Piers Morgan Uncensored - "Calling Me Names Is NOT Gonna Stop Me!" Tucker Carlson on Ted Cruz, Trump, Israel & 9/11

Episode Date: September 8, 2025

The biggest dividing line in politics is arguably no longer right or left but to do with trust. There are those who broadly trust our institutions and our experts, and increasingly others who don’t trust any of these things, suspecting a ‘deep state’, a swamp, and a cabal of vested interests which are anything but ‘America First.’ That dividing line explains a lot about MAGA’s division on everything from the Epstein Files to US support for Israel’s war - and the decision to bomb Iran. And this week marks 24 years since 9/11 - the deadliest terrorist attack in US history. Tucker Carlson is about to release a documentary series with the tantalising tagline: “It’s time Americans learned what actually happened.” He joins Piers Morgan to tell us more about his theories and also lifts the lid on whether he apologised to Donald Trump over his comments on the Middle East. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Birch Gold: Visit https://birchgold.com/piers to get your free info kit on gold. Oxford Natural: To watch their full stories, scan the QR code on your screen or visit https://oxfordnatural.com/piers/ to get 70% off your first order when you use code PIERS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The official story on 9-11 is a complete lie. The point was to leverage the pain and outrage of that day and use it to convince Americans that we ought to invade Iraq. I'm not alleging that they committed 9-11, but I am stating, because it's a fact, that they were aware the hijackers were in the U.S., even right now as we speak the CIA, is effectively refusing to release information that they have from 24 years ago. They should be forced at gunpoint to devise. I'm not an anti-Semite, obviously, I'm not even anti-Israel, and you're calling me names is not going to stop me because I don't have to take orders from you about what I'm allowed to know or not know because it's my country.

So don't tell me that the greatest threat we face is Iran. That's a lie. It's not an endorsement of Iran, okay? Doesn't make me a simp for the Shiites. President Trump told reporters at the time that you had called him and apologized. Is that true? The biggest dividing line in politics is arguably no longer right or left. Instead, it's a lot to do with trust. There are those who broadly trust our institutions and our experts and who generally believe in the stories and the mythologies about our history and the events which define it. On the other side of the people who increasingly don't trust any of these things,

they see a deep state, a swamp and a cabal of vested interests for anything but America first. That dividing line explains a lot about MAGA's division on everything from the Epstein Files U.S. support for Israel's war and the decision of bomb Iran. This week marks 24 years since 9-11, the deadliest terrorist attack in American history. For most of those 24 years, there's been no real dividing line over how most Americans interpret the horrific events of the day itself.

But Tucker Carson's about to release a documentary series with the tantalizing tagline, it's time Americans learned what actually happened. And Tucker Carson, founder of the Tucker Carson Network, joins me now. Tucker, welcome back to Uncensored. Thank you, Pierce. Thanks for having me. You're looking very sprightly, if I may say so. Thank you. I think your intro is, you make a smart point that it is about trust.

It's not a classic partisan division. And I'm really struck we spent the last four months looking into 9-11, reassessing the explanations we were given by the government for 9-11. And one of the things that really struck me was the viciousness with which anyone who questioned it, certainly in the first several years, was treated with. They were dismissed as crazy. By the way, I participated in that.

I attacked people who questioned 9-11, so I'm very culpable there. But there's a very simple way to dispel conspiracy theories to make people with dumb ideas look foolish, and that's by disclosing what actually happened. It's by telling the truth. It's through transparency that you gain trust.

It's not, I mean, if your children, if you ask your children, where are you asking you? I'm not going to tell you. Does that engender trust? Of course not. it destroys it. And so there's also a sense in which it's outrageous

that the US government could presume to hide from the people who own the country, the citizens, the truth about an event that changed the nation more than any other in our lifetimes, any since the Civil War. It's a completely different country since 9-11. Millions of people died in the aftermath of 9-11. And so what exactly is the justification

for not telling us what happened that day? And they haven't, period. Well, let me play a trailer from the series. Let's take a look at this. The official story on 9-11 is a complete lie. The 9-11 report is a joke. You have the CIA following two men all over the planet and eventually even to America, right? And you don't tell the FBI.

9-11 commission covered. So what did happen? What did the government know? What did foreign governments know? There was a cover-up. Why? It's been nearly 25 years in this time Americans learned what actually happened. It's a great trailer.

What to you, though, Tucker, are the biggest lies perpetrated on the American people from 9-11? Well, the core lie is the 9-11 Commission itself, which was an instrument, a political instrument of the Bush administration run by a guy called Philip Zelikow. And from beginning to end, he staged-managed the explanation for 9-11 in a way that benefited the neo-conservative faction, within the Bush administration. The point was to leverage the pain and outrage of that day and use it to convince Americans that we ought to invade Iraq, which of course had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11. And he wrote the commission report with that in mind.

And by the way, he wrote it before the investigation took place. He literally sketched it out before they knew what the facts were. And then during the course of the investigation, he's systematically, I'm not guessing, by the way, this is not a conspiracy theory. This is the testimony of people who are directed. directly involved in the commissioning chairman Tom Kane, the former governor of New Jersey, Republican governor, he staged managed the entire thing and prevented investigators from looking into like core questions. For example, the CIA was fully aware that many of the hijackers

who committed 9-11 were in the United States. They had followed them, as the trailer suggests, around the world. 11 out of the 19 hijackers had visas for travel to the United States issued in of Saudi Arabia at exactly the moment that John Brennan was the station chief for the CIA in Saudi Arabia. They knew that they were here. They didn't hide the fact that they were here. I mean, Khalid al-Madhar, who was a 26-year-old Saudi, the plane that hit the Pentagon, was in the San Diego phone book. And he was being followed by the CIA. I mean, this is all documented, and not just by the CIA, by foreign intel services, probably the British, possibly the French, definitely the Israelis. They knew.

Now, I'm not alleging that they committed 9-11, but I am stating, because it's a fact, that they were aware the hijackers were in the U.S. and were planning a terror attack against the United States, and they never passed an information to the FBI, to local police, much less to the American public, and 3,000 people died as a result. So what is that? Huge parts of the 9-11 story were left out of the commission report. For example, what happened to Building 7, which was not only not next to the Twin Towers, which are hit by airplanes, but had a building in between itself and those buildings collapsed that afternoon for reasons that no one has been able to explain since. You're not a lunatic for asking. There is no real, there's no plausible explanation for how that building collapsed. That's not even mentioned.

Well, let's talk about that for a moment. Because it's one of the many things that have raged since. If you look into the investigation into Tower 7, the findings of the investigation into it were that the North Tower 7. the findings of the investigation into it were that the north tower, when it came down, had set off a load of fires in Building 7. And it was a steel structure and shouldn't have gone down, but it did, that these fires burned all afternoon,

and I think it was about 5 o'clock in the afternoon or something, the tower eventually gave way to the welter of fires raging inside it. And it was the only time that had happened to a structure that was built in that way. However, there has been another tower very strong, similar to that in structure, which has since gone down in Tehran. So it's no longer the only one. In other words, there is another example of a tower like that collapsing. So when it comes to the specific theory about that, what is the alternative explanation? I mean, if you're examining

another theory other than the one that the investigation concluded was simply that the North Tower came down, fires were set off in Tower 7, and then it eventually collapsed. What is the other theory which we should give more credence to? I don't know that the onus is on me or anyone who seeks the truth about what happened to come up with an alternative theory. The onus is on federal authorities

to explain why, for example, they never investigated it. Why, for example, the rubble and the steel from that building was carted off within hours and sent out of the country to Asia. Why, for example, an analysis done not by cooks, but by chemists, found traces

of explosive material in the dust from that day, why structural engineers who have kind of no skin in this game came to the conclusion that that just couldn't happen based on all available evidence, and that none of that is addressed at all or even mentioned in the 9-11 report. And there are all kinds of anomalies, as I know that you're fully aware, and there are possible explanations to explain all of them, for example, the BBC report on air saying the building had fallen when it hadn't fallen yet. There are all sorts of reasons to wonder, like, what the hell is this? But it's not incumbent on us to provide explanation, it's incumbent on the people running the government and running the supposed

investigation into this to tell us, like, what was that? And they never bothered it. I have a very open mind. The reason I'm interested to watch your documentary series, I have a genuinely open mind. And actually, it's been, I would say it's been more opened generally about this kind of thing since the COVID pandemic. I was too, I think, credulous about what the authorities were saying through the pandemic to my detriment. You and I have had this kind of. conversation. So I'm actually have a very open mind about this. I mean, on the specifics, for example, the BBC report you mentioned was based on a false Reuters report that they retracted soon afterwards and said it shouldn't have gone out. And the building, you can see the

building behind the BBC journal. So it was obviously ludicrous CNN ended the same thing. But I, you know, have you been in the news game as you do, as you have on big breaking news stories, fog of war stuff happens. And if it was a genuine error by Reuters, okay. I remember, for example, just as a comparison, I remember being on air at CNN when the hurricane came through, Hurricane Sandy burst through Manhattan. You were probably at Fox then, I think. But if you remember, half the lights went out

in lower Manhattan. And I remember a report coming from CNN that the stock exchange was underwater, and that had an immediate impact on global markets. And it turned out that was a false report. So these things can happen. U.S. national debt is more than $37 trillion, and these are uncertain ties to the global economy. It's enough to make you think. Maybe now would be a good time to buy some gold.

Whether it's a hedge against inflation, peace of mind during global instability, or just sensible diversification, Birch Gold Group believes that every American should own physical gold, and they created something special. Until the 30th of September, if you're a first-time buyer, Birch Gold is offering. a rebate of up to $10,000 in free metals on qualifying purchases. To start the process, request a free information kit now. Just text Peers, P-I-E-R-S to 989-898. Make right now your first time to buy gold and take advantage of a rebate of up to $10,000 when you buy before the end of September.

Text my name, Pears, to 989-89-898. claim your eligibility and get your free information pack. Again, just text peers to 989-89898. In terms of your overview from everything you've unearthed in a documentary, though, have you unearthed any evidence that there was any suggestion anywhere of an inside job? Or is the stuff that you're talking about in relation to CIA and the fascinating details of these two people in particular they were following? Is that more cock-up than conspiracy?

In other words, was it a gigantic cock-up that after bin Laden had already had one go at the World Trade Center, that there was just not a collective effort by the CIA, by FBI, by other intelligence agencies around the world, to stop him succeeding with a second attempt? So is it cock-up, or do you think there is merit to suggestion that some people somewhere must have known more than we've been told? Well, we know that people did know more than we've been told. I mean, somebody shorted the airlines and a bunch of the banks that were affected. Now, this is not a conspiracy theory. It's not a guess.

This is publicly available information. Now, the FBI found out the identity of the person or institution that shorted these events on 9-11 and made a huge amount of money by doing that, but never released that information. So why can't we know who clearly had foreknowledge? I mean, if you're shorting American Airlines a week before 9-11, when no one would, knows it's coming, I think you should have to explain why you did that. And if you're shorting Barclays and banks that were affected by 9-11, why can't we know who you are? These are public markets, by the way. This is not private equity. This is publicly traded equities.

So I wonder about that. So clearly, yes, there was foreknowledge. By the way, there was a team, this is according to the FBI, by the way. This is the FBI saying there was a team of clearly intel-connected foreigners who were arrested after 9-11, as you well know, videotaping the terror attacks. I'm almost verbatim quoting from the FBI assessment of this. And the FBI determined that they apparently had four knowledge of the attacks. So why can't we know more about that exactly? Shut up! That's bigoted. No, this is my country, actually. I know people who died on 9-11. Everything was changed because of it. I promptly went off.

to the Middle East, just like everyone else in our business. I'm sure you did as well. And then we lost our civil liberties at home. We immediately started torturing people and locking up people for years. They are still locked up in Guantanamo Bay with no charges at all. And the rest of us, very much me included, nodded our heads. They're like, yeah, they're bad. They're Muslim terrorists. Now, I think a lot of them were bad, and they were Muslim terrorists. On the other hand, if your government is allowed to torture people and lock them up indefinitely without charging them, how long before they do that to you? We don't do that here.

I know it's very common in the UK now, which is an authoritarian country. We don't want that here. And 9-11 dramatically changed our assumptions about what the government is allowed to do. And by the way, I should say, the main beneficiary in the United States of those attacks was the CIA,

which allowed them to happen. So the CIA budget became more than doubled. Of course, we're not allowed to know what the CIA budget is, even in government. This is a fact, by the way. If you ask a high-level official at the White House currently, what's the CIA's full budget? They can't tell you.

It is a secret that is so closely guarded that even people in charge of administering the government don't know what their budget is. But from what we can tell, it's more than twice what it was before 9-11. Okay. But what you're suggesting with your phraseology about that is that the CIA were part of a kind of inside-track knowledge about what may happen, which is obviously an incredibly serious charge. No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm not suggesting that. I'm stating the facts, which are that the CIA was fully aware that many of these hijackers were here, that those visas were issued in a country with which we have very close security service cooperation at a time when John Brennan was running a station there. But that's different to saying that they knew what was going to happen. Well, they actually did know that these people were planning a terror attack because they surveilled a meeting planning it, Qualimpoor Malaysia a year before and then followed the guy as he came to the United States

and arrived in San Diego for flight training. So again, I'm not guessing about any of this. These are established facts. There's no person including then CIA director George Tenant who would deny this. They'll say, oh, you're a conspiracy theorist. Okay, fine, whatever. Attack my character, as you will. But tell me how I'm wrong. And of course, I'm not wrong. So I'm not alleging or suggesting anything. I'm not saying you're right or wrong or anything. All I'm saying is that from everything you're saying, it is a leap. It is a leap.

There is a demonstrable difference. I would argue, and by all means, push back on this, but I would argue that there's a demonstrable leap between knowledge of bad people moving around and maybe monitoring them and aware they may be up to bad things, but actually having coherent, clear knowledge

in advance that they were planning the attack, using planes on the World Trade Center. I understand. I understand. You're saying that intent matters. Of course, I would not dispute that. Intent does matter. It matters under the law and it matters morally. Did you mean to do it? Yes, that matters. However, it doesn't matter as much as we pretend that it does. If I pull up to a casino and leave my toddler in the back of the car with the windows up and just kind of forget and the kid dies, do you say, oh, you didn't mean to kill your own child? No, you'd say through your negligence, your child died. It's a, it's a murder. Now, it's not a first degree murder, but it's certainly at least a manslaughter. It's certainly severe negligence. I agree with that. We know. I do. And I do. And I'm a very. And I do. And I'm. I I agree with you. That is a kind of murder. Yeah, listen, I don't think there's any doubt that there was massive negligence when it came to 9-11 happening on the watch of whoever was running the U.S. government at the time, the CIA,

the FBI, all of them. No one can credibly say that what happened was not a catastrophic failure of intelligence. Because I've always assumed there must be some guys at the Pentagon in a room whose only job it is, is to think the unthinkable. And it's not that difficult to think that one day somebody may hijack a plane and use it as a weapon, right? It's not that. When you've got fundamentally prepared to kill themselves as they kill people, doing it using a plane did not seem to me to be that unthinkable. And yet nobody seemed to have thought that through.

Well, the U.S. government had wargamed that. Of course. Look, I mean, that was, of course, a possibility in the minds of the people whose job it is to protect the United States from it happening. They wargamed that. they took bin Laden very seriously. We interviewed members of the Bin Laden Station, CIA Bin Laden Station, who I think are patriotic, decent people

who really wanted to prevent a terror attack. But there are also elements of the CIA, which is not act as, you know, a coherent body. It's a vast, sprawling organization. There's not a single person at CIA who understands everything that's happening at CIA at any given time because it's compartmentalized. That's the nature of it.

And so there were people at CIA, and I would say John Brennan, clearly one of them, who understood that these, These terrorists, these hijackers, planned to commit violence against Americans in the United States, and they did nothing about it. Now, you can draw your own conclusions about that. In fact, they abetted it. They helped the hijackers get here. Fact. And so you can argue about why, but the truth is it's incumbent on them to tell us why. We had a fake investigation. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Philip Zellico participated in hiding the truth from the public.

Again, I voted for them. I'm not, it's not a partisan point. That is the fact we know it now. And why isn't there a 9-11, an actual 9-11 commission dedicated to finding out what happened? And the truth is, not only is there not, but even right now as we speak, the CIA, is effectively refusing to release information that they have from 24 years ago. And why? What is the answer?

I don't know, but they should be forced at gunpoint to divulge this. Well, it reminds me of the JFK files, of the RFK files, of the Martin Luther King files, of the Epstein files. Time and again, we are led to believe we're all going to find out exactly what went on, and then we don't. So there is clearly behind the scenes at high levels of the government machinery, a concerted effort. And there has been for many, many decades, to prevent the American people. And the wider world, but the American people, I think, from knowing the full story about any of those things. Today's show is brought to you by Oxford Natural, makers of the optimum day and optimum night, all natural supplements. Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them with incredible results.

Optimum day is designed to boost your energy and support weight loss throughout the day. Optimum night helps you relax and get deep, refreshing sleep. And don't just take their word for it. Here are just a few of their success stories. England football legend. Michael Owen lost £40. Robbie, the face of AFTV, dropped over £100. Linda, a top Laurel firm executive, lost £50.

And Anita, an immigration lawyer, shed £60. To watch their full stories and find out more, scan the QR code on your screen or visit Oxfordnatural.com slash peers. And here's the best part. Use the code peers, P-I-E-R-S, and get 70. 50% off your first order. You're 70% off with the promo code peers. Well, especially in the case of the Kennedy files,

which have been the subject of a bunch of federal laws passed by Congress, that demand disclosure. The president, current president on January 23rd, issued an executive order saying, release it all, and they haven't. So why is that? Is it to protect the CIA, actually? Who was the CIA director in 1963, John McCone? How many people know that?

How many people care? Nobody? So is it to really? protect an agency, you know, 60-odd years later? I don't think it is. Or maybe it is. I don't know. All I know, and this is a statement of fact, that they are not releasing relevant information that pertains to that event. Yeah, I agree with you. The murder of the sitting U.S. president. Yeah. And by the way, a whole lot of other things. I mean, the UAP, I mean, you can just go on forever.

And the cumulative effect bears on what you said in your smart intro, I think, which is that at a certain point, people understand it's not a democracy, that people do not rule. of no relevant input into how the government operates. It's not operating for their benefit. And they either become one of two things. Sinical and resigned, non-participatory, I give up, give me some fentanyl, or they become revolutionary. And both are really bad. Both make a stable future impossible. And so the only remedy is disclosure. And I have to say at this point, because they've been so resistant to it, I don't know why we have a CIA. It's the most important, significant player in single significant player in global affairs. It's not controlled by anybody.

It's not democratically controlled. Again, we don't know the budget. And that fact alone prevents this country from being a real place. So why do we have it? You could certainly, we need intel gathering, of course. You need some sort of probably paramilitary force, I guess. You could have that. We have a DOD. Why is it run out of CIA? Why does that still exist? And no one is willing to answer that question because they're afraid. And the truth is, if the president of the United States is murdered and everyone believes that the CI played a role in it, probably lots of players there, but CIA was clearly one of them. The counterintel division clearly played a role and lied about it. Then every subsequent U.S. president lives with that hanging over his head. Well, also, we've had, we've had guardrails. You cross over them and you could get killed. Right. Well, I mean, we've had with Donald Trump. There were two attempts on his life in the run up to the last election. That's correct. One was this young kid who appeared to have absolutely. nothing on his files whatsoever.

We seem to know nothing about this person. He just somehow existed in a total vacuum of any information. And the second guy, a few weeks later, was able to sit in a bush for 12 hours preparing to assassinate Donald Trump if he'd walked up about 500 yards up a golf course to where he was waiting by one of the Greens. And I found that deeply unsettling

because he would have thought that Trump by then would be the most protected human being in history, having just survived an assassination attempt. Both of those cases raise all sorts of questions which we just don't know the answers to. And that's happened in the last year. I don't know. And I'm, you know, I can't say this definitively, but my strong impression is that, you know, people at the top levels of government don't know the answers, right?

So that, including Donald Trump, I say. A pretty, I think that's right. But, you know, I don't know. but the picture that emerges is very clear and everyone can see it, which is a government that is not controlled by the voters or even the people the voters elect to control the government. It's controlled independently by the people who staff it and other aligned interests, not all of them American.

So that is not a picture of democracy or even of oligarchy. It's a picture of something much darker than that. And people who point that out are roundly attacked and criticized and their children are attacked. I mean, you know, anyone who's done. and this knows the consequences of doing it, but it doesn't make it any less true, actually. You can attack me all you want, don't really care.

Why don't you answer the question, how does this work? And why can't I know? And if I can't know, who has greater authority than I do as a taxpayer and a citizen? What you're really revealing is that the system itself is utterly fake. Okay, I guess everyone knows that now, but what are the consequences of knowing that?

The consequences of knowing that are dire and scary. And so I think at this very late date, we should try to fix it. And the only way to fix it is by telling people the truth and reading them in, as they say in Washington, read me in to what my government is doing with my money and my name. And if you won't do that, then at a certain point, like, how is it not justified to try to replace the government? Like, that actually is tyranny. What's the other definition of tyranny? I don't, you know, like, so they're really playing with fire. I don't want revolution.

I can't stand violence, civil war is the worst thing that could ever happen. I'm not calling for any of that. I'm merely saying that's going to happen at some point if they don't make good on the core promise, which is it's your country, it exists for your benefit, you have a right to know relevant things, you can't just be dismissed with the back of the hand and called names. Keep that shit up and, you know, it will get really ugly. In your series, do you dispel? some of the madder conspiracy theories.

And I'll give an example, which you may or may not agree with me as mad, but there's been a raging conspiracy theory ignited again by what's happened in Gaza that Israel was somehow implicated in 9-11. It was in their interests for that to happen because then it would lead rage against all their enemies in the Middle East and so on. And yet, of course, if you look at the people who died, at least, I think, 110 or more people who died, that day were known to be Jewish.

It is estimated maybe another 80 were Jewish, which meant that about 10% of all the victims that day were likely to have been Jewish, which would seem to dispel the suggestion this was some Jewish thing that they had been involved with. But do you tackle that kind of conspiracy theory in the series? In other words, as well as exploring stuff that you think needs to be highlighted and expose

and we need to know more about, do you also dispel stuff, which has been allowed to rage around for maybe 25 years now and kill that off? Well, it hasn't so much been allowed. It's actually been greatly discouraged. I don't repeat every theory about it. They're endless. And I don't really see the point in elevating things that, you know, we can't know are true. I would say the effect on me was to make me more suspicious, actually. And again, we didn't interview people who gather their information about 9-11 from the internet, we interviewed only people who are directly involved in the events and the subsequent events. So government officials, it was almost exclusively government officials.

And during the course of that experience, I became more prone to believe that this is really, really bad. This is super bad. And as to the question, you asked specifically about Israel, no, of course I didn't allege that, you know, the Jews did it. I don't even know what that means. I think, in fact, saying things like that as a way to discredit real questions. Like, we know, I mean, Benjamin Net Yahoo, on camera right after, said this is a good thing

because it brings the United States into a conflict that we've been involved in on an existential level for decades. I mean, he said that out loud. I'm not guessing you can pull the tape. We know that a group of Israeli art students who clearly were not art students, clearly some of them were aligned with Israeli intelligence, were arrested and held for quite some time in the United States before being released without charges. we know that a group of them, again, I'm quoting an FBI document here, not the internet, filmed the attacks on 9-11, and I'm quoting, seemed to have foreknowledge of those attacks.

Now, you were not allowed to follow up in any of this. Fox News did a series with Britt Hume and Carl Cameron, which many people have seen in a bootleg version on the internet, but they did it like within weeks saying, what is this? There was an Israeli spy ring in the United States, and they clearly knew 9-11 was coming. This is Fox News. They pulled that under pressure. They pulled that off the internet. It's not searchable in any Fox News archive, but they, aired it. I know the people who did it. Of course, I worked with them for years. They're real people. They're not crazy. In fact, they're pro-Israel, but they had a fact set before them, and they reported it, which is called journalism. And subsequent generations have been forbidden from noting what is now

factually true. Those are factually true statements. Now, we tried to interview some of those people. One lives in the United States in California and made no headway whatsoever. And we knew as we did it, by the way, that we're going to be attacked as anti-Semites or something. Oh, and welcome. We'll be giving some breaking news. Woke is dead. The war on common sense is officially over. Cancelled celebrities are emerging from Twitter jail.

Virtue signaling has been outlawed under punishment of mass ridicule. And we are finally free to call a spade a spade. So what was the cause of death? How did the silence majority finally win? And what exactly is going to take its place? Woke is dead, is my definitive story. on the rise and fall of woke, as well as the common sense heroes and PC villains

who have dominated news and culture across 10 years of madness. It's also my personal roadmap back to a less divided world. A world where we can agree to disagree, where debate triumphs over censorship and where common sense is king. You will be shocked by how much you agree with me. I'm not an anti-Semite, obviously.

I'm not even anti-Israel on some principle level. I'm an American, and I think it's not only fair, but my moral obligation to find out what the hell was this. And you're calling me names is not going to stop me because I've been here my whole life. And my family's been here a long time. I don't have to take orders from you about what I'm allowed to know or not know because it's my country. That's the kind of democratic spirit that informed this country my entire life until 9-11, after which it became a thought crime to ask obvious questions. And I'm just not going to play along, period. Where do you think we are, Tucker, with the various things that have happens,

as you and I last spoke in Riyadh, actually, for a really interesting double-headed chat. But in particular, what happened with Iran, where Donald Trump decided to attack Iran? What did you feel about that? Given that it ended so apparently quickly, do you think Trump was vindicated in his short, sharp strategy there by bombing Iran? or do you think that this will come back and haunt him down the line? Well, of course I can't say. I mean, my life is a kind of unbroken chain of bad predictions and, you know, embarrassing analysis. And I've been wrong so many times and I will be in the future without question.

However, it's just a fact that, you know, events have consequences that we can't foresee often for years or generations. And I think it's very unwise to use military force. without a clear, achievable objective that serves the American national interest. In fact, it's not allowed to use it under any other circumstances. And in that case, I was concerned and remain concerned that this focus on Iran is not actually connected to our national security. How many Shiite terror attacks have there been in the United States in my lifetime? Let me do the math. Zero.

So don't tell me that the greatest threat we face is Iran. That's a lie. You're telling it on behalf of a foreign power. maybe they feel the greatest threat they face is Iran. It's not the greatest threat we face. It's not an endorsement of Iran, okay? Doesn't make me a simp for the Shiites. It just makes me an American who's trying to think clearly about what our problems are.

And our problems would include tens of millions of foreign nationals living illegally in my country. Nobody knows their identities. They would include a collapsing economy that makes it very hard for my children to have children and live the life that they grew up with and their friends and all American kids. It would include a drug crisis that's killed millions of Americans. over the past millions of Americans over the last 20 years. Iran is not even in the top 10 list. So you can scream at me all you want and call me names and call me a bigot or whatever,

but there's no evidence to support that. And so if the energy of the U.S. government is focused on a threat that's not the primary threat to us, it is by definition ignoring threats that are. And that's a kind of negligence. And so I pointed that out. I was, you know, roundly attacked. My family was attacked. Whatever.

I don't care. It's true. and everyone kind of knows it's true. And being bullied by Ben Shapiro into pretending that it's not true, it's just not on the program for me at 56. I'm just not doing that anymore. President Trump told reporters at the time that you had called him and apologized

after you disagreed with the Israeli strikes on Iran. Is that true? I am a champion apologizer. I really believe in apologies. I have a lot to apologize for. I always have. We all do. I certainly do.

But I also think that, you know, you shouldn't proffer a false apology. You should apologize for things that you did wrong. You know, and I didn't do anything wrong there. And I wasn't attacking anybody. I wasn't attacking any. I wasn't attacking Israel. I wasn't attacking.

I was merely saying, in my capacity as someone with strong opinions, I think this is an unwise course. And I still think that. It's not an attack on Trump, who I voted for and campaigned for and really like. It's my view. And so that's not something I would apologize. for because it wasn't wrong. It was my duty and I still believe it.

So that seems to be a clear repudiation of what he said. You did not call him to apologize. No, it's not that. It's just that, look, I said what I said, which wasn't, you know, very complex or sophisticated. It certainly wasn't hate-filled. I don't think this is a wise course. I would never apologize for that because I believe it.

you know, I will just be totally honest with you and say, I'm kind of an unpleasant person when I get mad. And like if I'm ever rude, which I often have been to people, that is worth apologizing for. And I'm sorry. I want to preemptively apologize for being a jerk because I often am. So I would definitely apologize that. To answer your question, I don't really remember the conversation, but whatever.

Could it have been, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but could it have been you apologize perhaps for the tone of the way you had criticized what Trump had done rather than apologize for your view of what he did? Yeah, I mean, if I, I have no idea, if being as honest as I can be, I have no idea if I actually did that, but if I haven't done that, let me do it now.

I apologize to him and everyone else I've snapped at or been mean to, even poor Ted Cruz, who, you know, I don't think it's the most evil, and he's just controlled by a foreign power. I feel sorry for him. He's, like, kind of desperate and wants money or whatever his motive is, but I don't, I was rude to him and I'm sorry.

I'm just that way. People in my family have pointed that out. When I get mad, I get snappy and cutting. I went to boarding school as a kid. They inculcate that in you, the cruelty of the dorm. And I've been fighting against my whole life, so I'm just, I'm sorry for being that way.

You know, when I, when we had our, you know, I thought highly entertaining ding-dong in the desert in Saudi Arabia, I enjoyed it. I like people who give it full throttle. I like people who challenge me. I like people who take me on. I like people who can be a bit snappy. But that's why I've never been mad at you in my life.

Yes. I know you do. We have exactly the same personality that way. So I would never be snappy with you because you always, while you're, I think your views are sincere, you always retain some distance from yourself and from your views and a sense of humor. And kind of like, I would never, and you do this for a living and you debate for a living. And so I'm not triggered by it. But it's the self-seriousness.

It's the self-righteousness of a toad like Ted Cruz that just sets me off. Oh, well, I was elected to the Senate to fight for Israel. And it's like, what? And shut up, anti-Semite. It's like, okay, if you respond to a totally obvious, legitimate question by attacking a man's character, you earn my contempt. You don't behave like that at all. You're like, okay, we have different views. That's all right.

You don't trigger me. You mentioned Ted Cruz. you did raise some eyebrows this week when you said that Hamas is more like a political organization than a terror group. That was on the new episode of your show when you were talking. I didn't actually, I didn't say that. And I said that is Hamas a jihadi group? We'll play the clip and I'll tell you what Ted Cruz say. I'd like your response to you.

Please do. Here's a clip. No one can plausibly claim that a Christian family, you're in Hamas. Okay? So like what, tell me, you can't claim that they're in Hamas while simultaneously claiming

that Hamas is a, you know, group of jihadis. They're Islamic extremists, which they also claim constantly, which I don't, I don't know if that's true, by the way. It seems more like a political organization,

but whatever it is, they're telling us constantly they're Al-Qaeda. So it can't also be true that Christians are a member of Al-Qaeda. Sorry. Yeah, yeah. So then we know they're not in Hamas, so why did they get killed?

Why was their church blown up? Why were they killed them on hospital. Like, what is this? So when you said there, Tucker, you said in passing there, you weren't making a different point, but you did say in passing there, they seem more like a political organization. What did you mean by that? No, I said you can't claim, first of all, the core of it is why is Israel killing Christians? Yeah. Who fund it. Americans fund Israel, fund the IDF. They wouldn't, none of this would be possible without the United States and Christians in the United States. So they don't get to kill Christians. They don't get to block access to Christian

holy sites. They don't get to, they don't get to allow people to spit on Christian clergy, and they definitely don't get permission from the country that funds them to blow up churches or Christian hospitals. And yet they have a lot. So what the hell is that? And that's my point. And in response, and I've asked that, not as a hater of Israel, but as a Christian. So I've asked that pretty persistently for the last few years. I've really been attacked for it, but so what? And the response is, well, they're not actually, you know, they're in Hamas. And so my question Well, you're telling me simultaneously that Hamas is a religious group.

They're Islamic extremists, but they also have Christian members? Like, how does that work? It doesn't make any sense at all. That was my point. I'm not endorsing Hamas. I didn't say they're not a terror group. That's a freaking lie.

I said, if you're telling me they're a jihadi group, they're political extremist groups, by the way. Fatah, there were tons of Arab political terror groups that were secular, have Christians in them, by the way, a lot of Christians who were displaced in 1948 and they were radical or whatever. But they're, do you see what I'm saying? There's like a childish internal contradiction there that, and now they don't want to deal with it, so it's like, shut up Hamas support. I think what got people go. You stop killing Christians. You're not allowed to do

that. I understood the bigger point. What is that? What's the justification for that? I understood the bigger point you were making, like I said. I'm a Christian. I don't have to put up with this anymore. I don't have to sit back and be like, and all these Christian ministers in the United States are like, oh, shut up. We can't complain about a government that we fund killing Christians. I don't know who's writing the rules here, but I'm not obeying them. I'm not attacking Israel. I'm not an anti-Semite. You don't get to kill Christians who have nothing to do with this. It's the world's only religion that is not only nonviolent, but considers retaliation a sin. Turn the other cheek. That's the religion. So why are you killing these people? Why do you give me a straight answer?

And calling me names is not going to determine me. I understand the bigger point you made. But like I said, you definitely said in passing that they seem more like a political organization. So do you want to clarify what you meant by that bit? I'm saying a funded by Israel political association, by the way. Hamas was funded by Israel to some extent. It's not a controversial statement.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's an established fact by the current prime. minister, took money, gave it to Maas. I meant what I said, which is they are either, I'm not questioning whether they've committed violence. They have. I'm opposed to that. I'm opposed to all violence, period. And I'm opposed to Hamas violence. I'm opposed to killing people. The question is, if you are telling me that they are inspired to kill because of their religious ideology, that is a different thing from people who are inspired to kill by their political ideology. Because if it's political, you can imagine an alliance with Christians. If it is a religious

motivation, it is impossible to imagine, as I said in that clip, Christian accomplices. There weren't a lot of Christians supporting al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda was explicitly anti-Christian. So was ISIS. Fatah, which was, again, a radical or violence-prone Palestinian political organization, had Christian support. So which is it? That's it. That's a radical. my point. I was calling into question their lack of a coherent explanation for why Christians are being killed in a conflict that, from my perspective, doesn't seem to have anything to do with that. So why are you desecrating churches? Do you view Hamas as a terrorist organization, as they've been prescribed in many countries, including the U.S.? I view Hamas killing people,

especially civilians, as horrifying, immoral and wrong. And if you think you're going to get me in to some semantic game about who's a terrorist and who's not a terrorist, killing people who committed no crime is wrong, period. That's the basis of Christian belief. It's the basis of Western civilization. Dropping bombs on people who did nothing wrong is a crime, period. That is why we say we are better than the terrorists, because we don't kill people who did nothing wrong.

And by definition, children haven't done anything wrong. So you were not allowed to kill them. And now there's an entire network of, not a television network, but a loosely aligned network, arguing that it's somehow wrong to say it's immoral to kill children. And I think it's immoral to kill children no matter who kills the children, whether it's the government of the United States, the government of Sri Lanka, the government of Belgium, the government of Israel, Hamas. It doesn't matter.

It is immoral to kill people who haven't done anything wrong. That's why Hiroshima is a problem. That's why I've complained about Hiroshima. That's why the Nazis were bad. That's why everybody who murders innocence is wrong. And when did that become controversial? Like I said, I articulated that and was immediately attacked by all these, you know, people on the so-called right. I was like, then what is the whole point?

What is the point of living here or having this country if we endorse murdering people who committed no crime? how are we better than the people we supposedly hate? You can't get an answer. Oh, you're a radical jihadi. No, actually, I'm a Protestant Christian who hates radical jihadis. Like, I don't even know what you're talking about. Anyway, that's it. That's the distinction.

And by the way, the designation of terrorism grows from that understanding, which was a common understanding before 9-11. If you kill people intentionally who've committed no crime, you are the criminal. And who does that? Terrorists. That's why we call them terrorists. So I'm happy to call anyone who does that a terrorist. That's my definition. That was our working definition before 9-11.

And then it just became the people our political class doesn't like. And I was called a terrorist yesterday. You're a terrorist. Okay. Because I espouse nonviolence, which is the basis. It's the basis of Western civilization that you punish only the guilty? I'm trying to work out. I'm trying to work out.

Do you actually think then that Hamas are terrorists or I think any organization that kills the innocent, including Hamas, is a terror organization. What I object to, and I just want to be as clear as I possibly can, what I object to is the proceeding with the conversation without the defining of terms. The purpose of language is to convey specific ideas. And so in order to have a conversation, you have to define what you're talking about. If I were to throw a couple Korean terms in and refuse to tell you what they mean, we couldn't have a conversation. because you don't speak Korean. And so I want to define terrorism,

and I'm going to do it very precisely. Terrorism is the act of murdering the innocent. If you murder the innocent, you are engaged in terrorism. And that would include, in specific cases I can think of, Hamas, which has murdered the innocent, people at a music festival? I mean, what? That is terrorism.

Anybody who murders people who committed no crime is committing terrorism. Does that include... Does that include... Does that include... It includes anybody. Does that include Israel? It includes anybody. By the way, let me just say, it's so funny, does that include Israel? It includes people I know personally in the United States.

I know a lot of people who have okayed the order. I know in some cases people who participated in carrying out the order to murder people who committed no crime. Does that mean they're terrorists? I don't know. I'll let God figure out what that means. it means they're committing acts of terror. That is terrorism, because the point of it is not to punish the guilty. The point of it is to inspire fear.

The point of it is to depopulate a place, move a population, whatever the point of it is. The effect of it is to punish people who've committed no crime. And in our system, the Western system, which is very distinct from the Eastern system, very distinct, and it's distinct on this one precise point, we believe, and have always believed, since this country was added since your country became, you know, not a pure monarchy, but even when it was a pure monarchy, the belief in the West, because of Christianity was the worst thing you can do is punish the innocent. That's the worst thing you can do. That's worse than not punishing the guilty. And we often said that to each other. We no longer say that because there is a pretty concerted

effort to blur the meaning of these terms. But I'm not going to be deterred from defining words precisely. Terror is murdering people, killing people, punishing people who committed no crime, period. So when the Israeli government says it has repeatedly that even though over 20,000 completely innocent children are believed to have died in their response to what Hamas did on October the 7th, at the hands of the IDF, there are many on the pro-Palestinian side. You say that Israel is behaving like terrorists too in the way that they have gone about conducting this war. Would you go as far as to say that? One of the things that I really object to now is this relentless focus on Israel, which, by the way,

is a foreign country that I have nothing to do with other than having been a visitor there and really enjoyed it. And it's now at the center of the conversation in my country when my country is degrading at high speed. We have a lot of concerns here. I just resent the kind of solipsism that pulls everything back to the concerns of a foreign country. And that's the litmus test for they, well, Israel is Israel bad? How dare you say? that? Are you going to go out on a limb and criticize Israel? What about my country? Every country commits terror because leaders, drunk on hubris, imagine that they can do things that no human being is permitted to do. And first on that list is killing people who didn't do anything wrong.

That is the ultimate sin. And it happens in every country, in every period. Of course, Israel meets that death. I mean, obviously, but so does my government. And not always. And I think we try harder certainly we try harder than Israel is trying, but we have definitely done that, and it's not controversial to say that. It's not controversial to say that things the U.S. government has done have intentionally murdered people

who didn't do anything wrong. People are like, yeah, that's right. But you say that about Benjamin Netanyahu, who has nothing to do with me at all. I don't live there, I don't want to live there, I've got nothing to do with that, then you're somehow a criminal. That whole frame to me is insane,

and I'm not participating. with it. Israel is not the litmus test. How you feel about your own country, what you do to improve or degrade your own country, that's the litmus test for me. Not how you feel about some foreign country, period. Well, let me talk about my country for a moment, because, again, when we

had our double header in Riyadh, you talked a pretty scathing me about the UK and I put up a, I think, a pretty good fist of a defense, but something happened last week that made you think, my God, it made me think, my God, was probably right. And I'll tell you what it was, the tipping point for me, and there's been a lot of this going on. But when a comedian called Graham Linneham returns to the UK and is arrested by five armed police officers at Heathrow Airport over three joke tweets that he posted in April, I literally thought my country had gone berserk and was now when it came to free speech bordering on North Korea.

So Tucker Carlson, I would like to say you were onto something when we spoke in RIA, because it was so shocking to me that in a democratic society like the United Kingdom, built on free speech like the United States, that this could happen. And it just, it did happen. And this guy was taken off to cells, arrested. I mean, quite extraordinary to me. Did you notice when they were arresting people for praying outside of abortion clinics? I mean, I do think the UK, and I say this as,

someone who is half English, I think it's like reached or it is quickly reaching a point where democratic reforms are going to be pretty tough because of the demographic change. And that, of course, the point of importing all these people is to overwhelm the people who live there who disapprove of the program.

So you don't have to care what they think because you just bring in new people and their will becomes like all that matters. And so I don't think you're going to fix these things through elections at some point, pretty soon. And I just worry a place like the UK, Canada is another, a bunch of different countries in the West are at the point where they're like, they're literally revolutionary. They are poised for revolution. And as someone who really doesn't support revolution and hates

violence and hates civil war above all, I'm worried about that. I mean, I don't see how this is fixed. Starmer, who's, you know, he's just an instrument of larger forces, but he's a poisonous character, obviously, who's really hurt your country. He's in there for four more years. And so you wonder, like, people are going to start to get really radical in a scary way. Like, I think this is going to happen.

And the people in charge don't seem to care. Well, you're already seeing it. You are seeing the anger beginning to manifest itself, and I completely understand the anger. I don't like you. I'd abhor any form of violence. But I do understand the anger

when you have, you know, Kirstarland campaign. I'm going to smash the gangs that allow these little boats to come over the channel, delivering tens of thousands of people illegally into the country. And they then get put into these so-called asylum hotels where they're given a pretty good lifestyle. Certainly a far better lifestyle than many people really struggling at the moment in the UK. And of course, far from smashing the gangs, it turned out yesterday, that he's smashing new records for the number of people coming in illegally on the boats. Of course. It's out of control. And the British

The British public are reaching a point and saying, we are done with people coming in illegally and being treated better in a more comfortable and more luxurious manner, then we treat our own people. Well, the whole point is to humiliate and degrade the indigenous population of the British Isles, the white population. I mean, that's the whole point.

And are they really going to do something about it? What would that be exactly? You'd really have to force a lot of people to go back to their countries of origin, millions of people. And you need to do it really soon. and are they actually willing to do that? I don't know, but these are existential questions that we have been browbeat into ignoring for decades, but the question is like, is Ireland Ireland?

If it's majority non-Irish? Oh, shut up, they're Irish. No, they're actually not Irish. Same with the UK, same with England, Scotland, Wales. It's all changing so fast. Nothing like this has ever happened in all of history, except when, say, the Mongol swept across the step and raped everybody. Like, that was true demographic change on this scale.

But even that wasn't as profound as what we're seeing in every white country around the world. I would say the West, but Australia and New Zealand also. So, like, what is that? Now, my brain is not big enough to understand what that is. I think, I mean, I have a lot of theories about it, but I don't know if they're true. All I know is what the numbers are. And that's real. And no one feels that he can say it.

Everyone's like, oh, well, if that were happening in China or India or Malaysia or Senegal, it doesn't matter. You'd be like, what the hell is that? Like the population is totally different. Look at graduation. Pick, I don't know, King's College Law School, and look at the graduation picture for the last 30 years.

Who's in it? Just like, let your eyes tell you the truth for once. Like, this is a total change in population. Is it better? Is it worse? Can't have that conversation. Who's pushing this? Does the population want it?

Population clearly doesn't want it. There's no polling that's meaningful on the subject. I mean, there's no referendum on it. You don't get to decide. You've got no voice in it other than you get to go to jail if you complain loudly enough about it. What is this?

I think it's the biggest and darkest thing that has happened in the last thousand years, for sure. And I think it's leading somewhere really, really bad. It's not happening by accident. That's obvious, because it's only happening in white countries. I mean, I think that... Oh, shut up white supremacist. In fact, I'm not a white supremacist.

I'm just noticing what the hell's going on. I think most people I've spoken to about this in the UK, most people have always viewed the UK to be a very tolerant, multicultural, cosmopolitan place to live. That's why so many people want to come here. And people have no problem with that. And it's been very successful for a long period of time.

It's multicultural? What does that mean? We have a lot of different people from different countries, different cultures, and it's always worked historically. So is Sharia law every, in a multicultural country, is Sharia law every bit as valid as English common? No, no, people don't want Sharia law here. A lot of people do.

Wait, but hold on. I don't know what you mean. Multiculturalism itself is a lie designed to subvert a society. No, a society has a culture. You can argue about what it is or ought to be. It's not necessarily the same as race. It's connected to race, but it's not the same. People from different races can buy into your culture. That was kind of the beauty of the West.

But a multicultural society is not sustainable. There's never been such a thing. One culture will dominate. Hang on, talk about. Surely the United States of America, given the very way it was created is the epitome. of a multicultural society. And my point I was going to make to it.

It's absolutely not. It's a, no, no, no, no, no. It's a multiracial, it's a multiracial society. Yeah. Though it was not actually a multiracial society up until pretty recent. It was just like 90% white for most of its existence, but whatever. But you did have different peoples. You had different religions.

That was all totally fine. But there was one culture as American culture. There's no such thing as a multicultural society. It's not sustainable. One culture will overwhelm the other. Again, it's not the same as race. It's not identical to race. It's connected, but it's not the same.

But multiculturalism is by definition insane. No, it's never happened. It never will happen. One culture will predominate. It will impose its values than everybody else. I mean, the gay thing, which was not a thing 40 years ago, gay was a slur. All of a sudden becomes mandatory to worship at the altar of gayness or whatever. Trans stuff, sodomy, pride, all this stuff.

That was not a thing. 40 years ago, we're the same age. You know that. It was reviled. Now it's beloved. That's a culture change. But it's not multicultural. You can't dissent, only you can't dissent from it. You're not like to dissent from it. If you're like, actually I think the Pseum is wrong. How does it work for you? You've got a jail in your country. Well, what's happened with the gay thing, as you put it, is that actually we were an extremely homophobic society. We actually, it was only legal to be gay from the mid-60s in the United kingdom and I'm very glad I now live in the country where it's perfectly legal to do that.

No, so you buy the culture. You buy, okay, I'm not even attacking that. You obviously are fully. I buy people's right to have their own sexuality. That my argument with the, well, my argument with a trans, wait, but that's never happened. That's never happened in the history of your country. Well, the trans debate is different to the gay debate. It's not different. It's not, it's not, it's not, look, I'm not attacking gays, I'm not attacking trans. I'm making a larger point that I know that you are capable of grasping. which is that these are cultural determinations. We decide what are our cultures, what are our values?

And that definition changes. So your country, let's just say it's inception, modern England, 1066. The Normans come in, the French, who are actually Norse, but whatever, they come in, they invade your country, they impregnate your women, they put themselves in charge, they take all the castles. That's a thousand years, okay? During that entire period, it was not okay to be gay until, as you said, 1966 or whatever. or while went to jail for it. So you have 1,000 years versus 60 years, your culture changed,

but there's only one culture. It went from being totally unacceptable to be gay, to being mandatory to love gays. It wasn't mandatory to love gays. It's not mandatory to love gays. It's not mandatory to love gregers. Really? What would happen if you stood up in Parliament or on a television show in Great Britain and said, basically it's described with the average Victorian or even Edwardian thought of homosexuality.

Or just read Oscar Wilde's indictment, but agreed with it. You'd lose your job. You might go to jail. There's not a multicultural there. There's one culture, one culture. And it's required. And that's true in every society, because a culture is a commonly agreed upon set of values, which in their firmest form are called laws.

But those values can evolve. This is true everywhere all the time. But those values can evolve. Of course they evolve. But there's only one set of them. It's not multicultural. There's one set. You worship one God in every society.

Hang on. Your country's values were established by the United States Constitution, and that's had, what is it, 26, 27 amendments? So your own values, as determined by the founding fathers, they have evolved and been changed to accommodate changing time. There's no doubt. Look, I'm not even arguing against change. That's natural.

It's natural that people's views evolve. the culture changes with it. Once you start rejecting the laws of nature, then you're doomed. But let me just say, no, of course, society's change. I get it. All I'm saying, I'm making a very discrete specific point, which is multiculturalism as an idea is laughably stupid. It has never worked. We never had it anywhere, and it never will exist. Because it's contrary to human nature. One culture, one way of looking at things, one worldview will predominate, and it will punish all who deviate from it. That is the nature of society. So if you're telling me it's multicultural, we can all live and have radically different values, that's just not true.

It's never been true. It never will be true. So you're having one culture and worldview predominate over another and dominate and suppress all dissent. Like, that's just what it is, dude. Let's be honest. I would point to the United States of America and the United Kingdom as two shining examples, albeit not completely without their flaws, the shining examples of places that are deemed by the rest of the world. to be not only multicultural, but very tolerant of other people's cultures

in a way that has enriched their society. I certainly feel that about my country. Well, I certainly think that inherent in Christianity is the notion of tolerance, and that draws from a core Christian concept, which is free will. You cannot force someone to convert. There's never been conversion by the sword in Christianity.

People decide to believe in it, And so that is central to the religion, therefore it's been central to the society. Western civilization is Christian civilization. And so we call that tolerance. It's a respect for your inherent God-given right to make a choice about what you believe. Okay? So, of course, that's always been a feature. My only point is a society has a commonly agreed upon set of beliefs, rules, and laws that are the definition of the society itself.

That's what a society is. So you can't have competing. You can't have, you know, gay world and Sharia world living co-equally in a society. That does not happen. It will never happen. You have to pick one. Are we the Sharia society? Are we the Party Time Gay Rights Society?

Like, which one? And you can't face that reality. So you're just sort of snoozing along until the inevitable point where you're going to wake up and be like, my values have no bearing on what our society is anymore because we've been invaded by other people with a totally different worldview. And they're now in charge. And that day is coming very soon for your country. And maybe it'll improve it.

I don't think the UK could be a lot worse than it already is. It's this kind of disgusting, sad, self-hating suicidal island that was once great. It kills me to see it as a half-English person. But that day is coming. It will change. You will either decide to be Western or Eastern. That's a choice that we're all going to face. I don't want to face that choice, but it's being foisted upon us by the architects of mass migration.

Sorry. I would question your characterization as my country as a sad, disgusting, what's the rest of it, suicidal nation? I feel none of those things. I feel very happy to be in the United Kingdom. And I feel that there are lots of very happy people like me who are neither disgusting or sad or suicidal. But Tucker Carson, it is always great to talk to you.

I agree with that. I will like to remind of my viewers that your 9-11 documentary series, the first episode is posted. 9-9-11. So, yeah. Tucker, thank you very much for TV coming on and best of luck with the series. Thanks a million, Pierce. Pierce Morgan Unsensit is proudly

independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain. And we'll do it all for free.

Independent Unsensored Media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you.