Social Media Censorship: The UK's Dark Secret | Sulaiman Ahmed DSH #826

Journalist called Richard Medhurst.

He arrived on a plane and arrested him on the Terrorism Act.

Again,

yeah, exactly.

And then today,

another journalist, someone who with a pro-Palestinian voice, Sarah Wilkinson, was arrested for her post on social media under the Terrorism Act.

What?

So now just post and get arrested.

Exactly.

That's crazy.

For just being for Palestine.

All right, guys.

We got Suleiman Ahmed here today.

Thanks for coming on, man.

Thanks for having me.

Absolutely.

Crazy times we're in right now, and your Twitter's blowing up.

Yeah, yeah, it is.

Crazy times.

Yeah, my Twitter's doing really well.

Yeah, it's quite good.

Have you always had a big following there?

Was it recently?

No, it's recent.

So I had a Twitter account, but I never used it.

And then about a year and a half ago, I started posting.

So my entire Twitter blow up has been a year and a half.

So the first nine months of it was basically I investigated the Andrew Tate case.

And I was one of the few people that was debunking a lot of the propaganda against him very early on.

That blew me up.

And then I was talking about like, you know, conservative ideas and so on and so forth.

Then was part of the ban the ADL movement in August.

You know, which movement?

Ban the ADL.

Ban the ADL.

Yeah.

And

then what happened was in so that then I did a thread on like Russell Brand and his situation.

And then in October, then October 7th happened, then I blew up on geopolitics.

Wow.

Yeah.

Tate just got indicted again, right?

Like a week ago?

He got charged again, yeah.

He got charged again.

Yeah, yeah.

So is it the same charge or is it different?

No, it's different charges this time.

So the first time it was like a certain level of charges, which a lot of them I debunked and, you know, found that they weren't very strong.

These are like new charges.

So we'll have to see what the claims and the veracity of them are.

So you're going to have to debunk these too, then.

Yeah, yeah, possibly if I get time.

Did he ever reach out to you when you were debunking them?

No, because he was in prison.

Oh, shit.

So he was in prison when I was debunking him.

So now he didn't reach out.

Damn.

Yeah.

So is your stance just to debunk as much misinformation as possible?

Yeah, that's basically what I did on Twitter for a very long time.

Because generally speaking, what you find is whatever everybody's saying, generally they're on the wrong side.

So really?

Yeah.

On Twitter or just in general?

General, but also Twitter.

Twitter's not

isn't secluded from that.

So if you look at any of the major events that happened in the past,

obviously I'm not sure what we're about to speak about on YouTube.

But basically, like if you look at like Russia, Ukraine, COVID, you look at

then now Israel, Palestine, like many of those things, whatever it may be, generally speaking, my rule is this, because I'm quite like

analytical, but also like quite pessimistic now.

In the sense of if everybody's saying one thing, like you need to look into it, because generally speaking, the truth's going to be on the other side.

Wow.

What a rule of thumb to have because most people see everyone saying the thing and just agree with it.

Yeah, exactly.

But you're the opposite.

Yeah, yeah, 100%.

I think that's what you should be, like, critical thing.

And now, maybe you look into it and the truth is with the majority.

That's fine.

But I think it's always worth looking into.

Everybody's propagating one thing.

That's literally what happened in the tape thing.

So I was like, wait a sec, everybody's propagating this specific point that this guy's a guilty, so on and so forth.

So I started like, okay, now I'm doubting it.

Let's look into it.

Yeah.

So what do you think causes so many people to go to one side?

Well, it's a number of things.

First of all, it's generally speaking, the mainstream media or those who control it, or what happens is larger accounts or larger profiles essentially are not autonomous.

So they'll propagate, perpetuate a specific ideology intentionally.

And then, what happens is the masses they just follow it.

And so, the masses are like, oh, we haven't got time to research this information.

And so, they'll just automatically just believe it.

So, a prime example is

just very recently, if I was to ask an American what do they think happened in the UK protest, they'll say, Oh my god, it's like civil war, and there's a lack of assimilation.

The UK, there's a huge amount of like dissension, there's no peace in the UK,

but and

the minorities are coming out attacking, or Muslims are coming out and attacking.

And then this, then who is this information disseminated by?

It's by specific accounts who want to perpetuate this ideology.

And so then if I talk to a general person, they'll be like, oh, I thought this happened.

And you're like, no, this is not what happened.

This is, in reality, this is what happened.

So that's how it happens.

It's people, those who have control of the information disseminate in the manner they want.

And then the rest of the people just follow that.

Right.

And do you think that's a UK and US thing, or do you think that's everywhere?

Oh, that's a worldwide thing.

That's how it works everywhere.

Wow.

And everything.

So those who want to perpetuate a specific ideology will do so.

And everybody follows.

Most people just follow.

They don't have the analytical skills.

The NPCs.

That's so interesting because in the US, we're taught that North Korea does that, but we do it too.

Oh,

yeah, yeah, we do it significantly.

So in the U.

The only difference between like North Korea or as they say China or maybe to a lesser extent, they say Russia is there is censorship in these countries in the UK more so, and slightly less so in the US, but still, there's this kind of facade of free speech, but in reality, we don't have it.

Right.

So, no free speech in the UK?

Well, okay, so let's talk about the UK, right?

So what happened in the UK recently was there was riots.

Now, what happened was

there was a stabbing that occurred in Southport.

in the north of UK.

Now, the stabbing, unfortunately, he also stabbed three young young girls.

Wow.

What a horrific, it's a horrific and a horrendous situation.

But what happened was, many of these large accounts on social media perpetuated the lie that this person who did the stabbing was an illegal immigrant who'd just come to the UK a year earlier.

He was a Muslim and he was a Palestinian, Jordanian origin.

So they disseminated this information and everyone believed it.

So everyone became angry, everyone became volatile because they were like, why is this illegal immigrant coming to the UK, Muslim guy, and stabbing innocent girls?

So what they did was they riled up the public through social media.

And so what happened was there's a lot of people, far-right Islamophobes, I call them, because I think you need to make a distinction.

There's some people who are in the far right whose only issue is immigration, or there's some people in the far right who have different views.

But this specifically is people who actually have hatred for Islam.

They're not really bothered about immigration.

Now, what they did was they perpetuated, so what they did was they got people on the streets rioting.

And so, what happened was the people came, they started attacking mosques and certain holy places.

And then, then, that the day when they started writing, because it was the next day, another guy came with a knife and a masha'i.

And again, they said, oh, that guy's a Muslim guy.

And then later we find out he's not.

His name is Jordan Davis.

He's not a Muslim guy.

And then we find out the first guy isn't a Muslim guy either.

Wow.

And nor is he an illegal immigrant.

What?

Yeah, so he's basically his parents are from Rwanda, but he's born in the UK and he's brought up in the UK.

He's not an illegal immigrant.

Holy crap.

And he's a Christian.

That's crazy.

So, but then they've created all this dissension, all of this hatred.

So then the riots continue.

And in the weekend, what happens is the riots happen throughout the north of the UK where they attack women,

they attacked people, attacked premises, they burnt police stations, they burnt local businesses, they destroyed property.

Basically, what happened here, you know, with BLM, basically, that's what happened there.

And so

they basically perpetuate this.

Now, what they did was also, they only went to areas where there was an extreme minority of minorities

to basically get them and hit them.

So, for example, when there's a larger minority proportion, for example, in London, in Birmingham, in Manchester, they didn't go there, right?

So, they went to like areas where there was

a lot less minorities and then targeted and attacked them.

So, what happened was like then, in certain areas, a couple of areas, or maybe a few areas, there was Muslims who turned out and they acted in the exact same manner.

So they brought, you know, bats, baseball bats and weapons and so on and so forth.

And so they acted in the same manner.

And my argument actually is that when they've acted in the same manner, it's only because of assimilation.

Because for example, you know, when our parents came to the country, grandparents came to this country, if anything, they did the opposite.

Whenever someone would be reassisting and calling Paki or whatever it may be, they'd just like put their head down and walk away.

Or if someone tried to break up their windows, they just allow it, right?

I'll just fix up their windows but what's happened is these people have actually assimilated and so they're acting exactly how a northerner acts so just how you saw the northern uh far-right islamophobes act these acted in the exact same manner so it's actually a product of real assimilation that they're all acting in the same manner so what happened was then they but then what happened in the uk was then a lot of these areas like for example london and various areas Because the people in the UK are actually against this ideology.

The vast majority of the UK is peaceful.

And so they came out in their numbers.

And I mean, mainly white people came out in the numbers to say, look, we don't stand with you guys.

We stand with peace and integrity.

And then everything ended.

And this was perpetuated by a guy called Tommy Robinson, because Tommy Robinson is a guy who's in like an extreme Islamophobe.

He's been, again, promoted on social media.

He hasn't got an issue with immigration.

He's only got an issue with Muslims.

Now, why I'm talking about all of this is what happened from there was

There's riots occurring.

So 10 years ago when we had riots

in Bradford, right?

right so again it's the north of england what happened was tommy robertson's crew pretended that they're going to go to bradford then a lot of muslims went to bradford to basically confront them tommy robertson's crew didn't go there but then these guys had this like you know pent-up aggression unfortunately completely disagree with it but i'm telling you what happened and then they became violent and they start burning police stations burning businesses and so on and so forth they got extremely harsh sentences like even for stealing like a small thing like a bottle of water you got like a four five year sentence yeah right it was crazy so this time they've done the exact same thing they've They've done it to the people from the far right and the Muslims where they've given them extremely long sentences.

They've given them two, three, four year sentences.

Now when this was happening, I said at the beginning, I said this is happening intentionally because K-Starmer is controlled by

Zionists and he's intentionally putting

these things in place and allowing, for example, he didn't put the police to stop it immediately.

Because what happened in the UK is we had a huge amount of protests in the UK, pro-Palestine protests.

In the UK, the population is about 65 million, but adult population is about 30-40 million who can actually protest.

We, in one weekend, had 1.3 million people turn up for a protest.

Yeah, and then

pro-Palestine.

Pro-Palestine, yeah.

And every single weekend, there's been hundreds of thousands, millions, and millions and millions of people going to these protests because it was happening every Saturday.

And so, what they want to do is they wanted to ban these protests and stop anti-Zionist speech, but they couldn't do it because the UK is a fought for Palestine, right?

right so you can't put them ideas in so people like swella braverman and many others wanted to put these put these like extreme draconian police state policies in place but they weren't able to do it because the public are like nah we ain't gonna allow it we support this right it wouldn't have worked because the the public would have revolted but then you say look

the these pro these riots happen because of what's happened on social media It's for your safety, as they'll say to the minorities and people from the left and people who support them.

The vast majority of the UK, look at that.

Like these guys destroyed local businesses of poor working class people.

They attacked minorities.

This happened because of speech on social media, because of speech on X.

We need to censor that speech for your benefit.

And they get the people to agree to it.

So

what's now happened is there's been an extreme amount of censorship going on.

People are getting arrested

for their tweets.

But then what's happened is they've done the exact same thing I said right at the beginning that the real aim was to stop and silence pro-Palestinian voices.

And so, for example, over the last few weeks, they arrested a credible, respectable journalist called Richard Medhurst.

He arrived on a plane and arrested him on the Terrorism Act against,

yeah, exactly.

And then today,

another journalist, someone who with a pro-Palestinian voice, Sarah Wilkinson, was arrested for her post on social media under the Terrorism Act.

What?

So now just post and get arrested exactly for that's crazy for just being for palestine so for example now there's a hashtag going free sarah wilkinson now so i do uh implore everybody to use that hashtag but that's an example so now they're going to be coming after everyone to the extent where i have huge concerns that when i go back to the uk they're going to arrest me as well so you might have to stay Well, I'm not going to stay because I've got family, I've got kids, right?

So the issue is this, like, this is the level of censorship that's occurring.

And what I said at the beginning, because those people who were even supporting the riots,

some some of them, they're from the far right, but they were actually for Palestine.

You've supported the censorship of

in the UK and you've supported the UK becoming a police state.

And this is an example of it.

So now many of us are concerned about what's going to happen because we've not done anything wrong.

All we've been posting is the news, reporting the news, reporting information, explaining what's happening

geopolitically abroad, what is the Zionist state of doing.

And yet...

Now people have been arrested.

If you look at Sarah Wilkinson's page, you won't find anything that is like...

Or is she cleared at all?

No, no, it's there no i mean you won't find anything that you'd say look that sounds problematic maybe she should be arrested or she's starting hatred or she's starting violence so the fact that this is happening and this has happened today shows uk has become an extreme police state that's true and is massively anti uh a censorship process people are getting arrested for having an opinion on x and it's starting in in the uk but that could spread Yeah, definitely.

I mean, it is spreading, isn't it?

Because Europe's always had censorship, right?

Germany's always had censorship.

For example, denial of the Holocaust, you get arrested, right?

So I believe the Holocaust happened.

But I believe that in total free speech as well.

Like, I believe you can talk about and discuss anything.

People talk about Islam all the time.

I'm like, look, let's have a discussion.

What are your concerns about Islam?

What are your question marks?

Let's have a question about it.

Let's have a discussion about it because I feel like my belief system is so extremely strong in all, not just religion, in all ideologies, all politics, wherever it may be.

I believe I can defend it quite strongly and vigorously.

So, I'm for open free speech.

As soon as you censor, you're going down a road of basically controlling the public and controlling the masses.

And then you have basically authoritarian, totalitarian um societies 100 you could see it starting here too because if you say certain tweets you'll start getting monitored by governmental agencies oh 100 just happened to tulsi gobbard so it's it's definitely happening everywhere oh 100 in the i mean us you saw that you saw what happened in the college protests where they were basically physically assaulted you saw that for example when students from i believe harvard university wrote a letter saying that they support resistance or support palestine i think that's all they said palestine yeah all of them many of them got doxxed many of them lost their their their positions in the university some of them had uh

got places in prestigious law firms and those were removed from them so definitely the us is going towards a police state they were trying to put policies in place to censor free speech now so yeah there's a huge attack on free speech in the us as well that shows how powerful palestine's enemies are then It does show how powerful they are.

It shows how powerful they are, how much level of power they have in the West, and how they were willing to go against the thing that made the West unique.

What made America and UK great was the fact, for example, America, you got the First Amendment.

It's like literally the thing that makes you guys great, right?

Is the fact that you believe in free speech, you believe in the right of expression, you don't believe in like extreme censorship, and yet all of that's been thrown in the bin.

Also, for example, the US and the UK were kind of like the morality police of the world.

They've thrown that in the bin as well.

So they're losing significantly.

Yeah, you just saw Mark Zuckerberg admitting to censoring information during the pandemic.

Exactly.

And so the fact that someone like Zuckerberg can admit that they did do extreme censorship and they didn't allow a platform where everyone can be a free market of ideas demonstrates it.

It also shows the level of control that the three letter agencies had over that social media app and other foreign intelligence agencies had over that social media app.

And it also shows the power power of social media.

This is should be an actual real discussion, but people are not willing to have it.

That

why is it that social media has even more power than governments and there's no controls in place?

Now, I'm not saying that there should be, like, for example,

censorship.

I'm opposite of that.

I don't believe there should be any censorship.

But for example, if social media is under the control of someone who's going to harm society, look at the level of impact you can have.

So the fact that the sitting president of the United States of America, who is meant to be the most powerful man in the world, who holds the most important position in the world, was banned by basically a Twitter

safety and security expert, right?

A person.

That shows the level of power that social media have.

And I do have huge concerns.

But for example,

first of all,

I really like the fact that Elon Musk has given me free speech.

I would say that Twitter is probably one of the few platforms that I would have had the ability to blow upon.

And I have.

So I appreciate that.

I appreciate appreciate the fact that i've not been banned so look i give credit where credit's due on the other hand like elon musk does but then he'll say he's just an individual user but he does perpetuate some propaganda based on what will benefit right and then the question becomes that when elon musk does it is it a natural algorithm that causes his position to be perpetuated more than anything else or is it that people are just normies or like you know sucking up to him and they'll just copy him and follow what he's saying

because in like for example any of the positions that elon musk has those are the positions on Twitter that are perpetuated more than anything.

That's true.

So, for example, he's extremely anti-immigration, those get perpetuated.

He's anti-Islam, those get perpetuated.

He's

anti-the left now, those get perpetuated.

He's pro-Trump, that gets perpetuated, although Twitter was kind of like more pro-Trump anyway before.

So any of his positions, whatever they are, they get perpetuated.

Now, the question becomes, are they perpetuated naturally?

Because people see, oh, Elon Musk is saying it,

200 million people over 200 million people are following, therefore we're going to say the same thing?

Or is it that when Elon Musk says something, the algorithm boosts that position?

So this is like some.

I would say both, right?

Yeah.

Because he does have a huge following.

Like each tweet gets, what, 10 million views at least?

Yeah, it gets huge.

Some even get 30, 40 million.

Yeah, that's crazy.

Yeah.

Yeah.

The engagement on Twitter is nuts.

Yeah.

So it could be, yeah, I agree with you.

I think

if you had to ask me what I think, I think it's probably a bit of both.

Yeah.

But if it's the algorithm, if it's, if it's his following, then that's not a problem because his argument would be: I'm an individual user, just like you're an individual user, and therefore I should not have to censor myself, which is probably which I know is the argument he's made.

Yeah.

But if it's the algorithm doing it because it's his position, then I think that's probably a problem, I think.

100%.

Why do you think Mark Zuckerberg waited so long to release this information?

Because he's a smart person, so I feel like it was a strategic move.

Oh, I definitely believe it was a strategic move.

So, what happened was

the deep state,

or I call the Zionists, or people call it the Matrix, or whatever it may be.

What happened was they were basically on the side of the left or the Democrats.

And then what happened was October the 7th happened.

And what happened was a lot of that, then people thought that, look, we're not getting the protections that we're getting.

And so you saw basically people in Silicon Valley, such as Bill Ackman, such as

various others who were part of the Silicon Valley crew, or basically

Zionists and various other people who basically, or part of big tech, who basically thought, wait a sec, like,

what's happening in the university protest?

Like, we're not being stopped, we're not being supported.

And then what they did is they moved away from the Democrat Party and they didn't set their stall out on who they were going to go for.

And then Donald Trump was on the other side.

And so, I mean, I know this is going to sound like a bit of a conspiracy theory, right?

But

in my view, they didn't want, they have concerns about Donald Trump as well.

Because Donald Trump, although he is obviously, I believe he's in bed with them now because he's got what, 100 million from Miriam Edelson.

He got JD Vance as the vice president.

He's basically a Petty Thiel guy.

Petty Thiel basically won him the Senate seat, what, was it 18 months ago?

So, and again, Trump's in bed with the deep state, you're saying?

Oh, yeah, I do agree.

So, yeah.

But I'll explain to you the issue is.

So, then the question becomes:

why is it that there was the assassination attempt?

Right.

Because the problem with Trump is he's a wild card.

So, you never know what he's going to do, right?

So, if they'd assassinated Trump, who would have been the next person in line for the Republicans, yeah, uh,

it'd be his VP, right?

Well, he didn't have the VP.

Oh, he didn't have enough time, uh,

who would it be then?

So, it was Nikki Haley who had the second most delegates, or if they went for somebody who maybe the party would go, you know, align with, would be like Ron DeSantis.

Okay, these people are extremely deep, pro-deep state, pro-military industrial complex, pro-war, pro-the expansion of the war in the Middle East.

Right, They're like literally saying to like countries like Israel, like, tell us how much you want, when you want it, how you want it.

Therefore, basically, continue to support the Ukrainian and Russian conflict in terms of the proxy of what's happening against Russia.

So, you're basically, you take Trump out, you ensure that all of these things continue.

Whereas with Trump, although he's like going to appease them, like he has by appointing JD Vance, he's still a wild card.

He could be in office.

And for example, when he was in office previously, they were pressuring him to go into war with Iran, and he refused to do so.

Right, he's anti-war.

Yeah, he was anti-war, definitely the first time, right?

And so, but then he's still a wild card because, like, for example, he's made statements now saying that he's gonna

help allow Israel to continue, you know, basically finish the job, which means what, finish the genocide.

He's pro-Israel, right?

Yeah, exactly.

So, when you look at all of this, what's happened is as soon as the assassination attempt failed, Elon Musk, Bill Ackman, all of the Silicon Valley guys all came out in unison and literally said, we spot Trump.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Because now he is their guy.

and so that's what's happened there.

There's been a huge shift onto that side.

So when it becomes Silicon Valley, big tech, social media, all of them have aligned under Trump.

And so Zuckerberg is another guy who's

so you think even Elon Musk's been influenced?

Elon Musk literally was

literally was one of the people in unison that soon as the assassination attempt happened.

Yeah, he was like the first one.

He was the first one.

But I always saw him as like an individual person.

I never knew he was compromised like that.

So Elon Musk did an interview with donald trump and in the interview on x which uh got a significant amount of views but i think it was like a whole a million live viewers or something like that um

so if you look at it he was completely all in with trump and in there he was literally saying to trump that look or give me a position in in the as part of your um you know your cabinet i will over oversee certain things that are happening on there also for example you know we should be looking at nuclear energy and these type of things so and also like for example there has been the deal with the there's been there's a lot of legal cases against you know Musk as well, right?

And so therefore I believe that he get getting in bed with Trump helps eradicate all of those problems that he's having and it benefits him hugely both from a business perspective and a personal perspective.

Interesting.

So as someone that lives in the UK, how much do you care about who the US president is?

Oh, I extremely care about it.

Really?

Yeah, yeah.

So like, for example, I hold spaces,

our co-host spaces on U.S.

politics a lot.

And the reason for it, what I believe is, I've always thought it's important, right?

Because whoever the president of the United States is, essentially is the president of the Western world, right?

Because whatever America decides,

Britain follows through, Europe follows through.

Everyone follows through.

I mean, Germany followed through even when it basically harms them.

Yeah, a good example was when they blew up Nordstream.

That harmed Germany.

And Germany were like, yeah, that's fine.

Like, we'll be your battering boys.

And now we'll actually start buying, buying, buying from poland based on what you're saying so like everyone does it like america let's say america decided to go to war with iran britain would follow suit so anything that the united states of america does the entire western world is basically the proxy that follows it with follows it in terms of through nato and so on and so forth so therefore whoever the president of the united states is Anyone who's in the Western world and is not concerned with it is completely ignorant because it affects us both from a geopolitical perspective in terms of whether we're going going to go to war but it impacts us from an economic internal perspective so like for example now people in the uk are struggling more so than the uk us although us is bad yeah but people in the uk are struggling really badly um

and and and the reason for that is what ukraine and russia again we follow the us into that so how would that affect you though Because of the financial,

financially, how we're supporting the Ukraine.

Oh, so you guys are giving money also?

Yeah, we're giving money also.

Not to the same level you guys are.

But remember, for us we're a smaller company with a smaller economy so therefore even any of the money that we're giving your taxes went up because of that uh our taxes didn't go up but it harmed harmed because the things became more expensive things became more expensive the wage the local the wage never increased and therefore the disparity there's a lot of people who are basically out of business out of homes but that wasn't the only thing then there all also was like covert lockdown measures yeah again

us decides to lock down then the world decides to lock down right so the uk follows suit very soon after if the us didn't lock down UK wouldn't have locked down, right?

That's another example.

Also, one example which is not related to is Brexit, but again, that was pressure from the US because remember, the UK at the time were being told, Oh, you're going to get deals with the US and you're going to get deals with Australia and so on and so forth.

So, Brexit was another thing that impacted our economy.

And then, now, if you look at it again, Israel and Palestine is affecting those, although not financially, but if you look at it, it does affecting us in terms of the decision-making that's happening again from a geopolitical perspective.

So, all of these things, what it did was increase the like struggle that people are having in the UK.

It's significantly bad.

Local businesses have closed down.

Shops close at very early hours now, even in London, which is one of the biggest cities, is the biggest city

in London, one of the biggest cities in Europe.

Like before, it would be like even businesses would be open till the late hours.

Now they open very early.

The sales staff is significantly reduced.

So

anyone who in the UK, therefore, it's imperative that a person is involved and knows what's happening in the US because it affects you.

Right.

So that being said, have you publicly backed any candidate yet?

No, no, so I have, like, because I can't vote, so I don't back it, but I don't like Trump and I don't like Biden either.

Because, again, they're both, unfortunately, in my view, they're for Israel.

They fought the deep state.

They've got into bed with all of these things.

I think that's highly possible.

Do you want Kamala?

No, no, I don't want Kamala as well.

I mean, from the US, I would say I like Cornell West, but again, he's got no chance of winning.

I like some of Jill Stain's policies, but again, she's got no chance of winning.

But yeah, the whole point is this, isn't it?

In the US and the UK, we had the same problem in terms of Labour and Conservative.

All of the politicians are basically the uni party.

There is no difference.

So, therefore, when there's no difference and there's no choice, that's literally what we've got.

So, we're literally saying, Who do we choose?

Both are as bad as each other.

Oh, there's hardly any difference because they all have similar policies.

Damn, so it's like pick your poison at this point.

Exactly.

That's what it is in the US and the UK.

Yeah, what's Kamala's stance on the Israel-Palestine stuff?

They're all for Israel.

Oh, they're for Israel.

I mean,

in the US and the UK, so in the UK, US, you got AIPAC.

So, AIPAC have, it's a basically American Israeli PAC lobby.

Basically, they decide who the politicians are going to be.

So AIPAC, whoever they've backed, 95% of them, 298%, depending on the House or the Senate, have basically won their seat.

Wow.

They spend significant amount of money to ensure that their candidates win, irrespective of the Democrat and Republic.

The only thing is whether they pro-Israel or not.

And so, and the same thing we have in the UK.

In the UK, we have Labour friends of Israel, Conservative friends of Israel.

So again, it's this kind of entire global control to ensure that these countries back Israel and back their basically Zionist agenda, both externally and internally within the US and UK.

Yeah, politics is a pay-to-play system.

If you have a lot of funding, your chances of winning are higher.

100%.

So data shows that other than Donald Trump, when he won the presidency in 2016, generally speaking, whoever spends the most money wins in US elections.

That's crazy.

Yeah.

So if you have the right people backing you, like, and generally those aren't the best people,

you're going to win.

Exactly.

That's how it is in U.S.

politics.

So other than 2016, Trump, every other time,

whoever has the biggest financial backing wins the election.

Wow.

That's crazy.

Yeah.

Just to run for president, they were saying you need half a billion dollars.

Oh, yeah, you need significant.

I mean, look, Donald Trump got 100 million from Miriam Edelson.

Again, an Israeli

American.

And again, what kind of...

So someone gives you $100 million,

they want something in return.

Right.

So not just giving you that.

Yeah.

So what does she want in return?

Crazy.

What do you you think she wants?

Well, I think she wants him to be extremely pro-Israel.

She wants an ex the West Bank.

She wants pro-Israel policies.

She wants

the ending of pro-Palestinian voices in the US.

So I think those are just some of the things that she wants.

Yeah, there's a lot of people going at Israel right now on Twitter.

On Twitter, there is, because Twitter is probably one of the few actual free speech platforms.

As much as I said negative things about Musk, but I have to be balanced and say that it is one of the few actual free speech platforms.

So someone like me blowing up and the level of engagement I have is because Twitter is

basically a free speech platform, generally speaking.

Now, I think it could be better.

Like, for example,

if you look at my page, so I'm the most engaged pro-Palestinian account.

And for a very long time, I was the most engaged political account.

Okay.

But then something happened with the algorithm where the pro-Israel accounts start doing better.

Even though they get less engagement, they were getting more views.

So, what's the reason?

Are you uh kind of censored in a way, you think?

I don't think I'm censored because, like, I'm still growing.

I know there was like a month or two months where I was completely not growing at all, which was weird.

Um, but generally speaking, I don't think I'm censored.

I think there's something happened, like a tweak within the algorithm where Israeli posts are like given like some kind of boost, right?

And pro-Palestinian posts are not given given a slight deboost or not completely de-boosted.

Like, I'm not saying we're banned.

So, like, for example, if you look at one of my posts, it can have have

like look at my pin post

I think it has like 30 40,000 likes yeah

maybe 20 30 10 000 retweets and it's only got 4 million views right whereas for example a pro-Israel account will only have like a thousand likes or 400 likes or maybe 2% of the likes but have the same or more views wow So that's definitely intentional.

That's not a coincidence if that keeps happening again.

So that's kind of concerning.

Yeah.

Because the whole point of the platform was to be equal and free speech.

Exactly.

So that's the only negative I would say, But still, we're not banned.

Still, we're able to post.

And still, I'm able to get like, you know, all the likes that I get and all the retweets and views.

Yeah.

Damn.

Yeah, Dan Bilzerian recently came out, spoke against it, right?

That was a big deal.

Yeah, Dan Bilzerian is a monumental, important voice.

I met him.

He's a great guy, a great person.

doing things for the right reasons, no personal benefit or gratification, solely doing it because he has significant concerns about the United States of America, about the world, about where we're going.

And he thinks it's his duty as a human being and as an American to speak out against what's happening.

And that's what we're seeing right now.

So yeah, huge amount of props for him.

He's risked a significant amount.

He was removed from his own board for speaking out.

Wow, Ignite.

I believe it was Ignite, yeah.

Yeah, he was also

removed from that.

He also has lost a significant amount of money just by speaking out,

speak a significant amount of relations

by speaking out.

So, yeah, a huge amount of credit for him.

He's a very, very honorable guy.

And I think Americans should be proud to have someone like Dan Bilzerian.

I agree because there was no reason he had to do that.

No reason whatsoever.

His life's so easy.

He's doing well financially.

He's like, he's got the basically, he's living the American dream.

So to basically risk everything, know that they're going to come after you.

So, for example, there was a Twitter space, right?

You had

just a week ago with Andrew Tate, Tristan Tate,

Dan Bilzerian, and Candace Owen.

And you saw that the Tates got arrested 48 hours after that.

I saw that.

Candace Owen had a significant directed attack against us on social media.

And then Dan Bilzerian is the only one.

And I was saying to Dan that, look, they're going to come after us.

So they're going to come after him next.

So yeah, I mean, I'll give him a huge amount of credit.

Yeah, how does your family feel about you being in the public spotlight like this?

Are they scared?

I've never been asked this question.

Yeah, my mum is always like, leave this.

Like, don't do it whatsoever.

Like, listen, you've done what you need to do.

You've highlighted the issue.

Just like, give it up now and live your life calmly.

And I'm like, nah, look, I believe that I'm, like, I have to make a difference.

I made a huge amount of difference.

If you look at a lot of the debunkings that happen on social media, I was behind them.

So, like the 40-beheaded babies, I debunked that.

I debunked many of the mass rape issue.

I debunked a lot of the propaganda that was coming out.

Also,

on social media, I did a lot of the big debates and defeated it.

And there was one debate where I debated 13 Zionists and defeated them.

Damn.

13 at once?

Yeah, 13 at once.

Yeah.

Holy crap.

I beat Destiny in a debate.

How do you determine if you defeat them?

How do you base that?

Yeah, I mean, you can, I think a good way of seeing it is I wouldn't say the public, although everyone was saying like I won.

Yeah.

But you can tell by the arguments that you make.

So like when I'm like very self-critical, like if I do a debate and I think I should have improved in this way, like my first debate with Destiny on Andrew Tay, I believe I beated him.

I beat him, but then I think I didn't do a great job.

Like I think there were certain aspects that I could have improved on significantly.

So I would have given myself like, what, maybe six out of 10 or five out of 10 on that.

But even then, like, because Destiny kind of was presenting a more weaker position anyway at that time, generally, if the truth's on your side, you're going to win the debate anyway.

But so I think, so, and then if you look at the debate, I kind of like beat him because even when they did the poll, it was like 50-50, and he had all his fans come onto the poll.

And I had no following because I was like a new guy.

This last one, it was like completely just destroyed.

He kind of conceded so many points.

Yeah, he was like, I was like, yeah,

if your dual citizen shouldn't be able to hold office, he was like, Yeah, I agree.

I was like, anyone who has a right to retention, hold office.

He was like, Yeah, I agree.

Like, and many of the points I made, he like just conceded him.

Whereas I've seen him since then in debates, and actually, he's been on a debate recently where I moderated and he defeated the other guy quite well.

So, usually wins.

Yeah, yeah, he's a good idea.

He's a good idea that you beat him.

Yeah, he's a good debater.

He's a greater debate.

So,

that was that.

And then, them 13, it was just easy because what it is, is like I've like one of my skills has always been

in life or in things is like this is probably my skill anyway, that I find out holes in arguments very easily.

So when I when I see something, I'll see the holes.

So that's why I've always been good at debating or been very good.

This is the reason I blew up.

I blew up because of not because I've got like some kind of like amazing personality, but it's because academia.

Because my background is academic.

And then I just

like break things down in an academic manner.

But what I do is I just see the holes in people's arguments and then just break them down.

Were you debating growing up too?

No, I wasn't.

Oh, you weren't?

No, no, no.

So I was a nerd.

So like

my background is like I got a degree in law, then I became like a mathematics teacher.

So, I had a qualification in mathematics, then an MA in philosophy, and then I was doing a PhD in philosophy.

So, I'm very much like I was a nerdy reading book type of guy.

So, I wasn't really debating that much.

I debated a bit here and there,

but it was mainly debated in the sense of writing articles.

But it wasn't a debate, you're just literally writing your own perspective.

Okay.

Because usually, the nerds aren't good at debates.

So, you got something else in you that's making you good.

Maybe, maybe, yeah.

So I try my best, but yeah.

I mean,

Gary would say it's because I'm a 33.

Oh, you're 33?

Same here.

Nice.

Yeah, yeah.

Do you believe in any of the numerology stuff or no?

Okay,

I wish you didn't ask me that.

Yeah, I do believe in it.

Oh, you do?

Yeah, yeah.

Why do you wish I hadn't asked that?

It's too bad.

Because I'm going to get cancelled.

Like, everyone I know.

Hates Gary and hates numerology.

Especially from the academia space.

Yeah, not just the academia.

On social media, like a lot of the Christian.

A lot of of my fans are Muslims and Christians.

They all dislike numerology.

A lot of them dislike numerology.

They don't agree with it.

So, yeah, whenever Gary turns up, like, I'm always like, half of the time trying to defend him.

I like him, dude.

I like him a lot.

He's a nice guy.

He's a great guy.

Great guy.

Yeah, but I do believe in it.

Yeah, I'm a fan.

I mean, it's hard to prove it, but it just makes so much sense.

Yeah, I mean, you can't, so like, there's not been some mass experiment to prove it, but because it's like something that is

more anecdotal

based on experience.

And remember, like based on experience, then it's a bit hard to prove from an academic perspective.

And also, what is proving anything academically?

Like, if you look at academic studies, none of them are like very good.

None of them are very vigorous.

If you look at the data points, they're very manufactured.

They'll have like 200 sets, 300 sets.

They'll choose their parameters.

They'll choose everything.

So even anyone who basically appeals to science, like it's silly.

You're only doing that because you're seeing like these kind of academia, academic people as appealing to authority.

But in reality, when you look at it, it they even the research isn't always great wow that's interesting i didn't know that yeah i don't i don't read any of the research you and not any of the research let me rephrase that so you have to always look at it so like whenever for me it's very easy when someone presents me a study to like just break it down and find the send the find the flaws in it so if i'm able to do it it shows that there isn't like great academia out there or because remember even academia how do you get into academia you need to have a certain viewpoint you need to have a certain perspective then someone needs to peer review you so they need to agree with your idea and your thoughts if you're too out there you won't get that opportunity you won't get that position if you have something which is too drastic too different not doesn't go with the mainstream let's say you're as an example an extreme anti-feminist you won't be able to do studies as an example like in the um

in the 70s there was this a study done which demonstrated that women have much worse recall than men right significantly worse this was allowed in the 70s Do you think now in 2024 we'd be allowed to do such a study?

And so that tells you that.

Wow, so women do have worse recall though?

100%.

So in like, for example, again, I'm quite religious.

In the Quran, there's this idea that there's a two women um witnesses to one man witness so two women witnesses are equal to one man witness interesting and i was always like because i'm like not someone who just believes anything for anything like i want i was like okay it sounds a bit like what's going on here like why is two women to one man i thought everyone's equal whatever it may be so i looked into it and researched it and thought i was actually trying to like think like is this right or not because there's a lot of positions that i'll just break it down and find out the flaws in them And then I found these studies and the studies literally showed that in the 70s, there was like showing that actually women have much worse recall than men from a memory perspective.

And then when a drastic event occurs, it's significantly worse.

So let's say, like, for example, there was a car accident

or a woman was in a car and there was a car accident, her recall would be much worse than a man's, like significantly worse.

Never mind normal recall.

So if that's the case, then it makes sense to me that there's going to be two female witnesses to one man witness.

But like what that, all of that tells you is that when it comes to academia, like you just said it, right?

Because you know it.

And we all know it internally.

That would never be allowed now.

So, that tells you how academia is controlling.

That's concerning, though, especially with witness testimonials.

Because if a woman's testifying and her memory is not as good as a guy's, you know, that could affect the case.

100%.

So, in the West, obviously, a woman witness is equal to a male witness, right?

Right.

Um, but women are easily influenced.

We know this biologically and evolutionary, right?

Women are more amiable to points.

This is a proven against psychiatry from psychiatry and psychology.

Uh, just because biologically, like if you believe in biological evolution, you know that a woman's development is different to a male's development.

So, therefore, if they are different and their memory recall is different right and we know that their minds are different right because for example men are better than women in physical sports yeah but you know that because it's biologically physically but why are men better than women in chess

way better too way better than poker yeah why

because we think different like yeah so are we think different or chess

requires a certain level of

brain function or a certain level of intelligence some would say a certain level of intellect but the fact that we now live in a society where there's equality and women are able to play chess and it's not something that's physical.

And yet, if you look at the top hundred, I believe there's only one woman in it, or there isn't even one in the top hundred.

I can't remember.

I checked it a while ago.

That tells you that men, when it comes to from an intellectual perspective, or from a

from that aspect of the intellect perspective, are definitely more stronger than women.

And therefore,

obviously the Western legal system, it makes them equal in the sense of like one wins, one winners.

But in the Islamic system, this is the reason why there is that differentiation.

Interesting.

Wow.

And we'll be called misogynists for this, but we're just speaking in data.

Yeah, it's just data and science.

Yeah, so we can't even...

It's not personal with us.

No, it's not.

I don't, like, I think women are important in the sense of to bring children up, to rear children, to basically give them time, give them, you know, give them the social development that a man doesn't have time to do so.

And so women, like, I'm not degrading women.

I'm not saying they're like second class citizens or whatever, but they just don't have this.

Women and men are not the same, and this is proven like biologically, but for some reason, we've got to throw biology out of the window.

Yeah, so do you think they should women should be able to vote?

I don't think women should be able to vote, but I think most people shouldn't be able to vote.

Okay, yeah, because Myron said the same thing on Twitter.

Oh, what did he say?

He said, Women shouldn't be able to vote.

Okay, so I think not only women shouldn't be able to vote, but I think most men shouldn't be able to vote as well.

Yeah, yeah.

I think people are just dumb, and what they do is make terrible decisions.

And so, you're seeing that by the people who are elected, like people just follow

whoever it is, and they just don't have their own intellect or capacity to do so.

So then I have thought about it, and I thought, like, what would be an ideal scenario?

Like, where, how would the voting system be?

So I said, okay, so it should be based on intelligence.

And, but then the question becomes, like, how do you work out intelligence?

Again, so IQ test is like, I don't think it's an accurate display of intelligence because there are different types of intelligences.

Like, for example, there's special awareness intelligence, then there's, for example,

analysis intelligence.

So there's different types.

And the IQ test is actually a very specified type of intelligence.

Now, I'm not trying to tie IQ test because I've scored highly on IQ.

But

I still don't think it's a very good

test for actual real intelligence.

And so therefore, there needs to be some system that's developed.

Maybe some part of IQ is in there.

Other aspects of intelligence are in there.

But then the question becomes, like, is intelligence the only parameter that should be looked at?

Then maybe it should be people who are like businessmen or rich people.

But then the problem with rich people is are all of them intellectually smart.

Yeah, so then, so there needs to be a system in that, but then

I did think about that, and there is still flaws in my system as well.

Because the problem with that is, um, what will happen over time is, because I was just like thinking about this, over time, you'd basically have a scenario where, let's say, the intelligent people choose who is in power.

You'd have an elite group of intelligent people,

and what would happen is the people, the vast majority of people, wouldn't be in that group, right?

And this group would become smaller and smaller and smaller.

Because what happened is these people won't get the same access to

education, same access to be able to develop the intelligence.

There might be a few people in there who will end up meeting it, but generally speaking, it'll be most people from here.

But then like intelligent people don't always have intelligent kids as well.

So even though you could put them in the best educational system, like they'll do well, but they won't might not be on there.

So then this will become reduced and reduced.

You'll get an extreme two-tier system where those in charge become a lot smaller.

And then these people, and then what they do is because they live in the kind of reclusive, secluded society, they'll not value the people underneath them.

They'll see them as second-class citizens, they'll start treating them really badly.

And then, what will happen is, like, these people are trying to overthrow those.

So, I do see the flaw in what I'm saying, but I do think it's a better system than what we've got now.

You've really thought about this, yeah, yeah, of course, yeah.

I do.

That's interesting.

I'm an urge, I literally think about all these things.

How is it in the UK?

Is it popular vote, or is it similar to the US?

It's same as the UK, first-past-the-post.

So, we'll have certain areas that we'll have like you have to get past 325 seats.

Yeah, so you have to get 326 to basically be elected.

The first past-the-post system, so, for example, in specific areas so you could get like a large proportion of the vote and yet only get less seats right so in the last election as an example reform party and the lib dems got the same amount or similar amount of the popular vote but one had like four seats and one had about 50 or 60 seats yeah so there is it is a first past the poor system but again i'm i'm a someone who supports the first past the poor system oh you do yeah yeah i do because

Again, when I look at it, I think like the founding fathers in the US and those in the UK who came up with the system, I think they were actually a bit smart.

Because what they thought about was this: that

you could basically, what's the reason why you don't want first-past the post?

Why you want the first past the poll system?

Is because like you can get someone to manipulate the public into thinking that a certain idea is good, and you get enough of a vote in enough of the areas to get a certain percentage, right?

And so, for example, Reform Party was a good example of that.

It's something that wasn't really a party in the UK.

And then, two months leading up to the election, somehow they were put on all the debate stages.

They were perpetuated on social media significantly.

They got such a boost that like dumb people just voted for them.

So they got like 20, 30% of the value.

No, it was 19% of the vote or 20% of the vote, which is shockingly high, right?

But but they only got four seats because of first pass of the post system because what the first past of the post system does is it says that look actually everybody in that area has to be for that specific party for them to win the seat in the party and then you have to win enough seats to be able to become the prime minister.

I think what that does is stop this level of manipulation that occurs and this kind of sometimes you can cause a huge amount of hatred in a specific area.

I'll give you an example of how social media caused that fake news and it caused riots in the UK.

So what it does is ensure that.

So I would say actually the founding fathers in the US and the electoral system in the UK, they were very smart in the first past of the post system.

So I should support you.

So you still think like Republicans, Democrats, that's a good system for the US?

No, I don't think that Republican Democrats are the good system.

Like I do think there should be a third party alternative that isn't a uni party.

And again, it would take time for that party to grow.

But what will happen is, like, for example, the first past the support system is like you have to win, like, if you have to win Nevada, for example, don't you, right?

So, you, so, for example, if you win Nevada, then you won, for example, one area, and then you have to win another area.

So, I think that's what the first pastor support system is, that you have to win the areas to be able to win.

So, it's not like you come, you get like, I don't know, 20% of Nevada, 20% of Los Angeles, 20% of New York, and overall you get 20%, and somehow you can become like the prime minister, or you can win the second most votes.

I think that there's a lot of flaws in that system like the one I gave.

It can cause hate parties that cause a huge amount of hatred or anarchists or want to cause destruction in society to be elected based on the popular vote.

So I think the first pass vote system is actually better.

I like that.

Yeah.

RFK did some numbers, but no really, no independent perform really did this much damage.

True, RFK did decent numbers.

I think RFK, if he, again, I don't want to bring everything back to that issue, but if RFK hadn't been so pro-Israel, I think he would have had a very, very, very good chance of

even possibly getting more votes than the Democrats.

Really?

Yeah.

Whoa.

Because when I look at, because I try, like, with me, I'm not just on the right, although some of my views do sound like I'm very much on the right, but like, for example, I'm actually not on the right or the left.

Just like in religion, I don't follow one group or one sect, right?

So I speak to people from all backgrounds, whether the right or left.

And I traveled the US and I spoke to a lot of people in the left, and a lot of them weren't willing to vote at that time Biden.

Oh, wow.

And the reason for it was because of like the genocide that's happening in Palestine.

So they were like, we just can't support it.

We just can't vote for it.

So there's a huge amount of vote in the US.

So in certain states, like for example, Michigan and a few others, almost like, I believe, 15 to 20% of people in the primary voted uncommitted.

Right.

So that's a huge amount of votes that's available.

And if you put that throughout the US, after what happened in the college protests, after what happened, many people on the left in the US are actually anti-war, right?

And so that vote was completely available.

And remember, Kennedy is that for Ukraine and for every other thing.

It's just for some reason, we know why.

He's not that for Israel, right?

I mean, he was, and Jeffrey Epstein's playing, right?

So, um, so for some, for, for some reason, he's not, but if he had been, I think that's a huge amount of vote that could have went his way, right?

It's super hard as a politician not to get compromised, I feel like.

Oh, 100%.

Just because the money.

Yeah, because of the money, because of the associations you need.

It's hard to not sell out, not just as a politician, in like, for example, in the capacities we are in social media, it becomes like very difficult for most people not to sell out.

I find it very hard in the sense of because I don't sell out, I get into beef with nearly everyone, right?

Because I'm always like, Look, I hope I have my values, I'm never gonna give them up.

I will respect you, I will align with you on certain things for sure.

Like, we have an I'll have an alliance with many people, right?

Like, for example, the Christian Muslim alliance, but then I don't sell out my sell out my ideas, I don't sell out my views, I don't sell out my people, I don't sell out anyone.

So, in that way, and I'm willing to give up things.

So, I like when October the 7th happened, I gave up like an egg, a huge deal.

So

like I'm willing to do that.

And so most people aren't.

No, definitely not.

Has there ever been a debate where it shifted your view in any way?

Or are you very firm on your views?

No, no, I'm very open in my views.

So I'm not the type of person who's just like gung-ho.

If somebody, if I like, okay, so I don't find most people smart.

But let's say I find someone smart and they're coming with certain ideas.

I will think about them and say, okay, that makes sense.

That makes sense.

Okay, that kind of fits in with what I think in this way.

But it kind of contradicts in this way, but can it be infused in somehow?

So yeah, of course, I'm always trying to develop.

I've got like my own worldview, but I'm very open to like

infusing different ideas and different thoughts to see if they work.

That's cool.

So with Destiny, was there anything he said in particular where you were like, okay, that's interesting?

No, I mean, Destiny's dominant.

You don't think he's smart?

Nah,

I'm being mean.

He's not dumb and he's not

smart.

He's not ultra smart, but he's just like...

He's above average.

He's above average.

He's good at like quickly checking things on Google and like, you know, debunking people quite quickly.

So he's really good in that.

So that debate I was moderating with Myron when Destiny was debating other pro-Palestinians, he did a really good job because what he was doing was like they were saying, oh, look, X, Y, evidence, and then he'd Google it and say, oh, look, look, but the evidence is this.

So he was really good at it.

He was really good at that.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah.

If you have a computer, that definitely helps you in a debate.

Yeah, yeah.

Who was your most

respectable debate?

In terms of who was a good debater against me, or who have I seen who are good debaters?

Against you.

Against me.

um

who's um

i would say um

maybe maybe i'd say destiny was probably the better one okay but again like i didn't think he's that good so i've been like i don't think i've debated anyone hard so you haven't been fully challenged yet yeah yeah i don't think i've debated anyone difficult who do you think could give you a run for your money

um maybe jordan peterson oh jordan peterson i'd easily destroy really he's easy.

Yeah, he's a psychologist.

Yeah, he's dumb.

Like, I literally said about Jordan Peterson like a year ago.

Now, everyone's like, yeah, yeah, Jordan Peterson isn't that smart.

He makes a lot of contradictory points.

But I wrote a thread on him a year ago, debunking his ideas, his thoughts, how he's not very smart.

Like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro called me out of the debate.

Ben would be a good debate.

Yeah, he's too scared to debate me.

He called me out on his show and then he won't debate.

Oh, really?

Yeah,

he was like, oh, there's a guy on Suleiman on Twitter.

He's doing propaganda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And I was like, look, I'll debate you then.

But he was unwilling to debate.

who would give me a good run for my money who's a really good debate I'm due to debate Tommy Robinson he's gonna be very easy okay

Elon Musk maybe I don't think Elon Musk is a good debater

yeah I've never seen him debate actually

yeah I don't know I mean

there's no one really on the left that I could think of I can debate

I don't even think I would debate someone on the left like what would I debate someone on the left about yeah good point because you're not even on the right I'm not on the right or I'm not on the left

So I think who I think is a good debater, but I wouldn't debate him because I like I respect him.

I think Hazal Dean's a good debate.

Okay.

He's like the American Communist Party.

Yeah.

I think he's a good debate.

And the reason I think he's a good debate is I've watched a couple of his debates recently and he's easily destroyed his opponent.

Dave Smith, the guy that debated Cuomo.

Yeah, so what would I debate him on?

Because like Dave Smith, my issue with him was, so Dave Smith, I respect him a lot for being pro-Palestine.

He's been supporting the Palestinian cause.

But like there was this debate between

Dave Smith.

He's Jewish but

anti-Zionist.

And then you've got basically Laura Luma, who's Jewish but pro-Zionist.

And then it was moderated by Andrew Sozniak, you know, from the PGP.

Yeah.

And he's Zionist, Jewish guy.

So they were all debating, right?

And it was about Palestine.

But like in that debate, they were all agreeing, like, oh, Islam's a problem.

Islam is extreme.

Islam's issue.

They disagreed on it?

Yeah.

No, no, they disagreed on the Palestine issue, but agreed about Islam being a problem.

And that was like really annoying me.

So like on that regard, yeah, I would debate Dave Smith on that.

But I don't know if he would debate me.

I think that was more that he would just kept on conceding it because he's probably been perpetuated the same lie about Islam or Islamic ideas.

I've never seen such a one-sided debate with him and Cuomo.

I mean, he destroyed him.

Oh, I don't doubt it.

I don't doubt it.

Cuomo's, again, he's not great, is he?

But Dave Smith is good.

So I'm not trying to harm him, attack him.

I know

he's got decent knowledge historically.

That was my only issue with him in that regard.

So that would be probably the only thing i disagree with him i don't know what else i'd disagree him on yeah um damn we got to think of someone for you man yeah i mean i'm debating tommy robinson in in in this month but that's gonna be easy debate on israel stuff no the riots oh the riots yeah yeah the riots that he was influential on which he denies now right on in the uk and uh we'll probably be talking about immigration yeah we'll be probably talking about islam because he's extremely anti-islam so i saw yeah i saw pierce morgan going at tate for the riot stuff right that's right yeah he did a few weeks ago yeah yeah so what do you what do people think of uh pierce morgan is he based in the uk so pierce he is based in the uk so pierce morgan i don't like pierce morgan

so i'll tell you what what issue i have with pierce morgan so first of all i give him credit for him speaking out in the war in iraq right So give him credit for that in 2003.

He exposed some of the crimes that the British army was doing as well.

And obviously people said that he did fake pictures, but it was happening still, right?

So give him credit for that.

Give him credit that he was against the riots this time.

Yeah.

Right.

But what I have a huge problem with him is that he's been very harmful to British society on a number of key issues.

Wow.

Significantly harmed it.

So I'll give you a couple of examples.

First example, teaching LGBTQ in schools.

So what he did was he was very much a big proponent of teaching LGBTQ education into schools in the UK.

Wow, I didn't know that.

Yeah.

And the problem with that is children's minds aren't developed enough to be able to decipher right from wrong.

And therefore, when you're teaching them this, you're basically making them conform to a specific ideology when their mind isn't developed to do so.

What he did was he brought many people who were against LGBTQ education into school and attacked them and destroyed them.

He also, what he did was, for example, there was a Muslim guy, he brought him on, because in the UK, it was mainly the Muslims who were against LGBTQ education in schools.

Christians...

In the UK, Christians aren't that religious anymore.

Christianity's died in the UK.

Oh, wow.

Yeah, so it was only the only Muslims who spoke out.

So, what he did was he brought them on the show and was like, oh my God, you're barbaric.

You're backward.

Why do you not agree with British values or LGBTQ education?

And he attacked them so badly and harmed anyone who was anti to the extent where it became a kind of normal idea within the UK.

Because he is a very influential person.

His channel is highly viewed.

He's probably one of the most viewed people in the UK.

At that time, he was in Good Morning.

I think it was Good Morning or whatever, one of the morning shows.

It was again, one of the higher viewed shows.

And so his,

what he did perpetuated this and also made it.

So now then it became mainstream, it became part of the educational system.

So now in the UK, children as young as five learn LGBTQ education in schools.

And Pierce Morgan, in my view, was a major proponent of that.

Holy crap.

They're teaching that to kids there?

Yeah, as young as five.

That's terrible.

Like, not just LGBTQ, even sex education.

You look at some of the stuff that they're learning, you think, a five-year-old, that's crazy that that they're learning it.

That was one of the major things he did.

Another one was COVID.

So again, he was someone, what happened was in the UK, like I said, UK followed US, right?

But even then, UK, we were kind of a bit more, not as crazy as you guys.

Like we were kind of holding back a bit on certain things.

And what Piers Morgan would do was he would bring ministers in from the government, it was the Conservative government.

And he would literally attack them and destroy them for not being as extreme in their measures.

Wow.

And he would push extreme lockdown measures, extreme COVID measures.

And again, he was a major impact on lockdown and covid being so extreme in the uk right um so again he's uh again that was another major issue that he was on the wrong side of history and he harmed it significantly but do you think he had the right intent or do you think he was being told to say those things it's a good question

um if i had to i say i think that with pierce morgan up until this israel and palestine he just did what he thought would get him the most views so he'd take a position that would get him the most views got it and he did that a good example of that is when he was anti-Tate yeah in his very first interview and then he saw Tate got me the destroyer yeah he got but then he also saw that Tate got me the numbers got him the numbers so then he brought Tate on again and then he got the you know right so he I think he goes more for numbers but I think with Israel and Palestine he was very much pro-Israel at the beginning because again his uh he he he was working for talk TV and talk TV is Rupert Murdoch Rupert Murdoch is the Australian Zionist guy and therefore he was perpetuating a certain in my view in my opinion he was perpetuating the ideology because of that reason and since he's left talk TV TV and his show is YouTube and it's just his own show, you're seeing he's getting more of a balanced position now.

Interesting.

Yeah, I always wondered what UK people thought of him because I see him over here and he's pulling huge numbers.

Oh, he's pulling huge numbers.

He's probably, in the UK, he's probably the number one guy.

He has to be.

Yeah, yeah.

I don't really know any other podcast hosts out there.

True.

I mean, Diary of a CEO, right?

Sorry?

Diary of a CEO.

Have you seen that one?

No.

That's a business podcast.

Okay, okay.

Yeah, he's more political.

So damn, dude, interesting.

Well, anything you want to close off with, dude?

Or no, no, that's something.

Thanks.

That was awesome, man.

Thanks so much for having me.

No, thank you.

I hope you land and don't get arrested.

Yeah, I hope not.

If not, I'll come on your show electronically and be like, listen, I told Sean Kelly's people I was going to get arrested.

If not, I'll post a GoFundMe or something.

Yeah.

Thanks for watching, guys.

See you next time.