PBD Podcast - Maajid Nawaz RANTS on Biden Supporting Neo-Nazism | PBD Podcast | Ep. 262 | Part 1

Episode Date: April 28, 2023

In this episode, Patrick Bet-David and Maajid Nawaz will discuss: Biden supporting neo-nazism Maajid Nawaz on being a radicalized Muslim The Matrix The IS recruitment process Why Islam is spreading so fast FaceTime or Ask Patrick any questions on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://minnect.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 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 --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/pbdpodcast/support

I know this life meant for me. Yeah, why would you plan on the life when we got that David value came in giving values contagious. This world on your panoras we can't no value that hate it. I be running home. You look what I become. I'm the I'm the one. So the goal of today's podcast is to help me be better at pronouncing names, words,

different kind of words, right? If it's a Wednesday, if it's government, if it's... Lesser G. Lesser G, 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 Magi Nahuas if you don't know about Magi Nahuas He's a founding chairman of Killium a British think tank focus on counterterrorism specifically Against Islamist he's a former member of the Islamist group has butarit

That's good. We got it in 2012. He published an autobiography radical and has since become a prominent critic of Islam Islamism in the UK his second book Islam in the future of tolerance in 2015 co-authored with atheist author Sam Harris was published October of 2015 magic thank you so much for being a guest that's good to meet guys yes it's uh... 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 to share in your background that be great هذا هو مرحباً في الوقت لك لذا لقد أعرف أنك لا تقوم بكرة إذا لم تقوم بكرة في الوقت كيف ستحفظ؟ نعم لدينا 2 سنة

أمكنني أن أستطيع من المنطقة لكن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستطيع أن أستط 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 four I mean 45 years old now. So we were the first generation to have this 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, that's a kind of grapple with these questions. So what it meant to be a Muslim born in the West. So when we were facing a lot of that violent racism, 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? This was a group of neo-Nazis. They affiliated with combat 18, which is a, if 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 that they weren't messing around. Multiple friends of ours had either had hammers put to their heads and stabbed all over their bodies. And we I've been, as I say, before that murder at 17, but most of my, I witnessed more knife fights in my teenage years and most people and participated in, and 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, in 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 Hasbathariir 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 the 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 fiochacy that would impose one reading of that faith tradition over society by law. Ironically, a very European Westphalian concept, which was owed more to colonialism and the interwar 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. If you like, we were the trotskeys to the stylings 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 had run out of handcuffs. They had run 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 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, the Hosni Mabarak 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-Gonzanema to be honest, that 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 Ghraib was nothing compared to what was going on inside these prisons. All minds you while Tony Blair was taking free holidays, being hosted by Hors-Ninibabarak,

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 in four and a bit to be precise in Mazra'at-Aur-Aprison with the surviving assassins of the former president on Warsadat with the leaders and founders of all of the jihadis as well as Islamist groups in Egypt at the time. The leaders and founders of Gamal Islamia. You're all in there together. As I say the assassins of Anwar Salat were there, those who weren't executed in the case. They will became friends of mine. The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Dr Muhammad the Badiya who wasn't the leader at the time he is now.

Muhammad Mursi who since died, he became the leader after Mubarak was overthrown. Aiman Naur was a liberal prisoner from his belovedbollah. 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 is this, if I'm painting a picture of my mind, was this daily conversations, debates, going through history, 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 the so-as part of the 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 Fosha, the classical Arabic language, Osul al-Fikr which is the jurisprudence, Emal Hadith, 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 it, you know, by a dictator. So you had genuine scholars in there as well. And I spent most of my time studying in the Baton. 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 parlemicists 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 parlemics. And I think I... You spend most of your life teaching people how to argue in debate. Yeah, because, his methodology was ideological propaganda.

We trained people in... 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. Did you succeed? I 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't, if you can go back and the again, for you to be in there, it's kind of like a story of somebody saying, yeah, I was in Brecker Park and I was there and for about two years it was me, Michael, such and such and Kobe and all these, I mean, obviously these guys come from different areas 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. I thought I'd say, 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 of foot in Egypt and across the Islamic world of what was called the Murajat 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 Ghamal Islamia for example, I still have those books at home in Arabic with my hand written annotations on the sidelines of those books. And these were revisions of jihadists thought that were, 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 Gamalislamia.

The assassins of Sadat had also come to those conclusions and had a band in 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. Alahha. Alahha. When to Syrian Aramaic, we say Alahha. Absolutely. So it just means the same word. It's the same source. God, I don't use there's 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, Ujahidu, it just means I struggle. And then of course there are many various manifestations of struggle. Primarily, we are enemies 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 and what I'd had to add to all 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 Masala Tora 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 had 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 their wisdom. And he's a specific one, any one above the other.

No, no, it was, no, it's a collective. Yeah, it was a collective group of, and it was so diverse and different. I mean, I mentioned Aiman Nour from Hezbollah. He was a liberal political prisoner. We had, we had Sadiddin Abrahim 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 his and the missing jihadis, 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 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, no 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, 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. What's not, 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 intelligents. 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. Shemima Begum is a former British citizen who had a 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 Campbell Hull, 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 her, 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 quote-unquote quotation marks and ISIS fighter. But actually, it was 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 Jabhatun Nosra, which was al-Qaeda in Syria, because we wanted to overthrow Huznim al-Huznim al-Azad in Syria. So the 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 ork 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 can't 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 for to fight proxy wars. And invariably, you see the cases 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, what Trump brought to an end, by the way.

And I think to give you one final example, take Ukraine and the As of Nazis, who aren't even neo-Nazis, the actual Nazis, they come from the Bandera 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 racist, but As of is a battalion that was integrated into the Ukrainian Army and formally became their national guard. So the Ukrainian national guard is the As of Battalion. As of Arnatsis, this is not in dispute, this is not a 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 Minister's

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 us we're gonna 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. You are we, are funding and weapon and arming people who have these extremist ideologies. And then we're surprised that these ideology 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, 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 a, this isn't a pushback,

this is a more follow up, but it'd be almost like if you were starting a company, right? And you go to someone, like a PBD IR start a company, right? And we go to some intelligence agency, 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? No, it's a yes, I know. 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... Let's get scandalous. But also lives are at stake. So I think that it's important to recognize that in specially ISIS, ISIS itself

is a creation of these proxy wars, especially ISIS. Where your correct is the history, yes, you're absolutely correct. So how, let's start with, say, is Amit 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 Mursi 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 Sacker 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 Cece. 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 a little Kulat or Solahaddin is 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, anyone being to the London dungeons? You see all the wax works of the torture they used to do to do. So there's a fortress like that in Kair, except it's not historic, it's in our lifetime, it was a torture dungeon. And prisoners that I was with in Masrataura, prison were held in that fortress, which is an ancient fortress, but the regime had converted it to a torture dungeon. Now in that Kulathasala Hadith, 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 Maseratura prison is where say it Kutub, the infamous founding ideologue of modern-day jihadism, who wrote the book, the Das Kapital of Jihadism called Milestones or Malalim Fittorik 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.

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 is, I don't think say Kutub was an intelligence operative for none of it. He was an angry man who had been witnessed all of him and his brothers witnessed torture

and they are angry. And then they codify their anger and justify it by Islam, like everyone does in any every faith to tradition. I mean, in position and the Crusader 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.

And 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. Oh, man, do you like what I'm saying? The name of the book real quick, so we can pull that out. Oh, milestones. Say it, it's available in English. It's the, pretty much the intellectual foundation

for modern-day jihadism. You compared it to Das Kapital. Yeah, it's an into, it's, it's, it's one of the first examples of the, of a jihadist manifesto, manifesto, it's the articulation of jihadist thinking. Imagine, I have two questions. So when the torture at the prisons,

that you were in, is it, do they have like a regimented thing of how like they schedule it, was like an everyday thing, was it ranking on who who they thought was a bigger threat out that they wanted Information was it was it a constant thing and my second question was with the bush and Blair you said you spoke the both of them how did how did that Feel and how that play else in there talking with two people that started the Iraq war started Which was just a snowball effect got rid of sat down who started a lot of all these yeah all these problems Yeah, look, I think there's a political, 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. A Bush is an example, Tony Blair is an example. They invaded Iraq on false pre-tenses. We now know all of that was based on a lie. Again, back to Adam to your point, this 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. It is, 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 with, to Tennessee without a mask on and posted a photo. And then the chief of staff of the government wanted to meet me when I landed, because they 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 technology, 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 there. 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 as 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 Madeline Orbrite, the late Madeline Orbrite, she's passed away, so I've met her as well. I won't say anything rude about dead people, that's profit teaches us. He says, do not abuse the dead for your 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 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 Madeline Orbright,

you know, that's half a million children is the price worth it. And Madeline Orbright 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 know, you 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 Vinnie 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 want to do. China is investing in Iran and different parts of the Middle East. 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 go for it, guys. But should America just completely vacate Middle East? 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 JRE, the Rogen podcast, and I believe he speaks highly of you, Patrick. I sort of clipped where he's very happy with you. I was warning 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, to 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 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 negotiating with each other. The A-Ramakords 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 and negotiations, I'm not opposed to either of them. The A-Ramakords, you may well be aware of them Adam, but the A-Ramakords. Yatakrabin. 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 that Houthis being effectively backed by Iran and Saudi backing the Yemeni authorities. And it led to mass law, to mass killing. As they were 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 mentioned 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, 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 a hundred thousand signatures on a parliamentary website, which would trigger a debate in parliament to recognize the plight of the Oigar 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 I got language. We've heard weagres a really times. So the Rahima Mahmoud is the head of the UK world or you got a congress. She attempts to correct me when I say weagas. And the correction, I can't vouch for that. How do you know I'd be pronounced it there isn't? Don't take my word for it. You just say way more ethnic than I do. I say it like a weak guy, weager. Pwaiigar. So that is an example of me not being a great fan of the Chinese regime.

And 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, you know?

I got a question for you. So one of the things that's happening in the US is common sense is being seen 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 what you didn't fall for. You were 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 wants 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, 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, 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? We look, that's, 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 imagine what Star Wars, right? Of course. Right. So the way in what 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 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,

Anakin's lover died of whatever it was. Imagine you were 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 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. where that anger was weaponized again when I say by the security services in ISIS case, up until ISIS they were all kind of fighters. So I think it's whether it's anger or 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 the, 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 the, whether the Twitter files have revealed it here in the US, or to, by way of an example, Matt Hancock, the Health Securities WhatsApp messages that were leaked revealed in the UK, where he's like, how do we make the people more scared? Yep, yep. Ultimately, we, which is-

Which we've spoken about all of that on the part. 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 in 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 half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died and Hiroshima.

And, you know, is the price worth it? I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it. Okay. 1996 on this app. Okay, if you can order you. Yeah. 1996. That's another clip you got playing Rob, maybe.

Okay. So, that was the first era. Yeah. So, that wasn't 97. That was a second clip, just to be clear. That 96. That was from us. Yeah.

So, you know, you think about decisions like that being made. Okay. We think it was worth it. Yeah. 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, right? Oraz, or all these other things that we've all heard about. But I want you to go a little bit deeper if you can because I had a girl I hired, lady. She was in 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, she says, I gotta tell you why I took this job It's telling me why I took the job. Well, let me take 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 they called lead words I said you were part of that because I was part of that cult. So what things happen? Well, we all I 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 has happened 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, you know, used that as

the analogy. But I want you to actually, you know, 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, you know, they don't really realize you're doing all the work behind closures 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

politics, so with the purposes of extremist recruiting, you can break an idea down into its political manifestation. It's scriptural perspective as well and a rational perspective. So let me, 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 now fudge with the election. All of this is coming out, the whole J6 stuff, it's all been a theater, but I think that's by now, it's how many people fall for it.

How are people falling for it? Well, because people are in their echo chambers, but let me just, because your question, you've asked it twice, let me go to a bit of detail on that, and then clearly we've 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, our ideological warfare angle, is easy to politically attack democracy. What I mean by the political attack, is you take this idea, 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, you know, 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 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 dohid, or the belief in the oneness of the source of Allah. And so what Sayyid Qutab did in Myelostone, the book that you just showed on screen,

is to take this idea of Dohid 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 Moldudi, he was the founder of Jamati Islam in the Indian subcontinent, And Malduri was followed then by people like,

say, Guttub and milestones. And Nabahani, who was the founder of his Bataheri of the group that I joined. But Malduri was one of the first to make this point, the idea that passages such as in Ilhukmah, Ilhallillah in the Quran, which means the Hukum is for non-Bat Allah. Now, the word Hukam here could mean judgment

in the arbitration sense, or it could mean rule in the theocracy sense, yeah, as in law. Now what the modern day recruiters would do is take the idea of this as well. You take that passage and say, look, see this, and in the Hukam,

illa lillahi lillahi the rule is for non-but Allah. So these rulers who are ruling with their man-made dictatorial laws are challenged, 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 polyphism is seen as the biggest anathema to dohid or the oneness of Allah, right? 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, yeah, is a modern idea. It doesn't exist in traditional scripture. The word state in Arabic is dola.

If you were to take a computer to scan the entire, all Islamic scripture to look for the word dola 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 dola in the sense of the rotation of money and debt. But there's no such word as dola or, for example, nvan, which means system or constitution, which means distort 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 that these passages like in ilhokma ilil al-Ada 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 interwar,

I say, interwar European ideas onto traditional Islamic scripture to extract from that apolitical ideology. So that's the scripture 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, when Demos crashes the idea of the Greeks, the slaves couldn't vote. Who gets to decide what you vote for, what you, 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 that 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 guide that can give the best argument? How much of it is in the guide that has the money? In the sense of what I'm saying, yeah, it's actually more than that. It's what the circumstances are conducive to.

So if you take it up, for example, it was a no brainer, take Africanistan. It's a no brainer that the jihadists are gonna win the argument there. I'm not gonna win an argument if you've got occupation forces. Yeah. It's just, it's, I can be, 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 anti-mionic 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. I mean, instead, I got sacked. Right? I mean, it landed in the sense, obviously, the argument in the end, one, 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 in under occupation, you're not going to listen to the magids or the my brothers that work with me on this kind of stuff because that 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 Abrahamic courts, 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 try and 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 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, I'm so, I'm so, I gotta give 30% because the guy that, you know, say, I'm going to this church, man, instead of, I'm making 20 grand a month, I gotta give the church 10 grand a month because God's gonna give me. So there are people that are very convincing. People fall forward, right? Okay.

You set 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 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's son was one of them. What were the other two names that were on that list? Rob, it was real. Katsenberg, Katsenberg, Greed 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 gonna 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-grown religion right now on what's gonna be the largest religion in the world, 2035 Muslims are ahead. And it's not even close to where they're grown. You can pull up the stat that says how many per 100 Muslims, per 100 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 birth, 33 are Christians, 31 are Muslims, okay. But per 100 that die, 37 are Christians, only 21 are Muslims. It's a much younger demographic.

It's a much younger demographic. So by 2035, it's gonna be a very different thing. So why do you think the religion, the Muslim, what argument does it have that's spreading the way it is today, where it's grown 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 wanna 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, Abdel 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 eat, in Mubarak everyone, and the reason there were some was in celebrating on a Friday and someone a Saturday is because Saudi declared eat by citing the moon for Shawal on Thursday night. But other countries around the world, Nigeria, Pakistan included in Indonesia, Malaysia,

others, they said, we don't have to follow Saudi Arabia. Now, the reason I give that example, and they said, we've 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. But they don't realize they have more in common with Catholicism than they do with traditional Islam in that sense. they're attempting to reverse engineer a church in Islam.

But they don't realize they have more in common with Catholicism than they do with traditional Islam in that sense. The idea of the theocracy is entirely alien to Islamic tradition. I'll give 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 hookam actually means arbitration, that earlier passage I was citing in it doesn't mean rule, it means judgment, in other words arbitration.

Hookham. Yeah. You can voluntarily go for your own arbitration. So you could choose a Christian, I could choose a Muslim, and that millet 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. 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 millet, 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 a established church,

the faith is inherently a faith of the people and anti-establishment in the good sense of that word, a libertarian, in the 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, they 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 these limits 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. If you look at technology 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 your 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'll take it. You've seen that last 10 years. That's right. That's where our data becomes so valuable. Entrack you, too, magic. Exactly where you are. What time you're going to be there. Why is all that relevant to the point I was making and I answered to your question? Because what that really means is that we've got to re-evaluate a society's 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 relationism is 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 through 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, I have a conversation with human beings in a sacred place, look at people in the eye and talk to them face to face. I deliberately threw the entire Ramadan left this thing at home because that, 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 at faith tradition recognizes that it's the human relationships that are important. And I think that's one of the most appealing things about it.