighters.
These are prisons in which children are born.
It's recently been revealed that her smuggling from Britain, from, remember, a schoolgirl, yeah, from Britain to join ISIS and become sexually exploited by these terrorists was facilitated by somebody working for Canadian intelligence.
That's no longer even in doubt.
And so what you end up realizing is the British government stripped her of her passport to punish her for the crime of traveling over to join or marry, in quotation marks, an ISIS fighter.
But actually, her being smuggled out there was facilitated by Canadian intelligence.
It turns out that we in the West were arming some of those fighters like Jabhat al-Nusra, which was al-Qaeda in Syria, because we wanted to overthrow Assad in Syria.
So my work up until the COVID period was to challenge a lot of the ideological underpinning that justified some of this thinking and that I also, in the intellectual, not violent sense, succumb to.
However, when you also then want a fuller picture of it, you have to realize where do the weapons come from?
Where does the training come from?
You see with Afghanistan and how the Taliban now have more Black Hawk helicopters than the entire British army because of Biden's absolutely cowardly and shameful way in which he withdrew.
I've never been for the occupation, but the way in which he cut and run in that way was shameful and left them with all those weapons.
So our own actions also have to be put into the picture to understand.
Now, as I say, one of the things they all have in common is that they are being weaponized to fight proxy wars.
And invariably, you see, the case of Syria demonstrates that very clearly because of our desire to remove Assad, who I come from a background where all Arab dictators have been our enemy.
I have no sympathy for Assad.
But what I wouldn't want to ever accept is that we replace Assad with al-Qaeda and ISIS, which is what we were effectively doing.
It's what Trump brought to an end, by the way.
And I think to give you one final example, take Ukraine and the Azov Nazis, who aren't even neo-Nazis, the actual Nazis.
They come from the Bandira tradition, which is the surviving elements of Nazism and the collaborators in Ukraine from the era of Nazism.
Up until today, they are still there.
Now, as of, now, every country has racists, but Azov is a battalion that was integrated into the Ukrainian army and formally became their National Guard.
So the Ukrainian National Guard is the Azov battalion.
As of our Nazis, this is not in dispute.
This is not an opinion.
This is a matter of fact.
I, for 10 years, ran the world's first and leading counter-extremism organization.
It was our job to brief prime ministers and presidents on who is an extremist.
I have met in that pursuit.
George Bush, Tony Blair, David Cameron, more heads of state than I can imagine, one-on-one talking like this.
I am telling you, as of our Nazis, this is not in dispute, it's a fact.
They have Nazi insignia, and yet we're sending weapons and funds to Nazis who are integrated into the Ukrainian army.
That's like saying that because we wanted to get rid of Assad, we're going to fund ISIS.
You can't run the world in a way where the ends justify the means, because then you have what people call collateral damage.
Imagine that in the intellectual side of things.
We are funding and arming people who have these extremist ideologies.
And then we're surprised that these ideologies spread.
Now, my job then becomes harder because it's not just against jihadism that I stand, but of course, Nazism, obviously, which is how I ended up in the first place becoming radicalized.
So you've got people like us saying, look, you know, the world should be about peace, unity, love.
And meanwhile, the governments that we are attempting to counsel in that regard are doing the exact opposite by arming and funding these militia all over the world.
Can I just give you, this isn't a pushback, this is more of a follow-up, but it'd be almost like if you were starting a company, right?
And you go to someone, like a PBDI or starting a company right now, and we go to some intelligence agency for seed capital or to raise some money.
Okay, so maybe they invest in our business, but at the end of the day, we started the business.
So it almost seems like you're saying that the intelligence agencies are facilitating or propping up a lot of these terrorist groups.
And that's like if you're peeling an onion, that might be the second, third, fourth, fifth layer.
But the bottom layer of the onion, of ISIL, of al-Qaeda, the Taliban is the group itself.
It's not the intelligence agencies.
Am I wrong?
It's a yes and no.
It's a mixture of both because some of their leaders are actually infiltrators from the security services.
I mean, there's only so far I can go into this without being too scandalous and clinging.
Let's get scandalous here.
But also lives are at stake.
So I think that it's important to recognize that, especially ISIS, ISIS itself is a creation of these proxy wars, especially ISIS.
Where you're correct is the history, yes, you're absolutely correct.
So how, let's start with, say, Islamic Jihad in Egypt, how that began is the Muslim Brotherhood were attempting to create their own version of this kind of theocratic thinking and bring that about in Egypt.
Which, by the way, that one year that Morsi was in power, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, after Mubarak's overthrow, I mean, ultimately, there's a BBC Hard Talk interview of me with Stephen Saka, where I'm criticizing the Muslim Brotherhood government.
And he says to me, but weren't they elected?
I said, yeah, just like Bush was, and I can still criticize George Bush.
So I do make the point that ultimately they were elected.
They were better than a military dictatorship, which is again what we have now with Cisi.
So my critique of them isn't to strip them of the fact that they were legitimately elected.
But let's take the Brotherhood as an example.
Before this all happened, because they've been around since the 1920s, they would be going about their proselytizing in Egypt.
And of course, under the dictatorship, they weren't allowed and they would be thrown into the jails.
Now, how they began treating them is there's a big fortress in Cairo.
It's called Al-Qula.
Quilatul Salahdin.
It's the Saladin Fortress.
It's now a tourist site, like the Tower of London.
You go there, you go into the dungeons, the London dungeon.
Has anyone been to the London dungeon?
You see all the waxworks of the torture they used to do to me.
So there's a fortress like that in Cairo, except it's not historic.
In our lifetime, it was a torture dungeon.
And prisoners that I was with in Masratorah prison were held in that fortress, which is an ancient fortress, but the regime had converted it to a torture dungeon.
Now, in that Qilatin, the fortress, they would get the Muslim Brotherhood prisoners and they would basically starve dogs for a long time.
And then these starving dogs would be let loose in the solitary cell with these prisoners to basically terrorize them and torture them.
Now, this kind of treatment, raping wives in front of husbands, torturing children in front of fathers to force confessions, is how jihadism emerged in the very prison I was held in.
So, Mazratora prison is where Sayyid Qutub, the infamous founding ideologue of modern-day jihadism, who wrote the book, The Das Kapital of Jihadism, called Milestones or Ma'alim Fitriq in Arabic.
Now, Milestones was written in the prison I was held in, and it was written by a former Muslim Brotherhood member.
Now, what you said, by the way, Adam, and I didn't mean to say you're all wrong because that's where what you said applies.
This is an example where we have to take, Muslims have to take responsibility for what happened next.
So, he's very angry.
They've witnessed all this torture.
He then does what I did the opposite of this, right?
He then codifies a dogmatic, rigid way of thinking to make themselves feel better about the fact they're angry.
And that's where milestones came from.
And that was the basis, the intellectual basis for modern-day al-Qaeda that emerged.
So, that's how what you said correctly is how jihadism emerged.
I don't think Sayyid Qutub was an intelligence operative.
No, no, no, he was an angry man who had been witnessed, all of him and his brothers would witness torture, and they are angry, and then they codify their anger and justify it by Islam, like everyone does in any faith tradition.
I mean, the Inquisition and the Crusades are an example of that.
So, he codifies and justifies his anger and then writes it in a book, and that then takes off.
So, yes, that's how it began.
But by the time you get to the end of it with ISIS, more so than not, ISIS is a creation of these proxy wars and intelligence.
It is why I have to be as candid as I am about this, because we've got to, everyone has to take responsibility for what's going on in the world.
Can I name the book real quick so we can pull that up?
Oh, Milestones by Sayyid Qutub.
It's available in English.
It's pretty much the intellectual foundation for modern-day jihadism.
You compared it to Daz Kapitau.
Yeah, it's one of the first examples of a jihadist manifesto.
It's the articulation of jihadist thinking.
Imagine I have two questions.
So, when the torture at the prisons you were in, do they have like a regimented thing of how they schedule it?
Was it like an everyday thing?
Was it ranking on who they thought was a bigger threat out that they wanted information?
Was it a constant thing?
And my second question was with the Bush and Blair.
You said you spoke to both of them.
How did that feel and how did that play off sitting there talking with two people that started the Iraq war, which was just a snowball effect, got rid of Saddam, who started a lot of all these problems?
Yeah, look, I think there's a political reason, I'll say the word reckoning, but I mean political reckoning, not violent.
There's a political reckoning coming for a cabal or a clique of world leaders who are responsible on their side of it for much of this.
So, Bush is an example, Tony Blair is an example.
They invaded Iraq on false pretenses.
We now know all of that was based on a lie.
Again, back to Adam to your point.
This is why I say we all have to take responsibility for the full picture here.
And just like I believe, Muslims have to take responsibility to clean house as well, right?
Which is what we've been doing for the last since I left that group in 2008 with much sacrifice, but it's not easy to do what I do.
And me and my brothers, what we do is not easy because, as you can imagine, it's faced with a lot of pushback as well.
But everyone has to take responsibility.
So there's a political reckoning coming because these guys ruined the entire Middle East.
I cannot overstate the damage that the invasion of Iraq and then, you know, with Afghanistan added to that, and then Syria and what happened there.
I cannot overstate the damage that's done to the world and how difficult it's made everyone's jobs.
And they haven't stopped.
I mean, during the COVID mandate period, again, for the record, I opposed every single COVID mandate and lost my job over it.
I was a national radio broadcaster in the UK on the largest commercial radio station.
But I basically opposed every single mandate.
Masks.
I flew.
In fact, I flew to Tennessee without a mask on and posted a photo.
And then the chief of staff of the governor wanted to meet me when I landed because he tell me about flying without a mask.
It was surreal.
But we've got to, so just as when that mandate period emerged, and Tony Blair started again pushing for digital IDs and for synchronizing everybody up with the technocracy, these people want total control.
It's why we call them globalists.
They want total technocratic control of everything we do, filtered through their systems, their infrastructure, with no privacy, so they can see and hear everything.
And that's the same cabal that invaded Iraq.
It's the same cabal that has been through the money laundering in Ukraine and pushing for more and more war and the securitization of our societies as a result of that.
So I think there is a political reckoning that is long overdue.
And I think Trump is one manifestation of that political reckoning.
And in the UK, Nigel Farage is an example of what happens when you allow the establishment to get away with impunity for decades committing crimes, invading countries.
There's still a CBS 60 Minutes clip of Madeleine Albright, the late Madeleine Albright.
She's passed away.
So I've met her as well.
I won't say anything rude about dead people.
Prophet teaches us.
He says, do not abuse the dead, for you only harm the living.
So when we speak of the dead people, even if we oppose them vehemently, we speak in terms of ideas and themes as opposed to making it personal.
So she was asked by Leslie Stahl on CBS 60 Minutes that half a million children died in Iraq.
This is the war before the invasion.
And this clip's still up online, but widely available.
And Leslie Stahl, who I've also met because they did a 60-minute segment on me as well.
But Leslie Stahl says to Madeleine Albright, you know, that's half a million children.
Is the price worth it?
And Madeline Albright says, yeah, we believe the price is worth it.
And this is these children died, many believe from the effects of depleted uranium that was used in Iraq.
But you've got a situation where the entire world has been ruined by this cabal who continue to act with impunity, even here in the United States of America.
I think Vinny brought up a very good point about the Bush administration.
I guess my question to the follow-up is: what level of involvement should the United States play in the Middle East?
Obviously, we got out of Afghanistan.
Iraq was a disaster.
We saw what happened with ISIS and ISIL.
But when we leave the Middle East, that opens up a vacuum for Russia to come in and Putin to do what he's wanting to do.
China is investing in Iran and different parts of the Middle East.
You know, obviously, I think we've learned the hard way.
We can't just place our values of democracy and freedom into the Middle East and like, hey, go for it, guys.
But should America just completely vacate the Middle East?
Like, what level of involvement should America?
I mean, look, so let's start with, that's a really good, I think it's a good exploration here.
Let's start with the aim.
I think the aim should be a more multilateral world that works together.
And so that doesn't mean Chinese domination.
It doesn't mean Russian domination.
So just over a year ago, I was on the J.R.E. Rogan podcast, and I believe he speaks highly of you, Patrick.
I saw a clip where he's very happy with you.
I was warning at the time before this whole Ukraine saga sort of and the FTX thing blew it up in the way it did.
And I was saying this is all a mistake because what we're doing is going to push Russia and China together.
Well, that's what's happened since.
They've basically formed an alliance.
And it's very interesting because if you see what China's managed to do, nobody thought it would be possible to pull from under the feet of everybody, pull the rug in the way that they have done between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
China negotiated a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which one hopes will bring an end to the slaughter in Yemen, where it's been horrific with children starving in the way that you see the images coming from Yemen.
It's terrible.
So the hopes that what we're seeing now, let's take the Abraham Accords and the UAE and Israel negotiating with each other.
And now let's take Saudi and Iran negotiating with each other.
The Abraham Accords had American sponsorship.
The Saudi-Iran deal had Chinese sponsorship.
If we can all recognize that the way forward isn't occupation, invasion, and funding wars, but funding and sponsoring peace and these forms of negotiations, I'm not opposed to either of them.
The Abraham Accords, you may well be aware of them, Adam, but the Abraham Accords...
Yitzhak Rabin.
That's right.
And it was just, you know, the idea that Israel can have cooperation with the Middle East and trade, or the idea that Saudi and Iran can do so, neither should be rejected.
We've got to stop these wars because nothing good comes from them.
And they're all proxy wars.
The one in Yemen between the Houthis and the Yemeni authorities was a proxy war.
The Houthis being effectively backed by Iran and Saudi backing the Yemeni authorities and it led to mass slaughter, mass killing.
That's still going on to this day.
That's right.
But one hopes that this negotiated peace that's being between Saudi and Iran, China has been sponsoring.
So now, why I mention that is China has made an offer to Zelensky.
So I've been a very vocal critic of China.
Before my cancellation, I launched a, well, it eventually turned out to be a four, I think it was four-day hunger strike while I was on air.
And the aim was to gather 100,000 signatures on a parliamentary website, which would trigger a debate in parliament to recognize the plight of the Uyghur Muslim people in China, who are an ethnic minority group that are being targeted and discriminated against by the Chinese Communist Party because, of course, the presence of any traditional religious identity under communism is a problem.
How do you pronounce it?
That pronunciation I won't vouch for because I don't speak the Uyghur language.
We've heard Uyghurs a million times.
So the Rahima Mahmoud is the head of the UK World Uyghur Congress.
And she attempts to correct me when I say Uyghurs.
And the correction, I can't vouch for.
How you heard me pronounce it there isn't.
Don't take my word for it.
You just say it way more ethnic than I do.
I say it like a white guy, Uyghur.
Yeah, so that is an example of me not being a great fan of the Chinese regime.
But I try and give credit where credit is due.
And we've got to recognize that if we want the kind of world that I hope we all want, which is more peaceful, more united in a spiritual sense, more multilateral, then we've got to recognize China exists.
And where they're doing good, like negotiating peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia, we've got to say that's good.
I got a question for you.
So one of the things that's happening in the U.S. is common sense is being seemed like a bad idea.
Bad ideas are creating a lot of momentum because people are not pushing back.
You said something earlier where one of the things you were trained to do was to debate and to teach others how to convert and debate, right?
So, and you said you saw some of that during COVID.
That's why you didn't fall forward.
We're kind of unpacking that.
And we're seeing some of this woke ideology in the US that's creating a lot of momentum, which makes no sense how a woman who's been a feminist her entire life to defend women, now a man who identifies as a woman is able to come and take the freedoms away from other women who that feminist once fought for, which makes no sense, right?
So how did you, if you were trained how to convert people into possibly bad ideas, which is what you did at one point, how did you do that?
How were you so successful at it?
How did I convert people to these ideas?
Yes.
What did you lean on?
Did you lean on innocence?
Did you lean on anger?
Did you lean on rage?
Did you divide?
What angles did you take?
You've got to understand human psychology, really.
And what you just said there at the end of that question is an example of correct approaches.
You've got to understand if somebody's angry, then how do you manipulate and weaponize that anger by steering it?
Now, I don't want to get overly complicated, so I'll give a more popular example, which everyone will get immediately.
So we all, I imagine, watch Star Wars, right?
Of course.
Right.
So the way in which through the prequels, you see Darth Vader become who Darth Vader becomes and what happens to Anakin is an example of what I'm talking about.
How you can weaponize and manipulate anger that comes from rage, from love, in Anakin's case, losing a loved one, right?
So if you can sympathize with a human story as it's presented in Star Wars, you can see in real life how that happens.
So in a fictional character who loses a loved one to, I think, remind me, was it a natural death that Anakin's lover died of, whatever it was.
Imagine you're in a war zone where your entire family's been blown up.
It becomes incredibly easy to weaponize and manipulate that anger.
ISIS began in the prisons in Iraq, for example.
So you've got a whole bunch of people whose country's been invaded and they're fighting an occupier and they're caught and they're put into jail.
And of course they're angry.
And that's where that anger was weaponized again when I say by the security services in ISIS's case.
Up until ISIS, they were all kind of fighters.
So I think it's whether it's anger, every emotion, every human emotion can be steered for the purposes of achieving an outcome.
And it was done during COVID.
Fear in the case of COVID with COVID mandates.
And again, everything I say, please, everybody listening, look it up for yourselves.
Don't believe me when I say things like, we witnessed historically the largest and most sinister psychological operations campaign inflicted upon civilian people by their governments during the COVID era.
This isn't, again, is no longer in dispute.
the fact that whether the Twitter files have revealed it here in the US or by way of an example, Matt Hancock, the health secretary's WhatsApp messages that were leaked revealed in the UK where he's like how do we make the people more scared?
Ultimately we...
Which we've spoken about all of that on the pod.
That's right.
And the 77th Brigade that I first mentioned on the JRE, but mention here again, is a UK-based military operations unit called the 77th Brigade, which on their own website, they state that their purpose is psychological operations and they were engaged in this whole COVID situation.
Twitter was infiltrated by operatives in that way to manipulate our perception of reality.
So in the case of COVID, they did it with fear.
In the case of extremism, you do it, for example, with anger.
You could do it with love.
I mean, I think the Spanish Inquisition was a manipulation of love, interestingly enough, because the idea, you know, I will torture you because it's good for you and God will redeem you through this.
And then when you're seeking heretics, the idea is you think that you're seeking purity and love.
And of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Yeah.
But I'm sorry, I want to go deeper in this.
I want to go deeper into this.
You talk about the Leslie Stahl video.
I just texted you, Rob.
If you want to play this as 23 seconds from 60 minutes, and you see decisions like this being made, this is in 2001.
I may be off, but if you can play it.
We have heard that a half a million children have died.
I mean, that's more about children than died when they're talking about 100.
You know, is the price worth it?
4,000 people.
I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.
Okay.
1996 when this happened.
Okay, if you can.
1996.
That's another clip you got playing, Rob, maybe.
Okay.
So that was the first Iraqi.
Yeah, so that wasn't 96.
That was the second clip, just to be clear.
That 96 was from a gadget.
Yeah, I think I should say.
So, you know, you think about decisions like that being made.
Okay.
We think it was worth it.
All right.
You know, fear.
COVID was fear.
I agree.
Love.
You're doing this for God.
And some people would say even, you know, religious extremists, hey, you're, you know, killing your life, you know, taking your life and God's going to be very happy for you.
Or kamikaze.
Or, you know, all these other things that we've all heard about.
But I want you to go a little bit deeper if you can, because, you know, I had a girl I hired, lady.
She wasn't a girl.
A lady I hired to be one of my copywriters years ago.
And then one day we sit down and two years later after she's been working me and she says, you know, I got to tell you why I took this job.
I said, tell me why you took this job.
Well, let me tell you my background.
My background is I was one of those people that bought into a cult-like leader.
And I said, who?
And she mentioned it to me who the cult leader was.
I said, you were part of that.
She says, I was part of that cult.
So what things happen?
Well, we all, as a woman, I was married, but we had sex with this and this and that.
And she's telling me, as a married woman, her husband was okay, that other men of that members, what convinced you of that?
Because I was convinced we were doing the right thing and me and my husband, all this stuff.
Typically, it comes from a place of wanting to be part of a community, right?
This is happening and parents in America are very worried.
Some of them that can't afford to send their kids to private school, they have to send their kids to public school.
And in public school, this is happening.
But if you can, I want you to go a little deeper.
I know you were doing a Star Wars thing, and I know you kind of use that as the analogy, but I want you to actually tell us what it would sound like.
For example, hey, how do you feel about the fact that such and such is getting all the credit and you're not?
Right?
Don't you hate it that they don't really realize you're doing all the work behind closed doors.
Without you, he would never be where he's at right now.
That's one method, right?
Hey, did you see what they did to your family?
We have to seek vengeance.
We have to go back and do this, right?
Can you actually unpack some of those recruiting methods?
Yeah.
So you can break an idea down generally into the political.
So with the purposes of extremist recruiting, you can break an idea down into its political manifestation, its scriptural perspective as well, and a rational perspective.
So let me break that down on the idea of democracy.
We were trained to completely remove the idea of democracy as having any appeal to our target audience, because clearly we wanted a theocracy instead.
Now, take the political, it's very easy to do with democracy, actually, because it's been such a sham, even here in America with Biden and the whole fudge with the election.
All of this is coming out.
The whole J6 stuff, it's all been a theater.
But I think by now it's a lot of people.
How are people falling forward?
How are people falling forward?
Well, because people are in their echo chambers.
But let me just, because your question, you've asked it twice, let me go into a bit of detail on that.
And then clearly we can come to the J6 and all that if you want as well.
But let's take democracy as an idea.
Political, the political attack from our proselytizing perspective, ideological warfare angle, it's easy to politically attack democracy.
What I mean by the political attack is you take this idea and say, right, these people claim to believe in democracy and yet they don't even adhere to it themselves.
So, for example, is it how can you claim that democracy is what you want for the Arab world when you've just invaded and occupied a country?
That's a political critique of the idea.
And that would be easy to do because our actions have demonstrated that the hypocrisy there.
The scriptural references then, you know, again, depending on the person you're speaking, if it's a politically active person, you might want to come in with a political critique first.
If you're talking to a religious person who's traditionally religious and your aim is to politicize them, because traditionally devout Muslims weren't politicized and the faith had always been an internal thing.
But we used to politicize traditionally devout Muslims.
So how would you do that?
You would take scripture because that's what they hold dear, as opposed to the political line.
And the scriptural references, so you would seek to convince them that there is a shortcoming or a misunderstanding in their idea of Islam.
And Islam is founded on this key fundamental point of dawheed or the belief in the oneness of the source of Allah.
And so what Sayyid Qutub did in Milestones, the book that you just showed on screen, is to take this idea of dawheed or oneness and demonstrate that you as a Muslim are falling short of your fundamental religious obligation to this idea of one Allah if you allow rival gods to be created in the form of these rulers.
And then you bring scriptural references to back that, which is actually quite a revolutionary point, which wasn't made in Islamic discourse before, I'd say, Mawl Dududi.
He was the founder of Jamaati Islam in the Indian subcontinent.
And Mawdudi was followed then by people like Sayyid Qutub and Milestones and Nabahani, who was the founder of Hezbo Tahiyah, the group that I joined.
But Mawdoori was one of the first to make this point.
The idea that passages such as Inil Hukmu'illah in the Quran, which mean the hukum is for none but Allah.
Now, the word huqam here could mean judgment in the arbitration sense, or it could mean rule in the theocracy sense, as in law.
Now, what the modern-day recruiters would do is take that idea as well.
You take that passage and say, look, see, the rule is for none but Allah.
So these rulers who are ruling with their man-made dictatorial laws are a direct challenge to Allah's rule.
And we have a complete system of governance that has been discarded by these dictators who have become idols before Allah.
And shirk or idol or polytheism is seen as the biggest anathema to dawheel or the oneness of Allah.
So you can take somebody down that journey.
Now, the truth is this passage could not mean what we were teaching people it meant.
It's impossible.
Because the idea of a unitary legal system imposing one law over all of society is a modern Westphalian European nation-state idea.
The idea of state, a state, is a modern idea.
It doesn't exist in traditional scripture.
The word state in Arabic is dawla.
If you were to take a computer to scan the entire all Islamic scripture to look for the word dawla or state, you could do it right now if you want.
It just doesn't exist.
It's not there.
The closest you'll get is a word dhulla in the sense of the rotation of money and debt.
But there's no such word as dawla or, for example, nivam, which means system or constitution, which means distur in Arabic, right?
These words are conspicuous by their absence in traditional Islamic discourse.
And that's not a, that's not surprising because they are very modern political concepts in the first place.
And so when we used to take these words, these passages like inil khukmu illah to say, this means that the rule must be for none but Allah and the constitution therefore must be based on Islam.
We were basically imposing very modern interwars, I say, inter-war European ideas onto traditional Islamic scripture to extract from that a political ideology.
So that's the scriptural angle that you could take as opposed to the political angle.
Then there's the, I said, the rational angles to break down the problem inherent in the idea of democracy.
And that is an angle to say, look, you know, when Demoscratus, the idea of the Greeks, the slaves couldn't vote.
Who gets to decide what you vote for, what you're even thinking?
Because if you don't have money, you can't campaign.
And therefore, democracy really is who gets to be the biggest billionaire.
And this would be a rational critique of the idea as opposed to pointing to its hypocrisy, the political critique, or the scriptural references that I just went through.
So you can take any idea and break it down in those three for the purposes of recruitment.
So how much of it is in the guy that can give the best argument?
How much of it is in the guy that has the money?
In a sense of what I'm saying, yeah, it's actually more than that.
It's what the circumstances are conducive to.
So if you, if you're, take Iraq, for example, it was a no-brainer.
Take Afghanistan.
It's a no-brainer that the jihadists are going to win the argument there.
I'm not going to win an argument if you've got occupation forces.
Everything I'm saying today may sound really nice and smart.
It doesn't matter.
During the COVID period, I was saying this at the end of my anti-COVID stuff.
I was saying it on air to, I mean, it was a huge audience on the largest commercial radio platform in the UK.
And my show was on a weekend lunchtime with over half a million listeners when people should be out having their weekend brunches.
And it didn't land.
Why?
Because when people are scared, they're not looking.
Instead, I got sacked, right?
I mean, it landed in the sense that obviously the argument in the end won.
I think we won that argument in the end.
And even if people haven't realized it yet, I think they will eventually.
But at the time, it didn't change government.
It didn't change politicians' thinking.
It didn't change the people that needed to be influenced by that argument weren't listening because they were scared.
If you're under occupation, you're not going to listen to the majids or my brothers that work with me on this kind of stuff because if you're under occupation, you're angry.
So those emotions, whether it's fear, whether it's anger, even love, which can blind, if the conditions aren't conducive to what I'm saying, which is why I'm saying that the China negotiated peace between Iran and Saudi or the Abraham Accords, this will all calm the situation down in the Middle East.
And we need a calmer situation to be able to have these kinds of conversations.
So, you know, that's interesting.
You gave a little bit of context.
I wanted to get a little bit more strategic about it on how it happens because it's happening right now all over the place.
And people don't know how to fight against it.
You want to the trans stuff.
You want to talk about that?
Yeah.
You know, it's not just, yeah, I want to talk about the trans stuff.
I want to talk about all this stuff.
But I want to know how to weaponize people to argue against it because they're cornered.
So sometimes they're like, man, I can't say anything here.
I feel like I got nothing to say here.
But while we're on this topic, before we get to that, I want to kind of unpack this one here.
You know, you take scripture and the interpreter, whoever the pastor is, can take one and, you know, spin it and say, this is why God said 10%.
But what he really meant is that if he gave 30%, then you know what I'm talking about.
So I got to give 30% because the guy that, you know, so I'm going to this church, man, instead of I'm making 20 grand a month, I got to give the church 10 grand a month because God's going to give me.
So there are people that are very convincing.
People fall for it, right?
Okay.
You said the billions of dollars, the money.
It takes a lot of money, and whoever's got the money and is getting the money to whatever party it is, they're going to be able to get the argument to go.
Maybe a George Soros, you're seeing what they're doing with the money right now.
You saw the moment Biden announced three major names came out that they're going to be supporting him financially.
Soros, the son was one of them.
What were the other two names that were on that list, Rob?
It was Katzenberg, Katzenberg, Reid Hoffman, and Soros.
Hey, we're getting behind Biden and we're going to defend him and we're going to help him out.
So this makes sense from the money standpoint, but I'm going to give you the opposite side on the religion to see if that's also applies to religion.
There's been, if you look at the fastest-growing religion right now on what's going to be the largest religion in the world, 2035, Muslims are ahead.
And it's not even close the way they're growing.
You can pull up the stat that says how many per 100 Muslims, per hundred people that are born, how many are Christians?
I think you have the link.
You have it right here.
You send it to me.
So if you want to pull that up, it says per 100 people that are born, you got 33 are Christians, 100 births, 33 are Christians, 31 are Muslims.
Okay.
But per 100 that die, 37 are Christians.
Only 21 are Muslims.
So it's a much younger demographic.
It's a much younger demographic.
So by 2035, it's going to be a very different thing.
So why do you think the religion, the Muslim, what argument does it have that spreading the way it is today where it's growing at the pace?
Is it because it's demographic based, or are they also coming into Christian regions and converting them as well?
So nothing I say here should be taken as definitive because it's such a diverse faith tradition.
Sure.
But there are general observations we can make.
And one of them I'd start with is to understand there's no church in Islam, which is what our critique of the Saudi regime has been about.
It's the, whether you want to call it the Wahhabi doctrine, that is the official established religion in Saudi Arabia, or the Salafi doctrine.
People use Salafi, Wahhabi seen as a bit of a pejorative, but actually it's because the name of the founder of that doctrine, Abdul Wahhab, that was his name, Wahhab.
The Saudi merger of religion and state in that sense, the reason we've just been through Ramadan and Eid, Ibn Barak, everyone, and the reason there were some Muslims celebrating on a Friday and some on a Saturday is because Saudi declared Eid by citing the moon for Shawwal on Thursday night.
But other countries around the world, Nigeria, Pakistan included, Indonesia, Malaysia, others, they said, we don't have to follow Saudi Arabia.
Now, the reason I give that example, and they said we cite our own moon in our country, the reason I give that example is because there is no established church like the Vatican in Islam.
And so, in its origin, from the days of Prophet Muhammad's passing onwards, there has never been an establishment version of Islam.
And in fact, that's what the Islamists are attempting to create.
They're attempting to reverse-engineer a church in Islam.
They don't realize they have more in common with Catholicism than they do with traditional Islam in that sense.
The idea of theocracy is entirely alien to Islamic tradition.
I'll give you the example of Turkey.
So before the Ottoman Caliphate was dismantled in 1924 after World War I, the system in place, the legal system in place they had there, again, historically verifiable, it was called the millet system.
The millet system, it was a legally pluralistic system.
So you had more than one law operating in Turkey at any time.
If you had a dispute, Patrick, you could go to a, if you were a Christian, you could go to a Christian arbitrator, which is why I said the word huqam actually means arbitration.
That earlier passage I was citing, doesn't mean rule, it means judgment.
In other words, arbitration.
You can voluntarily go for your own arbitration.
So you could choose a Christian, I could choose a Muslim.
And that millit system meant that you had legal pluralism.
Legal pluralism in the world no longer exists.
Most countries are now unitary legal systems.
They only have one law operating in the country because business won the argument.
Business wanted legal certainty.
You know, it's more profitable to be able to predict the law.
So business wanted legal certainty.
So nation states emerged and you ended up with unitary legal systems.
But in the Islamic tradition, the legally pluralistic system or the millit system existed because theocracy was alien to Islam.
It's why I say the Islamists' attempt to bring theocracy into Islam has more in common with the Catholic Church.
So why, in answer to your question, when there isn't an established church, the faith is inherently a faith of the people and anti-establishment in the good sense of that word, libertarian in the libertarian sense of that word.
So it's very appealing as a result because you've got a direct relationship with the source.
And you don't have to confess to anyone else other than to the source.
You don't have to, you don't owe anyone anything else.
And you can choose who you follow based upon who you think is sincere, as opposed to the church imposing an imam over you.
You can choose to go to your local mosque or you can choose to go to another mosque if you don't like the imam there.
There is no membership to an institution.
Now, why that's important is because I believe that's very attractive.
People sense that all institutions become corrupted.
I believe on an intellectual level, all institutions drift towards authoritarianism.
And that's something that is inherent to systems that you cannot avoid.
They accumulate more and more power.
Bureaucracies like efficiency.
And because bureaucracies like efficiency, over time, they self-correct for more and more efficiency, which means more and more bureaucracy, which means a larger and larger system.
And if you look at the nature of systems and how they behave, they generally always drift towards accumulating more and more centralized power.
Now, that can apply to a regime or to a system in terms of government, and it can apply also to a clergy or a religious institution.
And what happens then over time is that whether you see with some of the recent scandals in the Catholic Church or you see the power grab through the mandates and the COVID mandate period, you end up with basically people becoming victims of that institution as it seeks to over time accumulate more and more power.
And so because, again, I say these are general marks because Islam is such a diverse faith tradition, but in general, because there is no one Islamic church or clergy, despite the Islamist attempts to create one, despite Saudi Arabia, despite Iran, these are contested.
They're not traditional Islamic clergy in that sense, and they're not worldwide.
So you have that sense of freedom and liberation that a direct connection to the source brings.
And I think that's a very appealing element of it.
It means that we can have a relational approach to the tradition.
What I mean by relational is it's people to people.
Now, I know this might sound a bit abstract.
I want to focus on this for a second because it's so important.
It's actually more important that people give credit to.
And I'll give an example to indicate how I think it's so important.
Technocracy, if you look at technocracy and if you look at the world, the way in which the globalist powers are seeking to suck all of our data, they recognize that our data is profitable.
They recognize that actually we are valuable because of our data, which is why they want it all the time.
They want what you're browsing, Patrick, right now on there.
They want what's on your phone.
They want the patterns of your behavior because they can be monetized.
So, for example, every time I use my debit card to contact, say I purchase this bottle here and I make a contactless payment.
And if I'm a creature of habit and I purchase one of these at a certain time of the week before I go to the gym, let's say before I go to the gym, I drink one of these bottles of water.
After I come out, I drink a protein shake.
If you can get that pattern, you can time marketing to my behavior.
And of course, that's where I've been.
We've seen the last 10 years.
That's right.
That's where our data becomes so valuable.
And track you too, Najee.
I know exactly where you are, what time you're going to be there.
Why is all that relevant to the point I was making in answer to your question?
Because what that really means is that we've got to reevaluate the societies what value is.
What that really means is real value is not the data and the money you can make out of that behavior.
No, that's actually monetizing where the real value is.
The real value is in the relationships I have because what that data really is, is a marker in a point of time of a transaction I've made with another person.
So actually the real value there is the transaction which involved contact with other human beings.
That's the value we're seeking to monetize.
That's what relationalism, it's an understanding that actually we are the value.
We human beings and how we interact with each other is what brings value to life.
So if you can recognize that actually there's a better way of doing things and that rather than monetizing and turning every one of those micro interactions on a relational level into looking at that through a lens of profit and turning it into a transactional thing, instead, if we recognize actually the real value there is in the relation itself, then the relational understanding of life fundamentally can be very different.
We can start realizing that we bring value in our human connections and in our relations with each other, which is why, for example, I make a point of leaving my mobile phone at home whenever I visit the mosque.
Because I think that rather than sit there and ask people for their phone number, I have a conversation with human beings in a place, in a sacred place, look at people in the eye and talk to them face to face.
I deliberately, through the entire Ramadan, left this thing at home because it's a gesture and it's a small gesture, which won't have much of an impact, but it's to make a point there that the value is in the relationship.
And I think an anti-establishment in a libertarian sense, in a good sense of that word, anti-establishment, an anti-establishment faith tradition recognizes actually it's the human relationships that are important.
And I think that's one of the most appealing things about it.
But I don't think people should be worried.
I think that, you know, we've got bigger problems afoot.
Let's take that demographic explosion that you're mentioning, for example.
I mean, you won't find much traction in that demographic that's growing among Muslims, which is going to become a very large demographic.
You won't find much traction for the idea that men with penises are women, for example.
So there's a lot to be hopeful about.
A lot of this woke crap.
Am I allowed to swear on this?
So the bullshit has no traction in Muslim communities.
Nor did the COVID mandates, by the way.
Some of the biggest opponents of this whole mandate era will be.
It doesn't in the Muslim community.
That's right.
Why not?
Again, back to this point.
When you're tuned out of the bullshit, which is the data tracking, the matrix illusion that we all live in, when you're just with people, none of this propaganda, you know, I just spent a whole month in a mosque every single night because of Ramadan praying not just the five daily prayers and not just the special Ramadan evening prayer, which is the Tarawiyah prayer, but also the Tahajid prayer, the night prayer.
Every night, just leaving my phone at home, speaking to people.
I can promise you out there in Muslim communities, the numbers you mentioned, whether it's in Pakistan, whether it's in Indonesia, because they are so tuned out of this propaganda, and that's the reason why, again, has years of history behind it, you know, not trusting Western propaganda and all that because of colonialism.
There's a long history there, but because they're so tuned out in the real world where people are talking and mixing with each other, define tuned out, not dependent for their perspective around life on the very narrow sources of information that we have ended up with in our discourse.
And COVID demonstrated that in the way in which our sources of information were so minutely controlled.
These are communities that have, because let's take Pakistan as an example with vaccinations, as Vox reports, you can pull it up if you want, but the CIA in its hunt for bin Laden engaged in a fake hepatitis B vaccine program against children, using the cover of vaccines to try and take people's DNA against their will by deception, looking for bin Laden.
That got revealed, which is I say it's on Vox VOX.
That got blown up.
The CIA had to apologize for it.
But when you've got a history of abuse like that, nobody trusts the messaging in the first place to say, take this shot or you're going to lose your job.
Everyone has their starting point is you're all a bunch of liars.
So when you're tuned out in that way, what you've got left, you've got no money.
It's a developing world.
You've got no power.
What you've got is relationships.
And your relationships are the only thing that matter.
As anyone with a Middle Eastern background will know the idea of, in Pakistan, it's called Sepharish, but the idea of it's who you know.
You have to know people, your family, your tribal members, even to get on in life, because the system doesn't work.
The system has never worked for a long time.
So it's the relationships that matter.
Now, in that context, you've got no time for the bullshit and the propaganda.
So there's no traction for this, these woke culture wars.
There's absolutely zero traction for vaccine mandates.
But it has to be because somebody at the top shuts it down.
Because if the person at the top doesn't shut it down, then there can be traction.
Okay.
You know, there's a part about, so if you want to pull up these stats, I just send it to you with the whole percentage of go a little lower, go a little lower, go a little lower, go keep going, keep going, keep going.
Let me see if this is the link.
Percentage of Muslims who support gay is this article that I found.
Yeah, I was just going to go.
If you can go to that one.
And it says by age.
I don't know if you see it.
Okay.
I didn't send you this link.
I sent you a different link.
I sent you the pure research link.
Maybe I sent you the wrong link.
Okay, let me send you this one.
If you can pull this up, it says percentage of Muslims who strongly favor gay marriage.
Okay.
18 to 29.
49%.
30 to 49.
38%.
Where's that?
In America?
This is pure research.
Yeah, but who's being, is it Muslims in America?
So this is Muslims who strongly favor or favor gay marriage.
Okay.
The percentage of Muslims who strongly favor or favor gay marriage who are ages.
This is a table to permits Arizona question.
It doesn't say if it's America.
Let's just assume it's America.
I imagine it would be.
50 to 60.
Those numbers don't.
50 to 64.
50 to 64 age, 11%.
65 plus is 2%.
How different is this in Muslim nations?
Very different.
Give us an idea.
It would be the opposite.
You'd be seeing the exact opposite.
Right there on the chart.
If you see it.
So just a survey, just survey which countries legally allow in Muslim majority countries where this is a legal, where the definition of marriage has changed from being between a man and a woman.
In Muslim majority countries, I don't think there's any really traction for this idea.
Which Muslim countries is gay marriage legal?
I can't think of one.
What do you think about that?
Look, for me, this is a human issue.
I don't think we should have to change the definition of what marriage is to have sympathy for people that have same-sex attraction.
I think that there's a lot of crossing of lanes here, which I think has been largely responsible for some of the mess we now find ourselves in where men are saying they're women.
I think tradition is important.
It needs to be respected and maintained.
There's a reason in tradition, marriages between a man and a woman.
Civil unions and civil partnerships are something else.
I'm not into in any way persecuting minority identities.
My interest is to make sure that tradition as well is preserved and not tinkered with.
Because what we've seen of late with the woke culture wars, and said we'd come to the trans thing, and maybe we can go into it here now, is the absurdity of this all becomes apparent.
Tradition is there for a reason, and the wisdom that underpins a lot of our traditional perspectives, in time you can begin seeing, especially as you become older and become a parent.
And if you start playing with that wisdom, as I say, the absurdity becomes apparent now.
There is no reason other than a respect for tradition and a recognition of reality, which is what tradition is, I believe, and the wisdom that is underpinning tradition is based on.
There is no reason other than that to object to a lot of this madness.
The reason I object to this man is I say that this, we as human beings have existed here on this planet for so many thousands of years.
And along you come and think that you can, that you've suddenly found an answer to these questions.
And the answer is that I can identify however I want.
Sorry, but I don't think that you have the accumulated wisdom of generations of human beings on this planet.
People that have had intersex identities, people that have had trans identities, people that have had same-sex attraction have always existed in these societies.
And if you go to Pakistan as an example here, if you go to Lahore and if you go to the Badshai Masjid, which is one of the big, most beautiful mosques in Lahore, around that Badshai Masjid was the traditional red light district of the Mughal emperors, because a lot of the concubines and others would live around the court.
And in Pakistan, there's a very old tradition of men that would come to weddings and dance, and they would be dressed up as women.
And the common parlance for this is Qusre.
And it's not, you know, the idea of the trans identity in a traditional Muslim society is not alien.
But what never happened was that you take that phenomenon, which was they weren't, you know, of course there are challenges with how they're treated and that needs to improve in every case.
But what never happened was you take that identity, which has existed there for a long time, and now you want to start tinkering with tradition by changing the norms and the customs and the legislation upon which those norms and customs lead to by saying that I'm going to now change the definition of marriage.
So they were there and they've always been there.
But there's a reason that tradition has led to this idea that marriage is between man and a woman.
And I think that's how it should stay.
It's also a slippery slope, right?
Because you said that's how I think it should stay is what you're saying.
Marriage.
Marriage, yeah.
Marriage between a man and a woman.
That's how it should stay.
Okay.
So today you'll hear guys coming out and we talked about this with Tate.
Andrew Tate says, look at Christians.
They're compromising their values and principles.
He says, you know why I'm a Muslim?
Because they don't compromise their values and principles.
And he's got a big audience.
And his audience is who?
16 to 35 years old.
Which is the audience that is typically afraid, angry, disappointed, heartbroken, moldable, shapeable, recruitable.
His audience is the audience that is a shapeable audience, right?
It's the audience the US government wants to have because the sooner you get to them through educational system, whatever, maybe you have them for the rest of their life, and you already know how they're going to be voting for you, you got them for the most part, right?
Okay.
What what why do you think uh the the Christian religion is caving in where they're sitting there and saying, well, you know what?
It's okay.
You know, let's just compliment.
It's okay.
And I know you don't have the answer to it.
It's not like it's like I'm looking for a definite, but I want an answer of your opinion.
I'll give you an answer.
And by the way, do you think it is a mistake clergy's mate?
Do you think it is a mistake the Christian church is making?
Yeah, yes.
So an answer is, and before I give the an answer that I'm saying, I just make it clear, I'm married to an American who was raised in Catholic school.
My mother-in-law is a practicing Catholic who visits church every Sunday and for all the occasions such as Christmas and what have you.
And so I am familiar in a family sense with Catholicism.
And my remarks are in no way meant in any way to disparage any faith tradition.
But an answer to your question, I believe, is back, it comes back to the nature of institutions, in this case, clergy.
When you have, as I say, every institution becomes corrupted and it drifts to more and more power, we saw that in the church.
So the paedophilia scandal isn't confined to Epstein.
It existed in the church as well.
Now, what was Epstein?
So Whitney Webb's written a book, One Nation Under Blackmails, a two-volume book worth having a look at.
I interviewed her for the Radical show, which basically we had a whole season and then it was on Odyssey.
And Odyssey's parent company was Library.
And the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission under Gary Gensler, enforced against Library while not enforcing against FTX.
And so Library had to shut down.
And so Odyssey, the platform still exists, but Radical, the show couldn't carry on.
But we had Whitney Webb on that show, and that's an example.
One Nation Under Blackmail is her book.
And it goes into how the entire Epstein operation was for the purposes of acquiring compromise on senior political leaders so that once you have that compromise or compromising material, you can have them do your bidding at risk of you exposing what you know about them if they don't.
So take what we know about Epstein and one of his former handlers, it's all there in the press.
In fact, in the British newspaper, The Sun, you've got an interview with one of them saying, I was Epstein's Mossad handler, and the reason we were doing this was to try and force politicians with the compromise we had to do our bidding.
But that's how political blackmail works.
So to your question, what happened in the church?
If you've got a whole bunch of shit on a whole bunch of priests doing a whole bunch of crap with kids, you can have them do your bidding.
And you can hijack the institution from within.
In the UK, with the Church of England, I think the man's Welby, the head of the Church of England in the UK, has recently come out and said the same thing.
He's like, yeah, it's fine.
This trans stuff, this gay stuff, it's all fine.
So the question becomes, if you can corrupt the institution from the top and the guidance itself is saying this is all fine, or in the case of the Catholic Church, you've got priests who are disabled from doing much against it because themselves are compromised, the institution itself becomes disabled.
It is unable to respond.
And again, the advantage of a more libertarian approach to a direct relationship with the source or Allah, again, we've defined what we mean by the word Allah.
This is not a Muslim-only thing.
If you have a direct relationship with Allah or the source, you can always outflank the attempt to hijack any given institution because your faith tradition doesn't rely on that institution for guidance in the first place.
So Majil, let me ask you a question.
So what I agree, the whole trans, it's getting crazy.
They're growing by the day.
To me, it's getting out of control.
Why do you think such a small minority group is getting protected and probably can't, like if anybody talks negative against them, you're canceled, you're done, you're fetched.
How are they getting this much power?
How is that?
Well, so this is deliberate.
These cultural wars are being stoked on purpose to avoid us having these conversations about One Nation on the blackmail, about globalism, about technocracy, about the attempts that are still undergoing right now to securitize the entire planet and put us under this dragnet, this technocratic dragnet where we are all digital slaves.
And that should be the most important topic right now.
The World Health Organization is currently, as we speak, passing amendments to the international health regulations, amendments.
Those amendments to the international health regulations stipulate that the head of the World Health Organization, Tudros, who I believe, by the way, there is also some questionable footage of in various private scenarios.
Now, Tudros, who's the head of the World Health Organization, through these amendments, which will pass without a vote because all of us, our countries, are signatories to the World Health Organization.
So the amendments to the international health regulations don't need a vote.
Once those amendments pass, the World Health Organization can declare a global health emergency and impose all of their measures from top, centrally.
And they won't need the government's cooperation to do so.
So we've got efforts afoot right now as we speak to securitize our health policy around the world and synchronize it all in one globalist technocratic tyranny.
And meanwhile, we are fighting over what a woman is.
And I think that that's being deliberately stoked so that we're looking over here and not looking up.
Like diversion tactic.
Look, left and right don't look up.
And obviously, you have to address it because somebody going into a female changing room or a prison, whereas a rapist suddenly identifies as a woman and gets put into a female wing, you have to address it because it's a clear and immediate problem.
But while you're addressing it, this is all going on up here.
So I often say to people, look up.
We have to look up and understand what's going on.
This is being deliberately funded back to the money point.
These cultural wars are being stoked and funded on purpose.
The rise of this bug right character notice happened after they met Biden.
Yep.
Right?
It's all planned.
Let me, Rob, can you pull up the Eric Swalwell moment on April 19th?
The tweet I sent you.
You should have it somewhere that was sent out.
It's on Twitter.
It's a clip.
It was sent to you earlier if you can find it.
If you just go to your text, you should find it faster than this.
Before you do that, before you do that, I'll go through what we just saw recently with the United Nations back, the decriminalization of sex with minors.
I don't know if you saw that or not.
I did.
I did.
And, you know, report titled The 8th March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law, Prescribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness, and Poverty, which goes on to talking about sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum wage of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law.
How in the hell does the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists who wrote this in March with an assist from UNA AIDS and the Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, how can this be common sense?
Yeah, well, it's not.
And they're normalizing it because most of the people who are in positions where they can bring this about are complicit.
And that's what Epstein revealed to us.
Guillé Maxwell is probably the only case he can think of of somebody being convicted for trafficking underage girls to nobody.
And that's what we're witnessing.
And these are people, all of them, and it goes to the very top.
In the UK, you can get this documentary on Netflix, which I don't believe an American audience can see.
And it's on the UK Epstein.
His name is Jimmy Saville.
And Jimmy Saville is dead now, but he worked for the BBC.
Was an incredibly iconic and influential cultural figure in the UK for all of us growing up.
He had more cultural impact than Epstein.
Epstein had never been heard of until the scandal.
But Jimmy Saville was like a household name and yet was a demonic paedophile who would go into the point, I say demonic on purpose.
Those hospitals you will all remember Diana, Princess Diana, the late great Princess Diana, used to visit.
The reason it's since been revealed that Diana used to visit those hospitals, those ones in particular, is because they were the ones Jimmy Saville at night would have unfettered access to to rape disabled children in their beds.
And Diana, in complete, Diana, in complete, you know, she was desperate to try and do something about this.
And eventually, obviously, the whole marriage fell apart.
But Jimmy Saville, why I mentioned Diana in this context, is that the UK Netflix documentary.
That's a character right here.
That's him.
He looks, look at the colours.
He looks right.
You know, it only got revealed after he was dead, after he died naturally of old age, because he was so powerful, he was untouchable.
And how powerful he was is what this Netflix documentary goes into.
And it's that he, there are letters from the current king, Charles, to him.
They were best mates.
And he had access to Buckingham Palace.
He had access to everything.
Are there pictures of them together?
There's more than pictures of them.
There are letters, you'll find letters of King because it's all been published by Netflix.
I don't know if in the US you can get this documentary, but in the UK you can.
Now, I'll give this as one example because everyone in a position of power to be able to do something about this pedophilia stuff is complicit.
That's what Epstein was about.
That's what Jimmy Saville was about.
We've got to have, first of all, a recognition of just how deep this rot is.
And then we've got to realize it's that deep that the solution can't just be hang people or execute people or throw them in jail for the rest of their lives.
Because actually, look at some of the porn online and look at some of the content that people that consume porn are watching and you realize this is a malady.
It's a disease in our hearts in society.
We've got to have a fundamental, we've got to really look at this thing anew.
I don't watch porn full stop.
I used to, I don't full stop.
I've given it up for a long time now because I believe that all of us morally are complicit when we engage in that behavior.
Obviously, we're not criminally responsible like these people, but this stuff poisons the heart.
Forget poisoning the mind.
It poisons the heart.
So that's why this stuff is happening because they're all complicit and they want to normalize it so that justice doesn't come.
But justice is going to come.
How?
The cat's out the bag.
Now, you look at Epstein, there's only so far, take the COVID narrative as an example, it's only so long you can suffocate the truth.
The cat's out the bag.
You can't put that genie back in the bottle.
And once it's out there, it becomes, it does, it's why sunlight is the best disinfectant because it does many things at once.
One of them is that you think it now, if you're a priest in the Catholic Church who was previously engaged in this kind of behavior, you're going to think twice.
Whether it's because you're worried about being exposed in a blackmail plot or me too'd the way in which the cultural debate has moved since just three years ago on all this stuff has meant that there has to be a show of attempting to stop some of this.
But that's why they're trying to normalize it because they fear that trials are coming.
They fear that people are, which they are, are so angry that they want justice, which is a natural demand.
And if we deny people justice, for example, where is the client list for Glene Maxwell?
Where is this client list?
And I know, you know, I think Trump and others have mentioned this, but the question that if you can end up in a situation where The entire system has been dependent on paedophilia to survive, which is what Whitney Webb's book, One Nation on the Blackmail, documents.
And everything good we know in society only exists because the people at the top that brought it to us were engaged in evil of the most severe sense you can think of.
There's only so long you can keep a lid on that.
Eventually, even if it's just to calm people down and appropriate the cause, eventually a show would need to be made that this has been addressed.
And right now, a show hasn't been made because he's got one person, a woman at that, none of the male clients.
Guillain Maxwell has been convicted.
Even Epstein wasn't convicted.
He was disappeared.
Whether he killed himself or was killed or who knows?
But the idea that there has been no justice.
The only person convicted for this great historical scandal has been one female who facilitated it as opposed to any of the men that engaged in it.
Yeah, even Prince Donald, the only not convicted, but Prince Andrew was just relieved of his royal duties, he paid some money, and that was it.
The only way that happens is if the people at the top are also involved to be like, hey, you better take care of me because I'm taking care of you.
That's my point.
That's the only way that can happen.
And by the way, this kind of leads me to this happened April 19th.
Can you play this clip real quick?
This kind of goes back to what you were talking about earlier.
Yeah.
That you were recruiting officers.
Watch this clip here.
This is Eric Swalwell, which has been in the news for messing around with dating a Chinese spy and all this stuff and all these other things that's going back and forth.
And then watch what happens here.
Our rhetoric and to denounce anti-Semitism and anti-police rhetoric in this country so that Jewish Americans and police officers can be safer.
Congressman, I do.
Thank you.
And I yield back.
Trash.
Watch this.
The gentleman yields.
And now I recognize the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. Green.
That was quite entertaining from someone that had a sexual relationship with a Chinese spy.
And everyone knows it.
I move to take our words down.
Watch this.
They work on taking it down after three and four minutes.
They didn't take it down.
They kept it.
This is very uncomfortable to watch for four minutes.
Oh, I love it.
But they kept it.
They kept trying to take it down.
They kept trying to take it down.
By the way, I'm not going to play it.
If you watch it, it's just goes on like this.
And then they finally said, what would you like to have removed?
And they said, everything she said says, we can't do that.
You got to be specific.
We'd like you to remove the part, comments about SPY says, nope, we're going to keep that in there.
It's stained.
It's a matter of record.
Yeah.
Exactly.
This happened yesterday, Pat.
This happened again yesterday.
Yesterday, they cursed.
Another Republican male, I forgot his name, said the same thing.
He's like, you had a relationship with Fang Fang.
He said her name.
And they go, nope, strike his words down again.
Yeah.
So I'm going to take a very weird turn here.
It may get a little bit weird here.
So talk across on what happened recently.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So talking to him, he said he feels weirdly great, by the way.
Yeah.
And by the way, it's very obvious that he feels weirdly great.
Yesterday he made a comment.
Pope put a video up.
If you can, I don't want to play the clip.
I just want to see how many views it got.
It was at 5 million last night in like a couple hours.
I saw that clip.
Where is it at, Rob?
If you can look up how many views that clip has, I just pulled it up.
15.6 million views in 14 hours.
Okay.
You think he's got a bit of a reach?
But here's the part.
Here's a part.
Rupert Murdoch, Fox, okay?
They're massive.
I don't know how many of the shows on TV are theirs.
90 out of 100 they have the top spots.
That's not even close.
It's just they have all the slots, right?
That they have the talent there.
Okay, is Fox bigger than Tucker?
Yeah, Fox is bigger than Tucker.
NBA is bigger than Michael.
MLB is bigger than Babe Ruth.
We can go on and on and on and talk about that.
But there's only one Michael.
There's only one Tucker.
There's only one.
This is not an easy person to find and replace, right?
Absolutely.
So how much of this, first of all, when you pay $7.87 and you go to CNN's YouTube channel, out of 12 videos uploaded, eight of them or so are about, you know, Fox had to pay $787, Fox had to pay $787, 600,000 views, 800,000 views, 400,000 views.
That's all they're celebrating.
And by the way, they should be celebrating.
Why, though?
Because, and what do they all say?
Record-breaking.
Never in the history of media has anybody paid $787 million and they call us fake news.
You are the real fake news and all this stuff, right?
Okay.
And they did Russia.
Nobody did anything about it.
You know, they did, you know, January 6th.
Nobody's fighting that.
They did all this.
There's nobody filing a lawsuit to get them over to court and all this other stuff.
They've not done that.
So guess what?
To the public who doesn't follow the news, what do they say?
Yeah, you're right.
They paid $800 million.
So how much of this is, you know, pure speculation?
No one's even, this is a conversation I had with another person yesterday.
How much of this could be that the blackmailing could be going on behind closed doors with Murdoch, whether he's trying to sell the company to somebody unless if you fired this guy or something from the past that came up was one of his sons.
How much of that you think could take a – because this was a shocker.
Tucker wasn't expecting this.
This isn't like his last shows are like, well, today's my last show.
I'm going to see you.
So I'm not saying I'll see you soon, right?
I'll see you next week.
Next week, yeah.
So, I mean, look, Hunter Biden's laptop is, to your point, is an example of where Biden, the president, would, one assumes, act conflicted to protect his son if black man was revealed about his son.
And there is incredibly compromising criminal behavior of Hunter Biden on that laptop.
It's documented.
And if somebody, an intelligence agency, had that information and said to Biden, hey, we will release this about your son unless you do X, Y, and Z. Of course, a father's going to go, oh, my, my son, I'm going to have to look after my son.
So to your point, of course, this is, we now know this is how the world has been run.
And it's just incredible that it's all come out at this moment.
I think there's a reason it's come out at this moment because we're in this period of transition.
We're in really, the word historic is overused, but genuinely in a historic period where perhaps even fiat money comes to an end and the world is going to be reorganized.
Murdoch won't live for long now just because of his age, a normal Soros.
I think all of these old dinosaurs will pass on.
And that's what the struggle is about.
We're in this kind of struggle right now.
But their kids will take over.
Well, that's the struggle.
How and who, you know, and with Murdoch again, likewise, you know, which son, who, how, all of this.
And do they do the same thing?
Do they do different things?
And we're seeing the instability we see now everywhere is this.
It's succession on crack because a generation is dying.
Biden's octogenarian wants to run again.
I don't know how long that guy's going to survive, but a generation, Madeline Albright, we've already mentioned has passed on.
A generation that destroyed the world the way they did.
And now we see that because the mirage has been lifted.
They're moving on.
And how those chips fall and how the world's going to be organized going forward is going to look very differently.
The best we can get out of this situation is decentralization.
So what I mean by that is if we recognize institutions become corrupted and over time seek to centralize more and more power, which becomes more and more corrupting, then the way forward should be, in my view, multilateralism, decentralization.
What Tucker's doing with his own, this thing, that studio, I think that's his main, in Maine.
I've been there with him in that studio.
And he's got his own outfit there.
He's got a very fully functional studio.
It's a converted bar and it's beautiful, by the way, if you see it.
Rogan, what he's doing, what you're doing, decentralized, what I'm trying to do, but I'm very, very heavily shadow banned online.
So my voice no longer has the reach it used to, but they consider me too dangerous, but that's fine.
But what we're all trying to do, which is decentralization of messaging so that the power isn't focused and concentrated at the top, I think that's a way forward.
So this is probably a blessing in disguise that he's gone this way because it means some people will watch him, some people will watch you, and you then have a genuine diversity of thought.
The last tweet I put up before I came on this show, just a half an hour before coming on this show, is what I said was that, you can pull it up if you want.
I said that the struggle for ethnic diversity has largely intellectually been won.
You'll see, there it is.
And it's an appropriated struggle.
So I inserted the word appropriated there.
But the appropriated struggle for ethnic...
You see, I've lost my blue check because I refuse to pay.
But the appropriated struggle for ethnic diversity has already been intellectually won.
The struggle for thought diversity and representation for critical thinkers is what it's really always been about and is nowhere near one.
These two will now be deliberately conflated by power with a capital P in order to deceive.
What I mean by that is that this whole BLM stuff is an example of it, right?
The movement was money laundering from the beginning.
And again, I called that out from day one.
For me, it was obvious what BLM was about.
And I've fought skinheads on the streets with machetes.
I have no sympathy for racism.
But BLM was a front.
It was a sham.
And the purpose is to weaponize and appropriate these struggles which were otherwise genuine.
Anti-racism, rights for women.
But you appropriate them.
Corporatism appropriates them as it's done with the trans agenda and the LGBT agenda.
As it's done with racism, as it, in the case of terrorism, as was done to Islam, when a machine appropriates these agendas to weaponize them, you end up in a scenario where what they're really trying to do is catch up with the debate that's already shifted.
So most people are anti-racist.
The real thing, what it's really always been about, is intellectual diversity.
I'm not really, I don't care if this conversation here had four Middle Eastern Muslim men who all thought the same.
That's not, for me, the checkbox exercise that if we were all sat here and all of us were Muslim, I mean, that's all, it's all tokenism.
What I'm really interested in is critical thinking and diversity of opinion.
And that's what the decentralized media space will finally be able to bring about.
Narratives that have been critical of the COVID mandates, for example, that were so suffocated.
If we decentralize, then we allow for the infrastructure to exist that can actually always protect the dissenting opinion because it might be right.
It's why Substack is so important.
It's why most of my work is on my Substack page.
So imagine, you said earlier about the reckoning, which I hope something like that would come about.
But what do you say to somebody that, for instance, I think that there's zero accountability when it comes to those people on the top from Bush with the illegal war through all the people that were killed, from the COVID, what we've seen with Fauci back forth, back forth, the government line, from the Epstein thing.
Do you genuinely think that we're going to come to a point that change will happen?
Because Tucker is one of these truth-talking accountability people.
Do you think it has to be like a spiritual shift?
Or like do people are going to actually have to come out and revolt and actually go on the streets?
Because I don't feel like it.
I feel like they have a grip, a death grip, and we can't do anything.
The truth is in your face, and you can't do anything.
So I believe there will be some relief for us all.
We've had a very difficult last three or four years.
I think it's about to get harder.
You think it's about to get harder?
Yeah, yeah.
The financial situation isn't very good.
And I think they want to bring in central bank digital currencies.
And I think they want to.
What's your concern with that?
Central bank digital currencies are essentially a tracking tool.
So when we were discussing earlier about the fact that my data is valuable and wherever I tap my contactless card leaves a mark that I bought the bottle of water at that time and you said tracking.
Of course.
So central bank digital currencies are tracking.
That's what they are.
So in a sense, you take paper money away.
because we ended up printing so much of it, quantitative easing, that it's become pretty much worthless.
The dollar standard globally is no longer being respected.
China and Russia are trading oil in rubles and no longer in dollars.
Again, it's unprecedented.
Saudi Arabia considering the same thing.
Just four years ago, this would be considered impossible to do.
So paper money, and the reason it's happening is because the Federal Reserve has made a mess of money and the money system.
So what they want to bring in instead is central bank digital currencies.
And what you can do is if all of our currency is digital and it's run by the central bank, you can program it.
And so you could say, right, Magid, you know, you've had a, this was a coffee.
I spilled it on the way in there.
And your pants.
Yeah, they're white as well.
But you could say, right, Magid, you've had, this is my second coffee today because I'm jet lagged from the travel.
You've had two coffees today.
And so next time you try and buy a coffee, that's your quota met.
And you won't physically be able to buy it.
Now, with coffee, that sounds petty.
But we know that's what they want to do with red meat.
We know that they've told us they want us to eat more bugs as opposed to red meat.
So if you've got a central bank digital currency that is programmable, which we also know, there's an article in the Telegraph, Rob, which you may want to bring up, but it might be behind a paywall, though.
But the Bank of England has told us that these central bank digital currencies will be programmable.
You might want to look up the word Bank of England, CBDC, or digital currencies programmable.
And the Telegraph article with the word Telegraph in there, and it should come up as one of the Bank of England.
There you go.
In that article there, programming, you see it?
Bank of England tells ministers to intervene on digital currency programming.
Digital cash could be programmed to ensure it is only spent on essentials or goods which an employer or government deems to be sensible.
This is from 21, 20, 22.
That they deem wrong.
So in answer to your question, I do think, so this is how it's going to get harder.
Tom Mutton, a director at the Bank of England, said during a conference on Monday that programming could become a key feature of any central bank digital currency in which the money would be programmed to be released only when something happens.
Yeah, strict.
So I had a steak for dinner last night, right?
You know, we, in the UK, I recommend South Asian food, but if you want a steak, you have to come to America.
Brick Lane.
Yeah, yeah, who's been?
You've been there?
I've been to Britain.
That's amazing.
I'd probably give you some recommendations that are off the beaten path a bit more for proper good Desi food, but that's a topic we could have.
Bangladeshi food I've had reclaimed.
But have you had too much steak this week there, Majid?
That's it.
You can't have enough.
So they can program it.
You've met your quota and this whole carbon bullshit, right?
That eating this piece of steak is bad for the environment.
So sorry, but you can literally can't purchase that anymore because the CBDC is programmed.
It recognized that yesterday Magid had one.
So tonight, maybe I want another steak.
Can't buy one, you know?
So that's how I think it's going to get worse.
But in answer to your question, back to the, I do think there's hope.
And whether that's spiritual, you mentioned spiritual.
Look, you know, Breitbart said that politics is downstream from culture, right?
I agree with that statement.
Politics is downstream from culture, but I add another statement.
I amend it.
And I say, yes, politics is downstream from culture, but culture is downstream from spirituality.
Our culture is determined by our spiritual, I don't want to say perspective, presence, our spiritual tranquility determines the kind of culture we bring about.
These woke wars and on the Trans stuff, and that is a direct manifestation of everything being commodified and us viewing the world through this transactional lens that we spoke about earlier instead of through the relational lens.
The trees underground coordinate with each other through this beautiful mycelial network of fungi and they, they talk to each other.
You know that they've discovered that trees even recognize their children through this underground fungi network and send nutrients to their offspring underground, like a mother would uh, you know, provide food for the child before themselves, like a parent would.
Right, trees do all of that and they communicate uh, underground.
We are all part of that huge organism.
Yeah, in a sense we're all connected like that.
Uh, just because we don't see it, that doesn't mean it's not there.
It's evidently clearly there, uh.
But when you divorce the human from that, and instead I view all of you as potential commodities to be exploited, the end result is some of these woke culture wars we see where everything, including children, have become commodified for profit, and porn is an example of an industry that does that too.
So I think that spiritually because you mentioned spirituality when I say politics is downstream culture and culture is downstream from spirituality we need a fundamental spiritual reform of ourselves and how we view life and our, our tranquility, that we uh, that we are missing.
I believe spiritually, and I don't prescribe religion.
I'm not into saying Islam is the only truth i'm I i'm of the view that actually um, if we truly understood allah, the source, then you stop trying to convince people you're right.
Instead, you try and heal from within and you realize that everything there's a word in Arabic called fitra um, which means your natural disposition, and it comes without effort.
You start seeing, of course, I don't want to exploit that child, because that child is me, it's my child, and it just becomes a given.
It's not even something you have to think about.
But that comes only with this sakina, or spiritual tranquility.
Uh within, once you have that and, of course, without that, because if you're, if we are viewing all of life through this kind of transactional lens where everything is to be exploited um, in the end, even our own bodies become exploited for profit, and that's what transhumanism is about.
And the whole idea of digitally modifying uh, the human body and uh, and Elon Musk's brain implant uh, what's, it called?
Neuralink, Neuralink, so so the sacred, this sense of?
I was speaking to Jordan Peterson about this on his show that the sense of, of everything that has been sacred is being destroyed and commodified, and it's what I meant by we have to respect tradition.
There are certain things are sacred for a reason.
Childhood is sacred for a reason, and it shouldn't even have to be argued.
It's it's, it's self-evident, but of course, these days we have to explain why.
But these uh sacred things to do with life, I think that uh, we have to have a spiritual revival of, of understanding why being, why the sacred is so important.
Uh, and then uh, through this period of hardship I think we're coming towards, there will be, I believe in the end there will be some release.
Um because again, they have to.
They can't keep continuing that there is no justice in In our democracies anymore.
But right now, I bet all of us on this table, if we were asked, very few of us believe justice has been served, whether against Fauci, whether against any of Epstein's clients.
None of what we've lived through and all of us have suffered and the economy and the state it is.
And all of us, whether it's the invasions of these foreign countries and these neocon cabal that keep funding war, they are acting with impunity.
We have not seen justice.
What does that do to the buy-in to the system?
And what does it do to people's lack of trust in authority figures?
It's corrosive.
Eventually, something will have to give.
And I do think in the long run we will see something give.
I hope so.
Well, you know, I'm from your, inshallah, I'm from your camp that I believe eventually something's going to happen.
By the way, I want to hit up this Tucker Carlson three stories before we wrap up.
But breaking news, Jerry Springer just passed away.
And, you know, Jerry and I did a sit-down together six years ago, five years ago, seven years ago.
We had a great conversation together, but he literally just passed away moments ago.
I was just about to tell you that.
Yeah, so that's absolutely.
God, may he rest in peace.
What's your biggest memory of your sit-down with Jerry Springer?
Jerry, Jerry.
The entire time was a fight from the second we sat down.
We're going back and forth, It was constant.
What was this versus?
What was the debate?
What were you doing?
The debate was over, you know, Trump, because I want to say the year it was.
And obviously, he's not a Trump supporter.
And I said, how much taxes are you willing to pay?
He says, yeah, I don't care about taxes.
I said, Jerry, are you talking as the Jerry today that's the multi-millionaire or the Jerry that was 25 years old coming up that he is trying to make his millions?
And he says, no, I would pay 90% taxes.
If that's the case, why did you move your show away from New York to Connecticut to get tax incentives in the city that you did?
So, anyways, by the way, it's a very fun debate back and forth.
I feel like we were planning on doing a second one, obviously.
By the way, he was a former mayor, I believe, of Cincinnati.
How you've had sympathy for a dead person while disagreeing.
That's how I think we should have conversations.
We left laughing and just great conversation.
And it's like, hey, let's do another one.
But it was a great conversation we had together.
I want to wrap up this thing with Tucker Carlson because some new story came out.
First of all, OAN, rumor has it, and it's been revealed that he's been offered $25 million for a new job by OAN.
Russian network, I think.
RT.
No, RT.
Are you serious?
No, no, literally.
Tucker Carlson receives a job offer from Russia State TV after Fox firing.
That's an independent news.
And then the other two, which are the interesting ones, Tucker Carlson, where in one of the texts about Dominion, when it was settled, it was revealed the embarrassing internal memos, including a text where Tucker Carlson said Sidney Powell is lying.
So Sidney wasn't for the Dominion thing.
And that text has been revealed, which is not a good look for Fox.
It is a good look for Tucker for what position he took at that time.
But a couple of different things here.
Tucker privately called a senior Fox News exec, the C-Word, and wanted the world to know about it as well.
This is a Wall Street Journal story.
He was unhappy that his use of C-Word against the senior executive was redacted from court fighting.
Oh, wow.
He's like, put it in.
Even though he had told Dominion lawyers he was deeply embarrassed, those words had come to light.
Carlson's popularity at the network had won significantly.
And anyway, so that's that part.
And then the next story is about how Rupert Murdoch freaked out.
This is Huff Poe, said Rupert, reports suggest that Tucker Carlson was fired over prayer talk, freaked out Rupert Murdoch.
Tucker Carlson was allegedly fired from Fox over remarks he made during a speech Friday night at the Heritage Foundation's 50th anniversary gala in Maryland that were too extreme.
Even for Murdoch, according to Vanity Affairs, Gabriel Sherman, who cited a source, briefed on the decision-making process.
Look what he said, Pat.
Because think about it.
We're talking about spirituality and God and Allah.
Tucker called abortion child sacrifice.
He said it's a war between good and evil.
And he goes, People should take 10 minutes a day to talk about power.
I saw that clip.
The child sacrifice thing.
I want to give context to what he said there because he was very clear.
To be fair to Tucker, he said, I understand if a woman's raped.
I understand if a woman's health is at risk.
I understand abortion in individual cases.
He goes, That's different to saying abortion is a good thing to do.
Full stop blanket.
And he said, I've got every sympathy for these individual cases.
I'm not arguing against those.
So to be clear, this word child sacrifice, he said, if you've got a policy that says it's a good in society, that's what he said is a policy of child sacrifice.
Of course.
Now, how that frustrates Rupert Murdoch to want to turn on that and say that's the reason.
That's a little bit.
So then that to me says more about the direction they want to take Spox.
100%.
And by the way, here's the crazy part.
The moment a Chinese company owned Forbes, 95% of Forbes was owned by a Chinese-owned company.
Everything about the brand Forbes had to build out decades on top of decades on top of decades disappeared like this.
It almost fought overnight, but it took a couple months.
Today, when you look at Forbes, it's not my opinion.
It's not the Forbes of what it was five years ago, ever since that transaction took place.
A company like this, like look at what happened to Twitter the moment Elon Musk bought it.
Twitter was playing a very important role for silencing a lot of people.
The moment Musk bought it, now there's a little bit more freedom.
The moment Spotify kept Rogan, that was a little bit more freedom.
The momentum Rumble is creating, that's a little bit more freedom.
This hurts conservatives with Rupert Murdoch doing what he just did to Tucker.
But going back to what he's saying, the decentralized voices and the podcasts and shows will eventually prevail.
But this is not a battle.
This is going to be a real war, real, real war going on for a few more years.
I don't think it's going to slow down anymore.
Absolutely, Patrick.
And just to, if I may, provide some scriptural backup for what you just said.
This passage in the Quran is actually revealed in the context of Jesus, Isa, who's a very well-recognized, beloved prophet for Muslims as well.
And the spirit of God, the word of God, all of these are used to describe Jesus in the Quran.
But this passage, they scheme in the context against Jesus.
They scheme and Allah schemes, and Allah is the best of schemers.
Wow.
And so you see all of these schemes, but ultimately, I think that they will lose.
I agree with you.
I think decentralization will win out in the end.
It's inevitable, but it comes after hardship.
In the ma'lusri Yusra, with the hardship comes the ease, but the hardship will come first.
The fact that they lost this guy.
There's a difference when you lose somebody age-wise.
Say you're 68 years old and you have a show.
Okay, you sign up for 10 years.
It's what?
78.
Tucker's 54.
He can go for 15 more years if he wanted to.
He can go for 10 more years solid if he wanted to.
Easy.
And he is at the peak of his career right now.
What he chooses to do next is going to be obviously on him.
But by the way, the lady they talked about that he gave the C word, she was on Mediaite's website as the number one power player in media.
Suzanne Scott.
Suzanne Scott, which I don't think he's alone there.
A lot of other people have felt that way as well, allegedly, based on the off-pack, but you guys feel the it's all the people that are speaking truth and wanting to hold people accountable that are all getting fired or they're taken down.
And it's like that, that's the fate that I'm having.
So this is coordinated in the UK when Tucker, this happened to Tucker.
In the UK, we've got one member of parliament called Andrew Bridgeen.
How long do I have?
Are we out of time or can I go?
You can go two minutes.
Okay, so there's Andrew Bridgen in the UK.
He's a member of parliament.
He's just been kicked out of the Conservative Party, the ruling governing party in the UK, because he's been the only champion of vaccine injured in parliament.
The day after this happened to Tucker, they kicked him out of the Conservative Party.
Telegram just got banned in Brazil by Lula.
So you're seeing that this is the clampdown, the clampdown on these decentralized voices is on.
They're attempting to shut us all down.
I mean, it happened to me during the COVID period.
And again, I had offers from other stations, but I knew that what I say, it can't really be on these platforms.
Are you still with Getter or no?
No, so my radical media is on Substack, rajanoas.substack.com.
And I do a Rumble show every Tuesday with my brother Osman Raja.
He's my co-host.
We have a show called Warrior Creed or Rumble every Tuesday.
Very cool.
And Rob, if we can put the links to the Rumble show at the bottom so that can be found as well, as well as his books.
Link to both of them.
And the Substack, if you can.
That'd be great.
And the Substack.
Brother, this has been amazing talking to you.
Thank you.
I wish, literally, I wish we had two more hours.
I can talk to you for four or five hours.
Oh, I love it.
I love it.
To see what direction, learning, all this stuff, you know, different angles.
But I hope the audience enjoyed this podcast as much as I did.
