“Calling Me Names Is NOT Gonna Stop Me!” Tucker Carlson on Ted Cruz, Trump, Israel & 9/11

“Calling Me Names Is NOT Gonna Stop Me!” Tucker Carlson on Ted Cruz, Trump, Israel & 9/11

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 US 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 divulge this. 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 s 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 who 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. This week marks 24 years since 911, 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 Carlson, 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 spritly, if I may say so. Thank you. I I think I 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 4 months looking into 911, reassessing the explanations we were given by the government for 911. And one of the things that really struck me was the viciousness with which anyone who questioned it, certainly in the in the first several years, um was treated with. You know, they were dismissed as crazy. By the way, I participated in that. I attacked people who questioned 9/11. So, I 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 were you last night? 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 any since the Civil War, it’s a completely different country since 911. Millions of people died in the aftermath of 911. And so what exactly is the justification for not telling us what happened that day? And and 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 then eventually even to America, right? And you don’t tell the FBI. 911 commission to cover them. 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. It is time Americans learned what actually happened. It It’s a great trailer. What to you though, Tucker, are the big the biggest lies perpetrated on the American people from 9/11. Well, the core lie um is the 911 commission itself, which was an instrument, a political instrument of the Bush administration run by a guy called Philip Zelico. And from beginning to end, he stage managed the explanation for 9/11 in a way that benefited um the neoonservative factions within the Bush administration. The 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. Um, and then during the course of the investigation, he systematically, I’m not guessing, by the way, this is not a conspiracy theory. This is the testimony of people who are directly involved in the commission. Chairman, Tom Kaine, the former governor of New Jersey, Republican governor. He stage 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 Jedha, Saudi Arabia at exactly the moment that John Brennan was the station chief um for the CIA in Saudi Arabia. Um they knew that they were here. They didn’t hide the fact that they were here. I mean, Khaled Alhad Har, who was a 26-year-old Saudi, the just 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 US and were planning a terror attack against the United States and they never passed 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 911 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. So, let’s talk about that. It’s not even mentioned. Well, let’s talk about that for a moment because because it’s one of the many, you know, things that have raged since um If you look into the investigation into 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 that 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 5:00 in the afternoon or something that that 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 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 a another example of a tower like that collapsing. So, when it comes to the spec the specific theory about that, what is 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 I I don’t know. 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 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. So, and there are all kinds of anomalies as I know that you’re fully aware and there 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 the supposed investigation into this to tell us like what was that? And I mean, look, I I I have a very open mind. The reason I’m the reason I’m interested to watch your documentary series is 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 that I I was too I think credulous about what the authorities were saying through the pandemic to my detriment. You and I have had this 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 could see the building behind the BBC journal so it was obviously ludicrous CNN did the same thing but I you know having 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 uh to just as a comparison I remember being on there at CNN when the hurricane came through. Hurricane Sandy burst through Manhattan. I don’t if you were you on you were probably at Fox then I think. Um but if you remember half the lights went out in lower Manhattan. Um 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. US national debt is more than $37 trillion. And these are uncertain times for 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. They’ve created something special. until the 30th of September. If you’re a firsttime 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 pie to 989898. 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 peers to 989898. Claim your eligibility and get your free information pack. Again, just text peers to 989898. 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 relation to CIA and and the fascinating details of these two people in particular they were following is that more cockup than conspiracy? In other words, was it a gigantic cockup that after bin Laden had already had one go at the World Trade Center that there there was just not a collective effort by the CI, by FBI, by other intelligence agents around the world to stop him succeeding with a second attempt? So is it [ __ ] 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 fornowledge? I mean, if you’re shorting American Airlines a week before 9/11 when no one knows it’s coming, I think you should have to explain why you did that. And if you’re shorting Bclays and and banks that were affected by 911, 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 I I wonder about that. So clearly, yes, there was foreign knowledge. 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 intelconnected foreigners who were arrested after 911 as you well know um videotaping the terror attacks. This is I’m almost verbatim quoting from the FBI assessment of this and the FBI determined that they apparently had fornowledge 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. Um, just like everyone else in our business. I’m sure you did as well. And 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 and 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. Now, 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. So, and 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, you know, 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 what you’re more than twice what it was before now. Okay. But what you’re what you’re suggesting with your phrasiology 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 I’m not suggesting that. I’m not suggesting that. But I’m 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 whereabouts. Well, they actually did know that these people were planning a terror attack because they surveiled a meeting planning it in Koala Lumpur, 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 CI director George Tennant, who would deny this. They’ll say, “Oh, you’re a conspiracy theor 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, all I’m sayinggest, 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 I understand I understand you’re you’re saying that intent matters and I would not 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. I do. And I agree. I agree with you. That is a a kind of murder. Yeah. Listen, I I 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 US government at the time, the CIA, the FBI, all of them. No one no one can credibly say that what happened was not a a 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 somebody may hijack a plane and use it as a weapon. Right? It’s not 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 US government had war gamed 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 waramed that there. They took bin Laden very seriously. There we interviewed members of the bin Laden station, CI 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, but there were people at CIA and I would say John Brennan clearly one of them who understood that 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 emedded 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 a fake investigation. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condisa Rice, Philip Zelico participated in hiding the truth from the public. Again, I voted for them. I’m not It’s not a partisan point. That is a fact. We know it now. And why isn’t there a 9/11 an actual 911 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 because Well, it reminds me, you know, it reminds me of the JFK files, of the RFK files, of the Martin Luther King files, of the Epstein files. that time and again we are we are led to believe we’re all going to find out exactly what went on and then we don’t so that 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 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 law 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/pers. And here’s the best part. Use the code peers pie and get 70% off your first order. Get 70% off with the promo code Pierce. 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, that the murder of a sitting US president. Yeah. And and by the way, a whole lot of other things. I mean, the UAP, I mean, you could just go on forever. And the cumulative effect it 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. The people do not rule. They actually have no relevant input into how the government operates. It’s not operating for their benefit. And they either become one of two things. Cynical 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 I don’t know why we have a CIA. It’s the 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 CIA played a role in it, probably lots of players there, but CIA was clearly one of them. The the counter intel division clearly played a role and lied about it. Then every subsequent US president lives with that hanging over his head. Well, also guardrails, you cross over them and you could get killed, right? I mean, we’ve had do 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. Uh, 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 uh about 500 yards up a golf course to where he was waiting by one of the Greens. And I found that deeply unsettling because you 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 raised 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 I’m you know I I can’t say this definitively but my strong impression is that you know people the top at the top levels of government don’t know the answers right. So that including Donald Trump a a pretty I I think that’s right but you know I don’t know but I but the 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 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 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 as they say in Washington, read me in to what my government is doing with my money in 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 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. I 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 [ __ ] up and you know it will get really ugly. In your in your series, um do you do you dispel some of the sort of 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 uh implicated in 911. 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. Um 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 do you tackle that kind of conspiracy theory in the series? Do you, in other words, as well as exploring stuff that you think needs to be highlighted and exposed 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 it hasn’t so much been allowed. It’s actually been greatly discouraged. Um, I don’t repeat every theory about it. There are 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 the 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 uh experience, I became more prone to believe that this is really really bad. This is super bad. And as to the question that you asked specifically about Israel, um no, of course I didn’t allege that, you know, the Jews did it. I I don’t even know what that means. I I think in fact saying things like that is a way to discredit um real questions. Like we know I mean Benjamin Netanyahu on camera right after said this 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. And 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 fornowledge of those attacks. Now, you were not allowed to follow up in any of this. Fox News did a series with Brit 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 911 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 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, they were going to be attacked as anti-semmites or something. Hello and welcome. We begin with 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 for 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 road map 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 principled level. I’m an American and I think it’s not only fair, but my 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 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 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 uh things that have happened since you and I last spoke in Riyad actually for a really interesting double-headed chat, but in particular, what happened with Iran where Donald Trump decided to attack Iran? Um, what did you feel about that given that it ended so apparently quickly? Do you think Trump was vindicated in his short sharp uh strategy there by 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 my life is a kind of unbroken chain of bad predictions and, you know, embarrassing uh 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 um to use military force without a clear achievable object objective that serves the American national interest. In fact, it’s not 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 s 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 and their friends and all American kids. It would include a drug crisis that’s killed millions of Americans over the past 20 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 I just there’s no evidence to support that. And so, if the energy of the US 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. Um, 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 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’m 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. Um, but I also think that, you know, you shouldn’t profer 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 wasn’t attacking Israel. I wasn’t attacking I’m I wasn’t attacking. I was merely saying um in in my capacity as someone with strong opinions, I I 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 it’s 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 So that that seems to be a clear repudiation of of what he said that you you did not call him to abolish. No, it’s not that. It’s just that look I I said what I said which wasn’t, you know, very complex or sophisticated. It certainly wasn’t hatefilled. 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 I’m sorry. I want to preemptively apologize for being a jerk because I often am. So, I would that if 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 apologized 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 I 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 is 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 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 the cruelty of the dorm. And um I’ve been fighting against it my whole life. So, I’m just I’m I’m sorry for being that way. You know, when I when I when we had our little, you know, I thought highly entertaining uh ding-dong in 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 Well, you’re I think your views are sincere. you always retain some distance from yourself and from your views and a 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 I’m not triggered by it but it’s the self-s seriousness it’s the self-righteousness of a toad like Ted Cruz that just sets me off the oh 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 You don’t behave like that at all. You’re like, “Okay, we have different views. That’s all right.” You mentioned You don’t trigger me. You mentioned Ted Cruz. Um 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 the new episode of your show when you were talking. I didn’t I didn’t actually I didn’t say I didn’t say that. Um, and I said that is Hamas a jihadi group? Let’s play we’ll play the clip and I’ll tell you what Ted Cruz said cuz it I’d like your response. Please do. Here’s a clip. No one can plausibly claim that a Christian family are in Hamas. Okay. So like what? Tell me if 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. 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 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 in that hospital? Like, what is this? So when when you said there Tucker that you you said in passing there you were 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 I said you can’t claim first of all the core of it is why is 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 they’re ham in Hamas. And so my question is, well, you’re you’re telling me at 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. Fata. There were tons of Arab political terror groups that were secular that did have Christians in them. By the way, a lot of Christians who were displaced in 1948 and they were radical or whatever. But there, do you see what I’m saying? There’s like a a 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 going, you stopped killing, you stopped killing Christians. You’re not. 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 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? Give me a straight answer. And calling me names is not going to deter me. I understand the bigger point you made, but like I said, you definitely say 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 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 Mos. I 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 accompllices. 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 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. Do do you desecrating churches? Do you view Hamas as a terrorist organization as they’ve been prescribed in many countries including the US? I view Hamas killing people, especially civilians, as horrifying, immoral, and wrong. And if you think you’re going to get me into 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 is an entire network of not a television network but a 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 innocents 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 I’m a Protestant Christian who hates radical jihadis. Like, I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Anyway, that that’s it. That’s a 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, um, I’m happy to call anyone who does that a terrorist. That’s my definition. That was our working definition before 911. And then it just became the people our political class doesn’t like. And I’ve been called a 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 whether I’m trying to work out do do you actually think then that Hamas are terrorists or not? I think any organization that kills the innocent, including Hamas, is a terror organization. Got it. Okay. 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 someone else can think? Does that include Okay. So, does that include Israel? It includes anybody. Does that include Israel? It includes anybody. Anybody. By the way, let me just say I I it’s so funny. It’s 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 founded 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 is 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 when the Israeli government says it has repeatedly that even though over 20,000 completely innocent children are believed to have died in in their response to what Hamas did on October the 7th at the hands of the IDF, there are many on the propalestinian side who say that Israel is behaving like terrorists too in the way that they have gone about conducting this war. Would would you go as far as to say that? One of the 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. Um, 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 solopism that pulls everything back to the concerns of a foreign country and that’s the litmus test for 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 def. I mean obviously but so does my government. And 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 US government has done have intentionally murdered people who didn’t do anything wrong. People like, “Yeah, that’s right.” But you say that about Benjamin Netanyahu, who I 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 it. 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 give you let me let me um talk about my country for a moment because again when we when we had our double header in in Riyad, you talked pretty scathing mely about the UK and I put up a I think a pretty good fist of a defense. But something happened last week that made me think, my god, that made me think, my god, Tucker 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 Graeme Lahan uh 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 came to free speech bordering on North Korea. So Tucker Carlson, I would like to say you were on to 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 that it just it did happen and this guy was taken off to cells and 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, you know, someone who is half English, um, I 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 um so I I don’t think you’re going to fix these things through elections at some point, probably pretty soon. And I just worry a place like the UK, Canada is another um a bunch of different countries in the West are at the point where they’re like they’re literally revolutionary. Like 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 what, 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 um the people in charge don’t seem to care. You’re already you are you are seeing the anger beginning to manifest itself. And I I completely understand the anger. I don’t like you. I’d abhore any form of violence. But I do understand the anger when you have, you know, Karma campaign. I’m going to smash the gangs that allow these little boats to come over the channel uh 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. It’s out of control. And and the British the British public are reaching a point of saying we are we are done with people coming in illegally and being treated better in a more comfortable and more luxurious manner than 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 I are they really going to do something about it? What would 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 I really 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 with England, Scotland, Wales. Like, it’s all changing so fast. Nothing like this has ever happened in all of history, except when, say, the Mongols 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 Sagal 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 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? It’s 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. Well, in fact, I’m not a white supremacist. I’m just noticing what the hell’s going on. I think 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. Wait, it’s multicultural? What does that 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 every bit as valid as English common? No. No. People don’t want Sharia law. A lot of people do. Wait, 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 that was kind of the beauty of the west. But a multicultural society is not sustainable. There’s not your society will dominate. Hang on ta. 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 it’s it’s absolutely not. It’s a no no. It’s it’s a multi- racial it’s a multi-racial society. Yeah. Though it was not actually a multi-racial society up until pretty recently. 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 on everybody else. I mean, the 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 of gayness or whatever. Trans stuff, sodomy. We’re 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. It’s not multiculture. You can’t desent. You can’t descent from it. Yeah, but you’re not allowed to descent from it. If you’re like, actually, I think autonomy is wrong. How does it work for you? You go to 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. Uh we actually it was only only legal to be gay from the mid60s in the United Kingdom. And I’m very glad I now live in a country where it’s perfectly legal to do that. So, so you you buy the culture. You buy Okay. abide people’s right abide people’s right to have their own sexuality that my argument with the argument with well my argument with the trans but that’s never happened never happened of your country well the trans debate is different to the gay debate it’s not different it’s not it is 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 our culture is what are our values and that definition changed So your country, let’s just let’s just say its 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. Oscar Wild went to jail for it. So you have a thousand 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. There’s no multi in that. It’s not mandatory to love gays. Mandatory love. You can have a view. Really? What What would happen? What would happen if you stood up in Parliament or on a television show in Great Britain and said basically just describe what the average Victorian or even Eduardian thought of homosexuality or just read Oscar Wild’s indictment but agreed with it. You’d lose your job. You might go to jail. There is not a multiculture 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 firmst form are called laws. But those values can evolve. This is true everywhere. 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 of one society. Sorry. But your country’s your country’s values were established by the United States Constitution and that’s had what is it 26 27 amendments. Right. So your own values as determined by the founding fathers, they have evolved and been changed to accommodate changing time. This is there’s no doubt. Look, I’m not even arguing against change. That’s natural. It’s natural that people’s views evolve. So the culture changes rejecting the laws of nature, then you’re doomed. But let me just say, no, of course societies change. I get it. All I’m saying, I’m making a very discreet 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 societies. So if you’re telling me it’s multicultural, we can all live and like have radically different values, that’s just not true. It’s never been true. never will be true. So you’re having one worldview predominate over another and dominate and suppress all descent. Like that’s just what it is. And I would point 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 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’s 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 forced upon us by the architects of mass migration. Sorry. I I would question your characterization as my country is a sad, disgusting. What was 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 would like to remind my viewers that your 911 documentary series, the first episode is posted on 911. Aptly so. Yeah. Tucker, thank you very much indeed for coming on and best of luck with the series. Thanks a million Pierce. Piers Morgan Uncensored 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 Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain. And we’ll do it all for free. Independent uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn’t do it without you.

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 apologized 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.

00:00 Introduction
02:01 Tucker on why he is questioning the conventional 9/11 narrative
10:27 AD: Birch Gold Group – Visit https://birchgold.com/piers for free info kit
11:34 9/11 – cock-up or a conspiracy?
20:19 AD: Oxford Natural – get 70% off first order with code PIERS
21:17 Why is there a government effort to stop the US from knowing the truth?
26:38 Does Tucker’s documentary dispel anti-semetic conspiracies?
30:10 AD: Piers’ new book Woke Is Dead
31:07 Is Tucker Carlson an antisemite?
31:53 Why did Donald Trump bomb Iran?
34:20 Did Tucker Carlson apologise to Donald Trump in private?
38:15 Piers challenges Tucker on “Hamas is a political organisation” comments
48:41 Does Tucker think Israel is a terrorist state?
50:55 Tucker reacts to the arrest of comedian Graham Linehan over tweets

Subscribe to stay up-to-date on all Uncensored content.

Follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on:
X: https://x.com/PiersUncensored
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/piersmorganuncensored/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/piersmorganuncensored
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@piersmorganuncensored

Follow Piers Morgan on:
X: https://x.com/piersmorgan
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/piersmorgan

#piersmorgan #interview #tuckercarlson