Piers Morgan Uncensored - "Genius-Level REPTILE!" Gabor Mate vs Gad Saad On Elon Musk, Grooming Gangs & Migration

Episode Date: June 24, 2026

Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and sponsored by: Outskill: 👉 Grab your free seat to the 2-Day AI Mastermind: https://links.outskill.com/PIMOJUN4 🔐 100% Discount for the first 1000 people 💥 Dive deep into AI and Learn Automations, Build AI Agents, Make videos & images – all for free! 🎁 Bonuses worth $5100+ if you join and attend A controversial concept has been gaining traction among some of the world's most influential voices. "Suicidal Empathy" - a term popularised by public figures including Elon Musk, Marc Andreessen and Bill Ackman — is the idea that excessive or misdirected compassion can lead societies to make decisions that ultimately undermine their own interests. Its advocates argue that issues such as mass migration, crime and cultural integration are too often viewed through an emotional lens rather than a practical one, with potentially disastrous consequences for Western civilisation. Critics, however, say the theory is little more than a justification for abandoning compassion when it conflicts with a particular political worldview. They argue that empathy is a strength, not a weakness, and warn that the concept risks dehumanising vulnerable people. So who is right? Piers Morgan is joined by Professor Gad Saad, the evolutionary psychologist who coined the term and whose new book, Suicidal Empathy, expands on the argument. Piers is then joined by Canadian physician and author Gabor Mate, who responds to Saad’s criticism of his work. 00:00 Introduction 01:32 Gad Saad on limiting Islamic immigration to Western countries 07:17 Gad Saad on grooming gangs using religion to excuse their crimes 10:26 AD: Outskill - Grab your free seat to the 2-Day AI Mastermind: https://links.outskill.com/PIMOJUN4 11:17 Gad Saad continues his point regarding the inherent problems with Islam 15:29 Gad Saad on why he slams Gabor Mate in his new book 25:52 Can bombing Iran ever make Israel safer? 33:43 Gabor Mate responds to Gad Saad 37:02 Gabor Mate on Gad Saad: "He doesn't know what he's talking about!" 38:59 Gabor Mate responds to Gad Saad's specific points on Islam's inherent violence 47:56 Gabor Mate on Elon Musk having childhood trauma Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I think we discussed it last time the per capita issue. It is incontestable. No, I understand the per capita, yeah. Why don't you like doing debate? There is nothing that I could ever share with Dr. Mate that would ever alter his opinions, and therefore it's a futile exercise. I mean, just full disclosure, Gabon Mate is listening to this debate. Gabor Matte is a Holocaust survivor in that when he was six months old,

he was passed on to another family to be protected. I, too, am a Holocaust survivor. survivor because I was a spermatozoa in my dad's testicles in the 1940s. He's never read my work. He doesn't understand it. So if he says I got no authority, I got no support, I have no credibility, he just doesn't know what he's talking about. This is a good reason he doesn't want to debate with me because he couldn't, he keeps doing

this. He talked about he gave a talk in Tel Aviv, where he mentioned me, he gave a talk in Montreal recently when he mentioned me, he's got some kind of a fixation. Suicidal empathy is a concept which has been amplified by many notable and opinionated public figures, including Elon Musk, Mark Anderson, and Bill Ackman. loosely speaking, it's the idea that misdirected compassion and moral virtue leads to irrational judgment on matters like mass migration. The suicide part, they argue, applies to nothing less than Western civilization. The idea, as many critics say,

it sounds a lot like an excuse for not having any compassion when the issues don't align with your own politics. Professor Gad Sat, presumably disagrees with that. He came up with the idea, and it's the title of his brand new book. Well, joining me now is indeed evolutionary behavioral scientist and scholar at University of Mississippi. Gad Sack, welcome back to Unsensitive. Thank you so much for having me, Pierce. Suicidal empathy, just in simple terms, just lay out what you think the issue is here and why it's such a big problem. Right, so empathy is a wonderful virtue to possess.

We are a social species. So for you and I, Pierce, to have a meaningful conversation, I need to put myself in your mind and vice versa. That's called cognitive empathy or theory of mind. So certainly as an evolutionary psychologist, I'm not arguing that empathy is a bad thing. But like Aristotle explained to us several thousand years ago, via his golden mean, too little of something is not good. Too much of something is not good. And much of life is about finding that sweet spot. That exactly applies to empathy.

If I have no empathy, I'm likely to be a psychopath. If I have too much empathy, if it hyperfires in the wrong situations, toward the wrong targets, you end up with suicidal empathy. So Elon Musk has endorsed your book. He said Western civilization is doomed unless the core weakness of suicidal empathy is recognized and actions are taken that are hard but necessary for survival. Gadsad articulates this well. All Gads book, including this one, are great.

All your books include this one are great. So a big fan in Elon Musk. Many people at the same time have viewed Elon's feed on his own ex-platform in the last couple of years as being an almost permanent rally cry against migration and in particular promoting people like Tommy Robinson, who I know you know and have talked to, the people that many people think are genuinely Islamophobic, who hate Muslims and Islam and are directing all their fury at the two billion or so Muslims on the planet, which is, of course, one in four of the entire global population.

What do you say to that? Look, I'm an immigrant. Elon is an immigrant. The fact that we are both immigrants doesn't mean that we are equally likely to assimilate within the Western ethos, irrespective of where we come from, right? Fido, the cat, the house cat is a feline. The wild lion is a feline. They're both called feline.

That doesn't mean that I will equally cuddle with both of them, despite the fact that they hold the same title of being a feline. So people from Islamic countries come in all varieties. Some are perfectly lovely and peaceful. Others, not so much so. But as we've discussed you and I previously, peers, Islam contains a set of codified ideas that are either congruent or incongruent with the West. And so in answering that question, we may want to decide how many Muslims to allow into the West.

Which is perfectly reasonable to have controlled immigration policies. I think one of the problems you've seen in the UK, for example, and indeed throughout Europe, has been a failure by governments, Western governments to control immigration, and that has been pretty disastrous, actually. So I don't, for a moment, dispute that. It's just my issue with people like Tommy Robinson, for example, is that his concern is singular to Muslims. It's all he talks about. I mean,

you talk about a lot of Muslims are perfectly good, law-abiding, peaceful people, which is obviously true. But you could take the same argument with white Christians, right? There are, we are, the UK is a majority white country. the majority of crime is committed by white people. But if you read Tommy Robinson's ex-feed, he never mentions any crime by white people. It's like it doesn't exist. It's like this is a singular issue

that this kind of stuff only happens with Muslims. And that gets amplified by Elon to hundreds of millions of people. And that, I think, is problematic. Look, in evolutionary psychology, there's a principle called assortative mating, which basically argues that if you wish to have a long, successful, happy marriage, you should marry someone with whom you share some of the most foundational values that define your life.

So, for example, if I were an acerbic atheist and I marry someone who's very religious, I am putting the statistical odds against me of having a happy marriage. Love does not conquer all. By this exact same logic, there are a set of values that typically come, from Islamic societies that are perfectly antithetical to Western values. So on average, someone coming from Denmark and Sweden and trying to settle in Iceland is more likely to assimilate than the same number of people coming from Waziristan and Afghanistan.

And that statement should be obvious to the average three-day-old pigeon. But what do we do with people who are not Muslim, but commit similar crimes? We punish them like we would anybody else, right? There are Jewish pedophiles that should be punished. No one is contesting that. I'm Jewish. I think they should deserve the exact same punishment as anybody else.

That doesn't take away from the fact that when we're looking at the British grooming gangs for the past 30 years, most of them are not named Mordechi Richter. They're named Muhammad Akbar Hussein. That is true that the grooming gangs in places like Rotherham and Telford in the north of England were predominantly British-Pakistani Muslim men, and they were committing their crimes, horrendous crimes,

against many thousands of young white English girls predominantly. So that was an appalling scandal. It wasn't exposed by Tommy Robinson, as he likes to claim. It was exposed by a journalist at the Times newspaper in a big front-page exposure that started it. don't dispute and never have done that Robinson hasn't bang the drum about this quite properly because he's right. It was a scandal that was then covered up and it was covered up because people didn't want to confront the reality of who was perpetrating these crimes

and against whom they were doing it. And the whole thing, frankly, was a complete disgrace. Now, having said that, it's also true that the vast majority of sexual crime in the UK is committed by white men. Right. And again, I simply say, If everyone's focus is only on sex crimes by Muslim men and therefore use as a stick to be Islam with generally, even though the vast majority of two billion Muslims in the world do not commit sex crimes, then there's a problem right there, isn't there?

Right. Again, I think we discussed it last time, the per capita issue. It is incontestable. No, I understand the per capita, yeah. I understand that. So then that addresses the question. Go ahead, go ahead. Well, not really. Not really, because per capita means, yes, if you have more white people,

you are more likely, you know, and you have a disproportionate number of a certain ethnicity committing crimes, then you can say there's a per capita thing. The problem with that grooming gang scandal, the problem with sex crimes in the UK generally, particularly involving young people, is there is not really a proper breakdown to assess. So when people keep bringing up this, you know, per capita thing, I get. I understand the meaning of it, obviously. But there's not the information available to make that assessment in most of the cases.

And that, again, I think it's a problem. Right. But to link it back to suicidal empathy, look, the most fundamental instinct that human beings have other than to survive is to protect their children. So imagine that British authorities, whether they be the politicians or the police authorities,

said, here are a bunch of children that are being systematically tortured and raped by a particular group of people. And when we're looking at the competing calculus of either protecting our children or demonstrating who is the culprit in those particular cases, let us say, hey, girls, take one for the team because we don't want to create Islamophobia. That's the suicidal empathy, notwithstanding the fact of what you said, which is, of course, white men, also commit rapes. Of course, Jewish men also commit rapes. It doesn't take away from the singular tragedy

of the grooming gangs that comes from suicidal empathy. Chances are you've heard a lot of doom and gloom about AI recently, not least in the debates we've had on this show. It's going to take all our jobs, we're told, if not take over the entire world. One thing's for sure, it's a powerful enough tool that most of the

world's biggest militaries are putting most of their thinking into how they can wield it for themselves. And whether you're an AI domer, or an AI evangelist, you have the same choice to make as everybody else. To sit on the sidelines and wait to see what happens next, or do you figure out how you can wield the power of AI to help yourself in your everyday life? Outskill is the world's biggest AI education program. They have expert mentors and a wealth of practical resources to help you make the most of it,

whether it's simplifying your spreadsheets, creating professional images or building entire bespoke tools. You'll get what you're looking for. Don't get mad, get ready, and check out the special access we've arranged for our viewers. There are workshops on Saturday and Sunday from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern. If you sign up now, you also get three free bonuses, 50 secret called codes, but turn it into a God-tier tool, a full AI prop library, and a personalized AI toolkit building. Yeah, well, I think it's more that there was, certainly in the UK,

a fear running through authority that if they were specific about who have been perpetrating these hideous crimes as part of these grooming rape gangs, then it would cause enormous unrest. And of course, it's caused a lot more unrest by trying to cover it up. And this happened at all stages of British establishment and authority. And I think, honestly, it was disgraceful. On that, I completely agree with Robinson. But I don't like the leap many take, including Robinson,

that the whole problem is purely Muslim, purely Islam, it's a religion issue. Because I just don't think that is true. Look, Jeffrey Epstein was Jewish. Harvey Weinstein is Jewish. But they didn't commit those crimes invoking specific tenets of Judaism to justify their debauchery. Many of the Pakistani Muslim men who were grooming and raping

those little girls used the pretext of their religion to then argue, look, those girls are neges, they're impure. If we have at it with them, that is perfectly reasonable within our religion. So a backrober... But as you know, as you know, I mean, I think that's irrelevant. I'll tell you why. Because as you know, the vast majority of Muslims do not interpret the Quran to mean that kind of stuff. And so I would say there's no difference.

If you're a victim of Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein, all these appalling grooming gangs of the north of England, you're a victim. And it doesn't matter to me if they've used or invoked their interpretation of religious tracts, which many people are their own religion, think the complete opposite. So, you know, I just don't like the all-encompassing Islam is the problem

because we've got five million Muslims living in the UK, about five to six percent of the population. And most of them live perfectly, peacefully, in a law-abiding way, and they're fine. Why demonize the entire religion? We don't do that with other religions. Okay, there are about 10,000 recorded religions. Actually, that's a conservative number. There are even more than 10,000.

Out of those 10,000 religions, there seems to be only one where there seems to always be the misinterpretation of that noble faith in the exact same direction. We never hear about Jainist grooming gangs. We never hear about Shintoist grooming gangs. You know what? You know what? You know what? You know the answer? Per capita, God, I'm surprised you haven't worked that one out.

Because there are two billion Muslims. It's per capita, my friend. It's your argument. Let me now throw it back at you. It's simply because there are more Muslims. So therefore, per capita, they're going to be committing more of these crimes. Do you agree with that?

No, because Hindus also make up roughly maybe not a quarter of the world's population, but certainly a sizable amount. And I don't have the numbers in front of me, but if we look at per capita, we would find that there's only one group that misinterprets their religious edicts into committing terror attacks, into raping women and so on. There's something unique about how we read Islamic texts that always makes us mistranslate, misinterpret, misunderstand the beautiful, noble text in exactly the same direction for the past 1,400 years. It's a real mystery. Well, I think there are extremists Muslims, as there are any religion, and extremism of any kind should be condemned, and they should be susceptible to the same laws was everybody else. And I've always felt that. Let me just mention something you wrote in your book about

Gabon Marte. Now, the full disclosure, we wanted you to debate with him. You don't like to do debates. Out of interest, why don't you like doing debates? That's a great question. I'm always happy to debate someone if a priori, I feel that both parties could potentially have some means of being swayed away from their anchored position if the appropriate evidence were presented to them, right? So, for example, I don't, as an evolutionist, I don't debate young earth creationists, not because I'm an elitist lofty guy who can't be bothered debating, but I know for a fact that there is no amount of evolutionary information that I could offer them to make them say, oh, you know what, Professor Saad, in light of what you just said, I've now

change my opinion. So there is nothing that I could ever share with Dr. Mate that would ever alter his opinions and therefore it's a futile exercise. That's why I love speaking to you one-on-one because you're such a charismatic guy. Well, thank you for your false flattery. But I, I mean, just full disclosure, Gabon Marte is listening to this debate. And the reason for that is that you dedicate two pages in your new book to him. And so we thought we talked to him after you. I mean, I'd have preferred to add you chat to each other because you do whack him in the book.

You say this. Gabel Marte is a Canadian physician who has built a self-help empire on the back of his supposed empathetic and compassionate handling of patients who suffer from addiction. He argues that the root of addiction is childhood trauma,

but he goes much further by purporting that countless diseases are rooted in this singular explanation. This reminds me of Freudian psychoanalytical quackery wherein all psychological disorders had their ultimate genesis and sexual repression or the hysteria of the repressed memories movement.

And you also go on to say that Dr. Marta, who was raised Jewish in Nazi-occupied Hungary, was a former Zionist who has since become a prominent critic of Israeli policy. You say this, Marty's infinite well of intergenerational empathy does not apply to Jews, though. He knows as a Holocaust survivor. and you put the word survivor in quotation marks,

what true trauma is, and he never fails to remind the world that the Palestinians are suffering a genocide of the hands of the Nazi-like Israelis. There is nothing noble about the Marti duo. Aaron, his son, is also a regular guest on our sensitive. They are uninformed fools, engaging in malignant narcissism,

masquerading as infinite compassion. Now, you may not want to debate with him, but that's pretty full-on attack against this guy, he's listening to this. I mean, do you stand by the rhetoric you've used there? Yes, I was actually trying to be charitable and nice in that quote that you kindly read. Look, Gabor Mate, yeah, oh yeah, I don't use words flippantly, right?

So if my words are going to be immortalized in my book, I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Gabor Mate is a Holocaust survivor in that when he was sick, months old, he was passed on to another family to be protected. But to say that you're a survivor when you're a six months infant is like arguing that I too am a Holocaust survivor because I was a spermatozoa in my dad's testicles in the 1940s. A six months old infant is not cognizant of the reality around them. So there's no meaningful way by which he can then argue that because I'm a Holocaust survivor, that suffered at the hands of the Nazis,

I could tell you that the IDF is infinitely worse than the. It's a rhetorical device that is being used to justify his position. So it's in that sense that you... What age? Okay, but what age would he need to be then for you to accept that he's a holocault survivor? It will be at the age at which your cognitive development would entitle your memory to have traces of that. Give me an age.

Well, it varies across people, but typically most people, their earliest memory will go typically at around age three or four. So a six-month-old infant has no knowledge of what happened to him during the Holocaust. And there can be no impact of what happened on somebody of that age, because I would absolutely dispute that. I mean, terrible things happen to people when they're incredibly young babies or one or two or whatever. and of course it can have a massive material effect on them. Of course he will have discovered what happened with his family, with the Holocaust, the relatives and so on. So I just don't understand what the upside is for you

in diminishing his claim to be a Holocaust survivor, albeit he was extremely young. I mean, why shouldn't he be able to have had massive impact from that? I'm not questioning the fact that he could look. look back at his life's, his family's history and feel pain at what happened to him. My concern is in using that narrative for nefarious reasons to then justify why you have the authority and imprimatur to say that as a Holocaust survivor, I can tell you that the IDF are no different than the Nazis. It's in the intent of using that narrative. Pierce, as you know, I went through

horrors as an 11-year-old child in Lebanon that, you know, I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies. I do remember all of those incidents. I was 11 years old, but I don't use my victimology narrative, my true victimology narrative, to then espouse certain positions that are rooted in the fact you have to believe me because I'm a childhood war refugee. My position stands here. But is it? Well, hang on, but hang on. In a way, you just have. I mean, in a way, you've just cited that for viewers who may not have been aware of that, and therefore, that obviously forms the backdrop to your opinions. I mean, I don't really see a lot of difference. I mean, you've just said that you went through terrible things in Lebanon or Lebanon. Of course, that is going to inform

your view of issues in the Middle East. Of course it is. In the same way that what happened to Dr. Marty is going to inform his views. The fact that your views don't concur with each other, Well, that's what happens in democratic society. And I'm just surprised that you would be so willing to dismiss his right to lean on his background, his experience from his family's perspective, albeit he was very young, just to dismiss it as almost fake. And when you put the word survivor in quotation marks, he's kind of saying it's not real.

No, so again, I don't know if we need to debate Gabon Maté for the whole show, but if that's what you want to do, that's perfectly fine. I'm not questioning his... Do you want to talk to him directly? I don't. You can talk to him after and he can discuss with you why I'm so wrong. But I don't believe that he doesn't have the right to say whatever he wants. As you said, in a free society, Holocaust deniers should be free to spouse their nonsense.

I mean, I'm genuinely a free speech absolutist. So I'm not questioning his right to espouse anything that he wants. All I'm questioning is the manipulative intent. of saying that because I'm a Holocaust survivor, you should listen to me when I tell you that the IDF are indistinguishable from the Nazis. That's the only thing that I'm criticizing here. I wish him well. I implored what happened to his family. So that's, I mean, I don't have to justify how horrible the Holocaust is, right? But what I'm saying is, I have memory of the trauma I went through. My parents were kidnapped by Fatah in 1980 when I was 15. So I have the right. I have the

memory to talk about my victimhood. He doesn't cognitively. He was a six-month-old infant. That's all I'm saying. Would you compare what the people that did that to your parents, would you compare them to Nazis? I mean, no, in the sense that at the very least, my parents were able to get out of their ordeal. So in that sense, they're killed. kidnappers were a lot more charitable and ultimately kind and empathetic, more so than the Nazis would have, which would have undoubtedly put a bullet in the head. By the way, the ones who kidnapped them were Muslim and they didn't kill them, right? So again, they are very nice Muslims. They are very mean Muslims. They are very nice Jews. They are very mean Jews. What I criticize always,

as I think you know by now, is the specific tenets within Islam that may or may not be congruent with Western values. Yeah, and my issue with that is it's how you interpret it. And that's my issue. I have a lot of Muslim friends of mine who say the issue is extremist twists the language of the Quran to suit their nefarious intent. And there's a long illustrious history of people doing that with religious. People do it with the Bible.

You know, we've had Christian extremists and nutcases using some of the very violent rhetoric of the Bible to justify what they do. What's the difference? Well, the difference is that Christianity went through the light of reformation. Regrettably, Islamic doctrines have not. There have been 1,400 years of attempts of Muslim scholars trying to incorporate interpretive reformation into Islam.

You really can do it canonically because in Islam, it is the final, inerent, unchangeable word of Allah. So the likelihood of having the light of reformation coming to Islamic doctrines is simply lesser than in Christianity. Let's just end with two. One slight tangential subject, one completely nothing to do with it. The Iran deal, which may or may not have been signed by the time we air this interview,

but regardless, it just seems to most observers that Donald Trump has got himself into something that he just is desperate to get out of and that he was persuaded about the merits of attacking Iran by Benjamin Netanyahu, who may have been working to a different agenda as the Prime Minister of Israel. What is your view of that?

And obviously Israel's been killing a lot of civilians in Lebanon going after Hezbollah. You grew up in Beirut. You've talked about some of the experiences your family had. What do you view about what Israel has been doing and about where we are with the Iran war? Well, I don't know yet anything about the Iran deal, the specifics. As you said, we don't know what those are.

I think in a holistic sense, if we were able, we meaning the West in general or America in particular, if we were able to get rid of the existing regime in Iran, first it would free 90 million Iranians, most of whom are quite modern, most of whom are quite secular, most of whom are quite educated, we'd be freeing them from the shackles of 47 years of theocracy. So if one had empathy towards the Iranian people, you would say, go, go, go, let's free this beautiful Persian culture.

So that would be my first statement. Regarding of what Israel is doing and attacking, are you saying now attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon? Is that what you were asking? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, I don't know the specific numbers of how many. civilians have died in those attacks, but the general idea of getting with of all of these proxies of Iran will only lead to greater stability in the Middle East. And so,

inshallah, hopefully when this regime falls, we will have a much brighter future in the region. Of course, it could play out another way, which is, as we're already seeing, evidentially from American intelligence in Gaza, that for all the Hamas terrorists have been killed, five people have gravitated to the ideology because they're so appalled by what's been done in Gaza if that was to extrapolate across the region with everywhere else that Israel has gone after these terror groups because, as Donald Trump himself said,

you don't need to take down an apartment block to kill a Hezbollah terrorist. And if you keep doing that, you are going to create more enemies, potentially. So your hope, your aspiration, that all of this bombing is going to lead to Israel, being safer and Israelis being safer, I'm not convinced by that at all. I think part of the problem has been the massively disproportionate way that this Israeli government has gone about its business.

And I'm genuinely concerned about what that means for the security of Israel, of Israelis and of Jews worldwide. I think we're already seeing the downside of this strategy. So look, you know, time will tell, history will show us. But do you think that obviously if Trump is going to pull out of this, can you see a situation where Netanyahu goes alone against Iran? I mean, I suppose I could. And I should also mention that I don't know if you hinted at that in your earlier question.

Many people think that, you know, Donald Trump for all of his power and, you know, strong personhood, is somehow, somehow loses all of his personal agency and becomes a, you know, a helpless puppet of Natanyahu when Natanyahu tells him, do A or do B, or do B. No, I don't think it was that. I don't think it was that. It's just that everybody knows from what Anthony Blinken and Hillary Clinton of others

have now said, that Netanyahu tried to persuade a series of American presidents to do this, and they all said no. And the only one who said yes was Trump. And the New York Times had a big, deep dive feature on all this, very well saw some inside the White House situation room. And what is clear is that Donald Trump believed Netanyahu's prediction of what would happen. And the tragedy of all this is it all turned out to be untrue. Had it led to a very speedy overthrowing of a terrible regime

with the people uprising and seizing back control of their country and the end of the IRGC and the strait of Hormuz had been left alone, as Netanyahu said would happen, I think many more people would have been supportive. but actually the opposite has happened. And we've ended up in a position where the Iranian regime now knows all it has to do is shut up Australia for Mousse and fire a few missiles at the Gulf States, and they have the cards. So if you were doing a forensic accounting of the net,

either success or failure of this war, you would put it as that it's been an object failure more than a success? Well, I'd certainly say a failure. If the mission was to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, I don't see how anyone can say with any confidence anything's changed from when Obama got the same word of guarantees about that issue as Trump is apparently getting in his deal. Plus, if it's true that the Iranian regime is going to get $300 billion

to rehabilitate and rebuild itself, well, why would we trust them not to spend all that on all the missiles and weaponry that have been destroyed militarily? So I just think I'm really struggling to see where the win is. And in fact, when it comes to the failure, the failure to understand the importance of a strait of all moose and just how easy it would be for Iran to paralyze the global energy economy market in the way that it has done, I think was an abject failure of intelligence and strategic military planning. And then when you add in the attacks on the Gulf states with just a few drones

and the mayhem that caused, then I think that the, that again has been a failure of predicting what may happen and what the response would be if it did. So I'm afraid all I see is the same regime in place. The Ayatollah replaced by his son who's even more hardline and saw half his family killed so will hate everyone even more than his father did. The IRGC is still in control. No popular uprising whatsoever. And now the Iranian regime has the strait of Hormuzas as the most effective weapon.

It could possibly imagine that he didn't know it. add and may start charging a toll to use it, which it wasn't before. If that is a victory, Gad Saab, my friend, then I've got a secondhand card to sell you. I have a slightly different take, but I will defer to your expertise. Gad's sad. It's always good to talk to you. Although, finally, my final point, the World Cup, apparently you were heard saying on X, I think in response to something I may have said, that Messi might be the proof that God exists, exists.

Nancy's turning me from an atheist to a believer. Listen, Messi, when he scored his brilliant hatcherick, and it was a brilliant hatcherick, he should have been sent off before he scored any of them for a brutal assault on one of the defenders of the opposition. So I don't know whether God got involved in that, but if he did, it might be time for a review of your beliefs. One thing is for sure, Pierce, you're a loyal guy. Your love for Ronaldo is only beaten by the love of my mother towards yours truly.

Gadsden, great to have you on Uncensor. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Take care. Bye. Well, listening to all that, as I said, was physician, author and trauma expert, Dr. Gabon Marte, who rejoins me on Uncensored. Dr. Marty, thank you very much for coming back on Uncensored. It's a pleasure.

Thanks for inviting me back. You were listening there to Gadzad. Notably, he did not want to engage with you in any kind of debate. What did you think of what he was saying there? Speaking of the World Cup, I don't know if you remember, you're probably too young, maybe, to remember Wemblech Stadium in 1953 when the Hungarian team beat the British team at home 6 to 3. So at that time, we had the best team in the world.

Sengrik Puskis. Perikus. So I'm very much into the football world. I was actually, you know what? I was actually, Gabor, I was in the Ferenc Puskas Stadium in Budapest only two weeks ago for the European Championship because my team Arsenal were playing. So I was there.

So I remember that 53 game. And Puskis was one of the great players to ever grace the game. So yes, I'm very familiar. But apart from football pleasantries, there's an expression in Hungary. that says that something is so false that not even the opposite is true. And that's my response to Professor Saad. I'm going to mention three issues, okay?

First of all, me as a survivor, if a one-year-old baby is rescued from a housefire, can you not say that he's a survivor of a housefire? That's the first one. Yeah, of course. So it's ridiculous, so it's ridiculous, it says, number one. Number two, he's absolutely right. I don't have explicit memories. I can't because the part of the brain

that codes explicit memory, episodic memory, doesn't develop until two or three years of age. But there's another memory system called the implicit memory system, which he knows nothing about. But you kind of addressed it that the emotional memories are imprinted in the nervous system, not just from one year on, but even from in the womb.

And my emotional memory is of terror and fear and abandonment. And so when he says, that doesn't live in my memory, sure it does. And it still shows up decades later in my emotions and in my behavior. That's the nature of trauma. And he's right about one thing. The fact that, and by the way, I've never said that I'm a survivor. I've always said I was an infant survivor. But that does not make me an expert on the Middle East.

And the fact that I'm an infant survivor of the Nazi genocide does not make me an authority on Israeli politics or Palestinian-Israeli issues. There are no authorities. There are points of view and there's ideologies and this way of understanding. But, you know, if there's lots of Holocaust survivors who totally support what Israel does, and plenty who don't, but neither can claim that their survivorship gives them authority.

So that I agree with. When it comes to you, when he talks about my work, he's never read my work, he doesn't understand it. He mentioned his book, if I may mention mine, the myth of normal, trauma, illness and healing in a toxic culture, which is a Sunday Times bestseller and a New York Times bestseller published in 45 different countries. That book has been endorsed by scientists and physicians. and psychotherapists and many other people. So if he says, I got no authority, I got no support, I have no credibility, he just doesn't know what he's talking about, number one, number two.

And so I just make that point. As regards what he said about my work, about trauma, addiction, diseases, yes, I've made the case based on multiple scientific studies and scientific papers published internationally, and I cite a large number of them that make the case that early experiences do a lot to shape one's physiology, one's psychology, one's brain, and so that early experiences are a huge contributor to pathology later on.

That's just a scientific argument. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't look at that argument. He hasn't looked at my... the research that I signed. Well, I know you're right. I know you're right because I've interviewed, I don't know, maybe 3,000 or more people in my career in over 40 years.

And I'm talking about everybody from, you know, American presidents to Nelson Mandela, to celebrities to whatever it may be, right? Ordinary members of the public. And the one absolute constant is that stuff that happened in their childhood played a clear formative part in their adult life. whoever they were and whatever the experience was, you are, I absolutely believe you're a product of your environment. Yes, no. There's a couple of specific points that he said. We talk about Muslim gangsterism and gangs and so on.

Has he heard about what we used to be called the kosher Nostra, the Jewish gangs in New York in the 1920s and the 30s, people like Bugsy Sewell, Meyer Lansky, Arnold Ronstien, and a whole gang of murderers, gangsters. These are Jews. Well, I would go further. And I would say the behavior of people like Ben Gavir and Smodrich in encouraging the aggressive expansion of settlements in the West Bank with the appalling violence that's going on right in front of our eyes in clear contravention of all international law.

In its own way, that is just as reprehensible. And yet he doesn't see, he doesn't see, He doesn't seem to condemn that. Well, thank you. You're anticipating something I was going to say. But the point I was going to make is, it's not that Jews are by nature gangsters. Let's look at the sociological conditions,

the historical conditions, that in a newly immigrant population in New York turned some Jews into criminals. And so that's a historical, sociological, not a religious question. And the same thing is true of whatever criminality is expressed, manifested by various immigrants from the far-flung reaches of the former British Empire. Let's look at it sociologically and historically. Let's not make a racial or religious

issue out of it. That's what I would say to the professor said. And then to come to the next point, which is what you just raised, if we're going to talk about Allah decreeing certain things that Muslims are allowed to do. Who is claiming divine authority for the oppression, mass murder, mass torture, dispossession, the torture of children? He talked about children? Who's torturing children in jail? And when he says that I make claims about Israel that I have no authority to make, I don't make any claims at all. I'm simply quoting Israeli. historians and authorities. So when he talks about how I talk about the idea of being like the Nazis,

I didn't say that. Israeli soldiers have said it. Israeli generals have said it. Israeli generals have said that we're behaving in the West Bank, just like the Nazis behaved. I didn't say that. I'm just quoting them. So for him to personalize it to me and to the,

he's got this being as bonnet about myself and my family, why does he personalize it to me? Why does he not address the Israeli scholars, the two Hebrew University Jewish scholars of genocide, who said, there's no Auschwitz in Gaza, but there's genocide in Gaza. This is Israeli Jewish scholars at the Holocaust. Let Professor Sart go argue with them, not with me. I'm just quoting them. I agree with them. But why does he personalize it to me?

That's a good reason he doesn't want to debate with me, because he couldn't. Well, I just think if you are going to attack somebody in your book, and I've told him you're sitting there watching this interview, I think he should debate. He should at least talk to you about what he said about you in the book. And when you duck a debate like that, it's like, okay, then you're almost firing from the rooftops, but don't want to engage in hand-to-hand combat. And I think there's something not as honorable about that. Well, he keeps doing this. he talked about, he gave a talk in Tel Aviv, where he mentioned me, he gave a talk in Montreal recently when he mentioned me, he's got some kind of a fixation. But you know what? That's as much

as I want to say about him. What do you think, what do you think, Gabbo, about his, the premise of his book about this idea of suicidal empathy? Yeah. As a concept. Yeah, I'm really happy to discuss that. Actually, in my book, The Myth of Normal that I just showed you, there is a chapter on what we call human nature. And every society has a kind of conception of human nature, which largely mirrors its own practices, beliefs, and ideologies. So if you actually look at evolution, how do human beings evolve? Human beings have been on earth for millions of years, some types of human beings,

hominence. Our own species, Homo sapiens, we've been here, about hunting, 50,200,000 years. Now, for most of that time, we lived in communal groups, collaborative groups, but people looked after each other. And caring was the most important dynamic. And we thought that we would not have survived. So essential nature is to care. And now, if you look at it from the point of view of neuroscience, there's a great neuroscientist, unfortunately, died, for his time, Estonian, American, his name with Dr. Yack, Pancep.

And he studied the human emotional system in the brain. And he found that we share with other mammals seven major emotional systems in the brain that were wired for it by evolution. Professor Selle claims to be an evolutionary psychologist. I'm not going to question his claims, but it doesn't seem to know much about emotion in psychology, because one of the most important circuits

in the brain is for caring. caring, and the specific neurochemicals, hormones, and brain circuits dedicated to caring, because without that, there'd be no human life. So that that's just who we are as creatures. Now, when he talks about suicidal empathy, he's kind of, and the West is so suicidal empathetic, lets in all these immigrants and so on. Let's look at history. who was it the Muslims that came to England to attack England or was it England then went into India

and into the Arab world and into Africa and and and and and and and and and and and and and and appropriated and and and actually killed a lot of Muslims in order to appropriate their their goods and their resources going back a little bit further talk about immigration In the American Declaration of Independence, which is being celebrated the 250th anniversary in a couple of weeks, it ends with the complaints of the colonialists against the British crown. And one of the complaints is that you don't protect us from the merciless and savage natives. So the people that they committed genocide against, the indigenous people of North America, were seen as merciless savages by these immigrants.

So that when did the history begin? When it used to begin? If you look at all the colonial countries, New Zealand, Canada, United States, Australia, elsewhere, what you've had is immigrants coming from Western Europe, brutally massacring, expropriating, torturing, raping the local population. And he talks about the West as suicidally empathetic. What on earth is he talking about? So, no, I'm not, all I'm saying is there's history.

And it's always a question of what date do you arbitrarily decide that history begins? And you know what? Right now I'm reading the histories of Herodotus about the Persian Greek war. This stuff goes back a long time. History did not begin. On October the 7th, it didn't begin on any particular date. And so that for professors saw to look at the present situation and look at these troubled immigrants coming to the West, where are they coming from? They're coming from countries that the West is destroyed. So all I'm asking is, let's apply the same standards to everybody. And rather

than them, let's try to understand what are the forces that make people behave in certain ways and what are the mitigating factors that may make them behave differently? That's what we need to be asking, not condemning either on religious or racial grounds, anyone particular people. Jews are no better or worse than anybody else. Muslims are no better or worse than anybody else. The British are no better or worse than everybody else. It's all a matter of historical circumstance. We've just seen Elon Musk become the first ever trillionaire in the history of planet Earth. He's on the record as saying that empathy is a weakness. You've often discussed Musk as a kind of prime example of unresolved childhood trauma. And the question I've got for you

about that is, can it work both ways? I mean, does a childhood trauma of any kind, can it propel you to overachievement, as we've seen with Musk with his businesses, whilst at the same time, you know, he often shows another side to himself, which is more problematic. Well, first of all, it's not a surprise that the world's first trillionaire would endorse a book that speaks against empathy, you know. But look, yeah, I mean, I don't have to look at Elon Musk. I can look at myself. I used to be a workaholic doctor. It was very successful at the physician. I worked all the time, ignored my own emotional needs, my needs of the family. of my family. And I write about that in my books, about how, you know, I was kind of a driven

person. So if you asked me, why did you go into medicine? I would have very honestly have told you that because I want to help humanity. And that would have been true. I also would have been told you that I want a profession which secures me a decent standard of living. That would have been true. But there was in a hidden dynamic I didn't recognize, which I see in Trump and I see it in Musk and I see it in so many other people. which is the need to feel important. Now, the need to feel important and to be seen and recognized is the essential need of the human child. The message I got from the world, and I'm sure that's the message that Musk got from the world as well,

is that you're not wanted, you're not important. And if that's the message that you unconsciously imbib, absorb as a young child, I mean, my mother gave me to a stranger when I was 11 months of age to save my life. Well, it did save my life. It was an act of incredible sacrifice on her part. But how do I experience it? I experience it. I'm not wanted.

I'm not lovable. I'm not important. That's the only way I can interpret it. And so, if you're not wanted, you know what you go to, you know what you do? I've said this often. If you don't believe you wanted unconsciously, go to medical school. Then they're going to want you all the time. They're going to want you when they're dying, when they're being born,

and every crisis in between. So that early trauma can drive achievement, but at what cost? And I would say the same thing about many other high achievers is that, yeah, they've done amazing things. And Muske is obviously a genius of some sort. But you know what? There's a wonderful American writer Joseph Children Pierce who said that, well, I'm saying a lot here, but we have three actually three brains in a certain sense. We have the cerebrum up here.

We have a kind of a nervous system in the heart, which is studied by the science of neurocordiology, and we have a knowledge in the gut, because you have gut feelings that are essential for survival. So when the three are connected, we're grounded, and we're empathetic, and we're self-respecting. But as Joseph Chilton Pierce says, when we only are thinking up here,

cut off from the heart, and cut off from the gut were genius-level reptiles. And that's what Musk is. He's a genius level of reptile. And that's because of his childhood trauma, I'm sure. Right. Yeah, I think you may well be right.

Listen, you're always welcome on this show, Gabon Martin. That is for sure. Thank you very much, indeed, for taking my time to talk to me. My great pleasure. Thank you, Peter. Piers Morgan Unscensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we offer only one simple thing.

Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers 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.