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

Summary

Podcast Summary: Digital Social Hour Episode #826 - "Social Media Censorship: The UK's Dark Secret" Featuring Sulaiman Ahmed

Release Date: October 24, 2024

In Episode #826 of Digital Social Hour, host Sean Kelly engages in a deep and provocative discussion with guest Sulaiman Ahmed on the pressing issue of social media censorship in the United Kingdom. The conversation delves into the alleged misuse of the Terrorism Act to silence pro-Palestinian voices, the influence of mainstream media and big tech on public opinion, and broader concerns about free speech and governmental overreach. Below is a structured summary capturing the key points, notable quotes, and insights shared during the episode.

---

1. Introduction to Social Media Censorship

Sulaiman Ahmed opens the discussion by highlighting recent instances where journalists and pro-Palestinian voices have been arrested under the UK's Terrorism Act for their social media posts.

• [00:00] Sulaiman Ahmed: "A journalist called Richard Medhurst was arrested... someone who was a pro-Palestinian voice, Sarah Wilkinson, was arrested for her post on social media under the Terrorism Act."

Richard Medhurst expresses astonishment at the severity of these actions.

• [00:20] Richard Medhurst: "What, so now just post and get arrested?"

2. Sulaiman's Rise on Twitter and Content Focus

Ahmed discusses his burgeoning presence on Twitter over the past year and a half, initially gaining traction by investigating and debunking the Andrew Tate case, and later expanding to conservative ideas and geopolitical issues, especially those related to Israel and Palestine.

• [00:56] Sulaiman Ahmed: "I investigated the Andrew Tate case... then I was talking about conservative ideas... and then I blew up in geopolitics."

3. Media Manipulation and Public Perception

A significant portion of the conversation centers on how mainstream media and influential social media accounts propagate specific ideologies, leading the masses to adopt certain beliefs without critical examination.

• [02:14] Sulaiman Ahmed: "The mainstream media... perpetuate a specific ideology intentionally. The masses just follow it."

He illustrates this with a recent incident in the UK where a stabbing led to widespread riots fueled by misinformation about the perpetrator's background.

• [05:12] Sulaiman Ahmed: "They riled up the public through social media... attacking mosques and innocent people."

4. Concerns Over Free Speech and Authoritarian Tendencies

Ahmed voices his concerns about the erosion of free speech in the UK and the US, comparing the current state to more overtly censored nations like North Korea and China. He warns of a slippery slope towards authoritarianism due to increasing censorship.

• [14:31] Sulaiman Ahmed: "As soon as you censor, you're going down a road of basically controlling the public and controlling the masses."

5. Influence of Big Tech and Political Funding

The discussion shifts to the role of big tech leaders like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg in shaping public discourse. Ahmed argues that these individuals, through their control of social media platforms, wield significant power that can influence political outcomes and public opinion.

• [18:02] Sulaiman Ahmed: "For example, he's extremely anti-immigration. He's anti Islam... these get perpetuated."

He also touches upon the financial dynamics in US politics, suggesting that substantial funding from entities like AIPAC ensures pro-Israel stances among elected officials.

• [28:13] Sulaiman Ahmed: "AIPAC... spend significant amounts of money to ensure their candidates win, irrespective of Democrat or Republican."

6. Debating and Public Discourse

Ahmed shares his experiences in online debates, asserting his ability to effectively debunk opposing viewpoints. He mentions debates with figures like Destiny and discusses his academic background, which he credits for his analytical skills.

• [35:54] Sulaiman Ahmed: "I've always been good at debating because I break down arguments and find their flaws."

7. Views on Intelligence and Voting Systems

A controversial segment involves Ahmed's opinions on intelligence disparities between genders and his critique of the current voting system. He proposes a merit-based voting system, emphasizing intelligence as a criterion, which has drawn concerns regarding its implications for equality and representation.

• [42:10] Sulaiman Ahmed: "I don't think women should be able to vote, but I think most people shouldn't be able to vote."

8. Critique of Public Figures and Media Personalities

Ahmed criticizes UK media personalities like Piers Morgan, accusing them of promoting specific agendas that undermine British societal values, such as LGBTQ education and stringent COVID-19 measures.

• [55:27] Sulaiman Ahmed: "Piers Morgan... perpetuated the ideology... now children as young as five learn LGBTQ education in schools."

9. Final Thoughts and Concerns

In closing, Ahmed reiterates his commitment to free speech and his concerns about escalating censorship. He warns of potential personal repercussions, including the possibility of arrest, due to his outspoken views.

• [59:28] Sulaiman Ahmed: "If I go back to the UK, they're going to arrest me as well."

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Sulaiman Ahmed [00:00]: "Another journalist, someone who was a pro Palestinian voice, Sarah Wilkinson, was arrested for her post on social media under the Terrorism Act."

• Richard Medhurst [00:20]: "What, so now just post and get arrested?"

• Sulaiman Ahmed [02:14]: "The mainstream media... perpetuate a specific ideology intentionally. The masses just follow it."

• Sulaiman Ahmed [14:31]: "As soon as you censor, you're going down a road of basically controlling the public and controlling the masses."

• Sulaiman Ahmed [28:13]: "AIPAC... spend significant amounts of money to ensure their candidates win, irrespective of Democrat or Republican."

• Sulaiman Ahmed [35:54]: "I've always been good at debating because I break down arguments and find their flaws."

• Sulaiman Ahmed [42:10]: "I don't think women should be able to vote, but I think most people shouldn't be able to vote."

• Sulaiman Ahmed [55:27]: "Piers Morgan... perpetuated the ideology... now children as young as five learn LGBTQ education in schools."

• Sulaiman Ahmed [59:28]: "If I go back to the UK, they're going to arrest me as well."

---

Conclusion

Episode #826 of Digital Social Hour presents a fervent critique of perceived social media censorship in the UK, highlighting the struggles of pro-Palestinian voices like Sulaiman Ahmed against governmental and societal pressures. The conversation underscores the tension between free speech and regulatory measures, the influence of mainstream media and big tech on public discourse, and raises contentious viewpoints on societal structures and voting systems. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Ahmed's perspectives, the episode serves as a catalyst for important discussions on censorship, freedom of expression, and the integrity of information dissemination in the digital age.

Transcript

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Journalist called Richard Medhurst. He arrived on a plane. And the rest of them on the Terrorism act again. Yeah, exactly. And then today, another. Another journalist, someone who was a pro Palestinian voice, Sarah Wilkinson, was arrested for her post on social media under the Terrorism Act.

[Richard Medhurst]

What, so now just post and get arrested?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Exactly.

[Richard Medhurst]

That's crazy.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

For just being for Palestine.

[Richard Medhurst]

All right, guys, we got Sulaiman Ahmed here today. Thanks for coming on, man.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Thanks for having me.

[Richard Medhurst]

Absolutely crazy times we're in right now. And your Twitter's blowing up.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, yeah, it is crazy times. Yeah, my Twitter is doing really well. Yeah, it's quite good.

[Richard Medhurst]

Have you always had a big following there? Was it recently?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

No, it's recent. So I had a Twitter account, but I never used it.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

And then about a year and a half ago, I started posting. So my entire, like, Twitter blow up has been the year and a half. So the first nine months of it was basically I investigated the Andrew Tate case.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

And I was one of the few people that was debunking a lot of the propaganda against him. Very early on that blew me up. And then I was talking about, like, you know, conservative ideas and so on and so forth. Then was part of the Ban the ADL movement in August, you know, which movement? Ban the adl.

[Richard Medhurst]

Ban the adl.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah. And then what happened was in. So that. And then I did a thread on, like, Russell Brand in his situation. And then in October, then October 7th happened, then I blew up in geopolitics.

[Richard Medhurst]

Wow.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

He just got indicted again, Right. Like a week ago.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

He got charged again. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

Is it the same charges? A different.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

No, it's different charges this time. So the first time it was, like, a certain level of charges, which a lot of them I debunked and, you know, found that they weren't very strong. These are, like, new charges, so. So we'll have to see what the claims and the veracity of them are.

[Richard Medhurst]

You're gonna have to debunk these too, then.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, yeah, possibly, if I get time.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

No, because he was in prison.

[Richard Medhurst]

Oh, shit.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

So he was in prison when I was debunking him, so. No, he didn't, like, reach out.

[Richard Medhurst]

Damn.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, that's basically what I did on Twitter for a very long time. Because generally speaking, what you find is whatever everybody's saying, generally they're on the wrong side. So really yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

On Twitter or just in general?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

General. But also Twitter is not. Isn't secluded from that. So if you look at any of the major events that happened in the past, obviously I'm not sure what we're allowed to speak about on YouTube, but basically, like, if you look at like, Russia, Ukraine, Covid, you look at then, now, Israel, Palestine, like many of those things, whatever it may be. Generally speaking, my rule is this because I'm quite like, like analytical, but also like quite pessimistic now.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

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

[Richard Medhurst]

Wow, what a rule of thumb to have. Because most people see everyone saying the thing and just agree with it.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, exactly.

[Richard Medhurst]

But you're the opposite.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, yeah. 100. I think that's what you should be like, critical thinking. Now, maybe you look into it and the truth is with the majority, that's fine. But I think it's always worth looking into if everybody's propagating one thing that's literally up in the tape thing. So I was like, wait a sec, everybody's propagating this specific point that this guy's guilty, so on and so forth. So I said, like, okay, now I'm doubting it. Let me check into it.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Well, it's a number of things. First of all, it's generally speaking, the mainstream media or those who control it, or what happens is larger accounts or larger profiles essentially are not autonomous. So they'll propagate, perpetuate a specific ideology intentionally. And then what happens is the masses, they just follow it.

[Richard Medhurst]

Right.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

And so the masses are like, oh, we haven't got time to research this information. And so they'll just automatically just believe it. So a prime example is just very recently.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

If I was to ask an American what do they think happened in the UK Protest, they'll say, oh, my God, it's like civil war. There's a lack of assimilation. The uk, There's a huge amount of, like, dissension. There's no peace in the uk, but. And the minorities are coming out attacking, or Muslims are coming out and attacking. And then this. Where. Then who's this information disseminated by? It's by specific accounts who want to perpetuate this ideology. And so then if I talk to a general person, they'll be like, oh, I thought this happened. And you're like, this is not what happened. This is in reality this is what happened. So that's how it happens. It's people, those who have control of the information, disseminate in the manner they want and. And then the rest of the people just follow that.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Oh, that's a worldwide thing. That's how it works. Everywhere.

[Richard Medhurst]

Wow.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

And everything. So those who want to perpetuate a specific ideology will do so. And everybody follows. Most people just follow. They don't have the analytical skills, the NPCs.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Oh, yeah. Yeah. We do it significantly. So in the only difference between like North Korea or as they say China or maybe to a lesser extent they say Russia is. There is censorship in these countries. In the uk, more so and slightly less so in the us, but still there's this kind of facade of free speech, but in reality we don't have it.

[Richard Medhurst]

Right, so no free speech in the uk.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Well, okay, so let's talk about the uk. Right, so what happened in the UK recently was there was riots. Now what happened was there was a stabbing that occurred in Southport in the north of uk. Now, the stabbing, unfortunately, he also stabbed three young girls. Wow, what a horrific. It's a horrific and a horrendous situation. But what happened was many of these large accounts on social media perpetuated the lie that this person who did the stabbing was an illegal immigrant who just come to the UK a year earlier. He was a Muslim and he was a Palestinian, Jordanian origin. So they disseminated this information and everyone believed it. So everyone became angry, everyone became volatile because they were like, why is this illegal immigrant coming to the UK Muslim guy and stabbing innocent girls?

[Richard Medhurst]

Right?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

So what they did was they riled up the public through social media. And so what happened was there's a lot of people, far right, Islamophobes I call them, because I think you need to make a distinction. There's some people who, on the far right whose only issue is immigration. There's some people in the far right who have different views, right? But this, this specifically is people who are actual. Have hatred for Islam. They're not really bothered about immigration. Now what they did was they perpetuated. So what they did was they got people on the streets rioting. And so what happened was the people came, they start attacking mosques and certain holy places. And then, then that the day when they start writing because it was the next day, another guy came with a knife and a machete. And again they said, oh, that guy's a Muslim guy. And then later we find out he's not. His name is Jordan Davis. He's not a Muslim guy. And then we find out the first guy isn't a Muslim guy either.

[Richard Medhurst]

Wow.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

And nor is he an illegal immigrant.

[Richard Medhurst]

What?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, so he's basically. His parents are from Rwanda, but he's born in the UK and he's brought up in the uk. He's not an illegal immigrant.

[Richard Medhurst]

Holy crap.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

And. And he's a Christian.

[Richard Medhurst]

That's crazy.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

So, but then they've created all this dissension, all of this hatred. So then the riots continue. And in the weekend, what happens is the riots happen throughout the north of the uk where they attack women. They attack, like, they attacked people, attacked premises, they burnt police stations, they burned local businesses, they destroyed property. Basically what happened here, you know, with blm, basically, that's what happened there.

[Richard Medhurst]

Damn.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

And so they basically perpetuate this. Now, what they did was also they only went to areas where there was an extreme minority of minorities to basically get them and hit them. So, for example, when there's a larger minority proportion, for example, in London, in Birmingham, in Manchester, they didn't go there, right? So they went to, like, areas where there was a lot of. A lot less minorities and then targeted and attacked them. So what happened was that then in certain areas, a couple of areas or maybe a few areas, there was Muslims who turned out and they acted in the exact same manner. So they brought, you know, bats, baseball bats and weapons and so on and so forth. And so they acted in the same manner. And my argument actually is that when they've acted in the same manner, it's only because of assimilation. Because, for example, you know, when our parents came to the country, grandparents came to this country, if anything, they did the opposite. Whenever someone would be arrested to them and call them Paki or whatever it may be, they just like put their head down and walk away. Or if someone tried to break up their windows, they just allow it, Right. I just fix up their windows. But what's happened is these people have actually assimilated, and so they're acting exactly how a Northerner acts. So just how you saw the northern far right Islamophobes, these acted in the exact same manner. So it's actually a product of real assimilation that they're all acting in the same manner. So what happened was then they. But then what happened in the UK was then a lot of these Areas like for example, London and various areas, because the people in the UK are actually against this ideology. The vast majority of the UK is peaceful. And so they came out in their numbers and I mean mainly white people came out in the numbers to say, look, we don't stand with you guys, we stand with peace and integrity. And then everything ended. And this was perpetuated by a guy called Tommy Robinson. Because Tommy Robinson is a guy who's like an extreme Islamophobe. He's been again promoted on social media. He hasn't got an issue with immigration, he's only got an issue with Muslims. Now why I'm talking about all of this is what happened from there was there's riots occurring. So 10 years ago when we had riots, we in, in Bradford. Right. So again it's the north of England. We what happened was Tommy Robinson's crew pretended that they're going to go to Bradford. Then a lot of Muslims went to Bradford to basically confront them. Tommy Robinson's crew didn't go there. But then these guys had this like, you know, pent up aggression, unfortunately, completely disagree with it, but I'm telling you what happened. And then they became violent and they start burning police stations, burning businesses and so on and so forth. They got extremely harsh sentences, like even for stealing like a small thing like a bottle of water, you got like a four, five year sentence. Damn right. It was crazy. So this time they've done the exact same thing. They've done it to the people from the far right and the Muslims where they've given them extremely long sentences. They've given them two, three, four year sentences. Now when this was happening, I said at the beginning, I said this is happening intentionally because Keir Starmer is controlled by Zionists. And he's intentionally putting these ideas, these things in place and allow, for example, he didn't put the police to stop it immediately because what happened in the UK is we had a huge amount of protests in the UK. Pro Palestine protests. In the UK the population is about 65 million, but adult population is about 30, 40 million. Who can actually protest. We in One weekend had 1.3 million people turn up for a protest. Yeah. And then Pro Palestine. Pro Palestine, Yeah. And every single weekend there's been hundreds of thousands, millions and millions and millions of people going to these protests because they were happening every Saturday. And so what they want to do is they wanted to ban these protests and stop anti Zionist speech, but they couldn't do it because the UK is a fought for Palestine. Right. So you can't put them ideas in. So people like Suella Bravam and many others wanted to put these, put these like extreme draconian police state policies in place, but they weren't able to do it because the public are like, nah, we ain't going to allow it. We support this. Right. It wouldn't have worked because the public would have revolted. But then you say, look, these pro, these riots happen because of what's happened on social media. It's for your safety. They'll say to the minorities and people from the left and people who support them, the vast majority, okay, look at that. Like, these guys destroyed local businesses of poor working class people. They attacked minorities. This happened because of speech on social media, because of speech on X. We need to censor that speech for your benefit. And they get the people to agree to it. So what's now happened is there's been extreme amount of censorship going on. People are getting arrested for their, for their tweets. But then what's happened is they've done the exact same thing I said right at the beginning, that the real aim was to stop and silence pro Palestinian voices. And so, for example, over the last few a week they were arrested a credible, respectable journalist called Richard Medhurst, he arrived on a plane and arrested him on the Terrorism Act. Again. Again. Yeah, exactly. And then today, another, another journalist, someone who is a pro Palestinian voice, Sarah Wilkinson, was arrested for her post on social media under the Terrorism Act.

[Richard Medhurst]

What, so now just post and get arrested?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Exactly.

[Richard Medhurst]

That's crazy.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

For just being for Palestine. So, for example, now with the hashtag going free Sarah Wilkinson now. So I do implore everybody to use the hashtag, but that's an example. So now they're going to be coming after everyone to the extent where I have huge concerns that when I go back to the uk, they're going to arrest me as well.

[Richard Medhurst]

So you might have to stay.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Well, I'm not going to stay so. Because I've got family, I've got kids, right? So the issue is this, like, this is the level of censure that's occurring. And what I said at the beginning, because those people who are, who were even supporting the riots, some of them, they're from the far right, but they were actually from Palestine. You've supported the censorship of the. The of in the UK and you've supported the UK becoming a police state and this is an example of it. So now many of us are concerned about what's going to happen because we've not done anything wrong. All we've been posting is the news reporting, the news reporting information, explaining, like, what's happening, you know, geopolitically abroad, what is the Zionist state are doing, and yet now people have been arrested. If you look at Sarah Wilkinson's page, you won't find anything that is like.

[Richard Medhurst]

Oh, she cleared it all.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

No, no, it's there. No, I mean, you won't find anything that you'd say, look, that sounds problematic, maybe she should be arrested or she's starting hatred or she's starting violence. So the fact that this is happening and this has happened today shows UK has become an extreme police state and is massively censorship process.

[Richard Medhurst]

People are getting arrested for having an opinion on X and it's starting in, in the uk. But that could spread.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, definitely. I mean, it is spreading, isn't it? Because Europe's always had censorship, right? Germany's always had censorship, for example, denial of the Holocaust. You get arrested, right? So I, I believe the Holocaust happened, right? But I believe that in total free speech as well. Like, I believe you can talk about and discuss anything. People talk about Islam all the time. I'm like, look, let's have a discussion. What are your concerns about Islam? What are your question marks? Let's have a question about it. Let's have a discussion about it. Because I feel like my belief system is so extremely strong in all, not just religion, in all ideologies, all politics, wherever it may be, I believe I can defend it quite strongly and vigorously. So I'm for open free speech. As soon as you censor, you're going down a road of basically controlling the public and controlling the masses. And then you have basically authoritarian, totalitarian societies.

[Richard Medhurst]

100%. You could see it starting here too, because if you say certain tweets, you'll start getting monitored by governmental agencies.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Oh, 100.

[Richard Medhurst]

It just happened to Tulsi Gabbard. So it's, it's definitely happening everywhere.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Oh, 100. In the. I mean, us. You saw that. You saw what happened in the college protests where they were basically physically assaulted. You saw that, for example, when students from, I believe, Harvard University wrote a letter saying that they support resistance or sport. Palestine. I think that's what they said about Palestine. All of them, Many of them got doxed, many of them lost their, their, their positions in the university. Some of them had got places in prestigious law firms and those were removed from them. So definitely the US is going towards a police state. They were trying to put policies in place to sense of free speech now. So, yeah, there's a huge attack on free speech in the US as well.

[Richard Medhurst]

That shows how powerful Palestine's enemies are then.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

It does show how powerful they are. It shows how powerful they are, how much level of power they have in the west and how they were willing to go against the thing that made the west unique. What made America and UK great was the fact, for example, America, you got the First Amendment. It's like literally the thing that makes you guys great, right, is the fact that you believe in free speech, you believe in the right of expression, you don't believe in extreme censorship. And yet all of that's been thrown in the bin. And also, for example, the US and the UK were kind of like the morality police of the world. They've thrown that in the bin as well. So they're losing significantly.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Exactly. And so the fact that someone like Zuckerberg can admit that they did do extreme censorship and they didn't allow a platform where everyone can be a free market of ideas demonstrates it also shows the level of control that the three letter agencies had over that social media app and other foreign intelligence agencies had over that social media app. And it also shows the power of social media. This should be an actual real discussion. But people are not willing to have it that. Why is it that social media has even more power than governments and there's no controls in place. Now, I'm not saying that there should be like, for example, censorship. I'm opposite of that. I don't believe there should be any censorship. But for example, if social media is under the control of someone who's going to harm society, look at the level of impact you can have. So the fact that the sitting President of the United States of America, who is meant to be the most powerful man in the world, who holds the most important position in the world, was banned by basically a Twitter safety, safety, safety and security expert. Right person. That shows the level of power that social media have. And I do have huge concerns. For example, first of all, I really like the fact that Elon Musk has given me free speech. I would say that Twitter is probably one of the few platforms that I would have had ability to blow up on. And I have. So I appreciate that. I appreciate the fact that I've not been banned. So, look, I give credit where credit's due. On the other hand, like Elon Musk does, but then he'll say he's just an individual user, but he does perpetuate some propaganda based on what will benefit. Right. And then the question becomes that when Elon Musk does it, is it a natural algorithm that causes his position to be perpetuated more than anything else? Or is it that people are just normies or, like, you know, sucking up to him and they'll just copy him and follow what he's saying? Because in, like, for example, any of the positions that Elon Musk has, those are the positions on Twitter that perpetuate more than anything.

[Richard Medhurst]

That's true.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

So, for example, he's extremely anti immigration. Those get perpetuated. He's anti Islam. Those get perpetuated.

[Richard Medhurst]

Right.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

He's anti the left now. Those get perpetuated. He's pro Trump. That gets perpetuated. Although Twitter was kind of like more pro Trump anyway before. So any of his positions, whatever they are, they get perpetuated. Now the question becomes, are they perpetuated? Naturally, because people see, oh, Elon Musk is saying it, 200, 200 million people, over 200 million people, people are following him, therefore we're going to say the same thing. Or is it that when Elon Musk says something, the algorithm boosts that position? So this is like, I would say both.

[Richard Medhurst]

Right?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

Because he does have a huge following. Like, each Tweet gets, what, 10 million views at least.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah. Gets huge. Some even get 30, 40 million.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah. That's crazy.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah. The engagement on Twitter is nuts.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah. So it could be. I agree with you. I think if I. If you had to ask me what I think, I think it's probably a bit of both.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

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

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

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

[Richard Medhurst]

100.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

Why do you think Mark Zuckerberg waited so long to release this information? Because he's a smart person. So I feel like it was a strategic move.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Oh, I definitely believe it was a strategic move. So what happened was the deep state, or I call the Zionist, or people call it the Matrix or whatever it may be. What happened was they were basically on the side of the left or the Democrats. And then what happened was October 7th happened. And what happened was a lot of that then people thought that, look, we're not getting the protections that we're getting. And so you saw basically people in Silicon Valley, such as Bill Ackman, such as various others who were part of the Silicon Valley crew, or basically Zionists, and various other people who basically are part of Big Tech, who basically thought, wait a sec, like, what's happening in the university protest? Like, we're not being stopped, we're not being supported. And then what they did is they moved away from the Democrat Party and they didn't set their stall out on who they were going to go for. And then Donald Trump was on the other side. And so, I mean, I know this is going to sound like a bit of a conspiracy for you, right? But in my view, they didn't want. They have concerns about Donald Trump as well. Because Donald Trump, although he is obviously, I believe he's in bed with them now because he's got 100 million from Miriam Adelson. He got J.D. vance as the vice president. He's basically a Petty Thiel guy. Peter Thiel basically won him the Senate seat, What was it, 18 months ago?

[Richard Medhurst]

So Trump's in bed with the Deep State, you're saying?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Oh, yeah, I do.

[Richard Medhurst]

Really?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

So, yeah. But I'll explain to you. The issue is. So then the question becomes like, why is it that there was the assassination attempt?

[Richard Medhurst]

Right.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Because the problem with Trump is he's a wild card, so you never know what he's going to do. Right. So if they'd assassinate a Trump, who would have been the next person in.

[Richard Medhurst]

Line for the Republicans? Yeah, it'd be his vp. Right.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Well, he didn't have the vp.

[Richard Medhurst]

Oh, he didn't have it at the time. Who would it be then?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

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

[Richard Medhurst]

Okay.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

These people are extremely deep, pro, deep state, pro military industrial complex, pro war, pro the expansion of the war in the Middle East. They're like literally saying to like countries like Israel, like, tell us how much you want, when you want it, how you want it, therefore basically continue to support the Ukrainian and Russian conflict in terms of the proxy, what's happening against Russia. So you're basically, you take Trump out, you ensure that all of these things continue. Whereas with Trump, although he's like going to appease them like he has by appointing JD Vance, he's still a wild card. He could be in office. And for example, when he was in office previously they were pressuring him to go into war with Iran and he refused to do so.

[Richard Medhurst]

Right. He's anti war.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, he was anti war definitely the first time. Right. And so but then he's still a wild card because like for example, he's made statements now saying that he's going to help allow Israel to basically finish the job. Which means what? Finish the genocide.

[Richard Medhurst]

He's pro Israel, Right?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, exactly. So when you look at all of this, what's happened is as soon as the assassination attempt failed, Elon Musk, Bill Ackman, all of the Silicon Valley guys all came out in unison and literally said, we support Trump because now he is their guy. And so that's what's happened. There's been a huge shift onto that side. So when it becomes Silicon Valley, big tech, social media, all of them have aligned under Trump. And so Zuckerberg is another guy who's doing that.

[Richard Medhurst]

So you think even Elon Musk been influenced?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

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

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah, he was like the first one.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

He was, he was the first one. So.

[Richard Medhurst]

But I always saw him as like an individual person. I never knew he was compromised like that.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

So Elon Musk did an interview with Donald Trump and in the interview on X, which got a significant amount of you show, but I think it was like a million live viewers or something like that. So if you look at it, he was completely all in with Trump. And in there he was literally saying to Trump that look, I'll give me a position in, in the, as part of your, you know, your cabinet, I will oversee certain things that are happening on there. Also, for example, we should be looking at nuclear energy and these type of things. And also, for example, there has been, there's a lot of legal cases against Musk as well. And so therefore I believe that getting in bed with Trump helps eradicate all of those problems that he's having and it benefits him hugely, both from a business perspective and a personal perspective.

[Richard Medhurst]

Interesting. So as someone that lives in the uk, how much do you care about who the US President is?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Oh, I extremely care about it.

[Richard Medhurst]

Really?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, yeah. Because so like for example, I hold spaces, cohort spaces on US politics a lot. And the reason for it, what I believe is, I've always thought it's important. Right. Because whoever the President of the United States is essentially is the president of the western world. Right. Because whatever America decides, Britain follows through, Europe follows through, everyone follows through. I mean Germany Follow through even when it basically harms them. Yeah. A good example was when they blew up Nord Stream, that harmed Germany and Germany were like, yeah, that's fine, like we'll be your battering boys and now we'll actually start buying, buying, buying from Poland based on what you're saying. So like everyone does it. Like America, let's say America decided to go to war with Iran. Britain would follow suit. So anything that the United States of America does, the entire Western world is basically the proxy that follows it with follows in terms of, through NATO and so on and so forth. So therefore whoever the President of the United States is, anyone who's in the Western world and is not concerned with it is completely ignorant because it affects us both from a geopolitical perspective in terms of whether we're going to go to war, but it impacts us from an economic internal perspective. So like for example, now people in the UK are struggling more so than the uk, us, although US is bad. Yeah. But people in UK are struggling really badly. And, and the reason for that is what? Ukraine and Russia, again we follow the US into that.

[Richard Medhurst]

So how would that affect you though?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Because of the financial, the financially how we're supporting the Ukraine.

[Richard Medhurst]

Oh, so you guys are giving money.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, we're giving money also. Not to the same level you guys are.

[Richard Medhurst]

Right.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

But remember for us we're a smaller company with a smaller economy. So therefore even any of the money.

[Richard Medhurst]

That we're getting, your taxes went up because of that.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Our taxes didn't go up, but it harmed, harmed because the things became more expensive. Things became more expensive. The wage, the local, the wage never increased and therefore the disparity. There's a lot of people who are basically out of business, out of homes. But that wasn't the only thing. Then there also was like COVID lockdown measures. Again, US decides to lock down, then the world decides to lock down. Right. So the UK follows suit very soon after. If the US didn't lock down, UK wouldn't have locked down. Right. That's another example. Also one example which is not related to is Brexit. But again that was pressure from the US because remember the UK at the time we've been told, are you going to get deals with the US and you're going to get deals with Australia and so on and so forth. So Brexit was another thing that impacted our economy. And then now if you look at it again, Israel and Palestine is affecting us, although not financially, but if you look at it, it's affecting US in terms of the decision making. That's happening again from a geopolitical perspective. So all of these things, what it did was increase the, like, struggle that people are having in the uk. It's significantly bad. Local businesses have closed down. Like, shops close at very early hours. Now, even in London, which is one of the biggest city. Is the biggest city in London, one of the biggest cities in Europe. Like, before, it would be like, even businesses would be open till the late hours now they open, like very early. The sales staff is, like, significantly reduced. So anyone who. In the uk, therefore, it's imperative that a person is involved and knows what's happening in the us, because it affects you.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

No. No. So I have, like, because. Because I can't vote. So I don't back it. But I don't. I don't like Trump and I don't like Biden either, because again, they're both. Unfortunately, in my view, they fought Israel, they fought the Deep State, they've. They've got into bed with all of these things. I think that's highly.

[Richard Medhurst]

Kamala.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

No, no, I don't want Kamala as well. I mean, from the us, I would say I like Cornel west, but again, he's got no chance of winning. Yeah, you've. I like some of Jill Stain's policies, but again, she's got no chance of winning. But yeah, you. The whole. Isn't it? In the US and the uk, we had the same problem in terms of Labour and Conservative. All of the politicians are basically the Uni Party. There is no difference. So therefore, when there's no difference and there's no choice, that's literally what we've got. So we're literally saying, like, who do we choose? Both are as bad as each other. There's hardly any difference because they all have similar policies.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Exactly. That's what it is in the US and the uk.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah. What's Kamala's stance on the Israel, Palestine stuff?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

They're all for Israel.

[Richard Medhurst]

Oh, there are four Israel.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

I mean, in the US and the uk. So in the uk, us, you've got aipac. So AIPAC have. It's a basically American Israeli PAC lobby. Basically, they decide who the politicians are going to be. So AIPAC, whoever they've backed, 95% of them to 98% depending on the House or the Senate, have basically won their seat.

[Richard Medhurst]

Wow.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

They spend significant amount of money to ensure that their candidates win. Irrespective of the Democrat and Republic. The only thing is whether they're pro Israel or not. And so, and the same thing we have in the uk, in the UK we have Labor Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel. So again, it's this kind of entire global, global control to ensure that these countries back Israel and back their basically Zionist agenda, both externally and internally within the US and uk.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah. Politics is a pay to play system. If you have a lot of funding, your chances of winning are higher 100%.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

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

[Richard Medhurst]

That's crazy.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

You're going to win.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Exactly. You know, that's how it is in US politics.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

So other than 2016, Trump, every other time, whoever, whoever has the biggest financial back and wins the election.

[Richard Medhurst]

Wow, that's crazy. Yeah. Just run for president. They were saying you need half a billion dollars.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Oh, yeah. You need significant. I mean, look, Donald Trump got 100 million from Mariam Adelson, again, an Israeli American and again. What, what kind of. So someone gives you 100 million, they want some in return.

[Richard Medhurst]

Right. They're not just giving you that.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah. So what does she want to return?

[Richard Medhurst]

Crazy. What do you think she wants?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Well, I think she wants him to be extremely pro Israel. She wants annex the West Bank. She wants pro Israel policies. She wants the, the ending of pro Palestinian voices in the U.S. right. So I think those are just some of the things that she wants.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

On Twitter there is. Because Twitter is probably one of the few actual free speech platforms. As much as I said negative things about Musk, but I have to be balanced and said that it is one of the few actual free speech platforms. So someone like me blowing up and the level of engagement I have is because Twitter is. This is basically a free speech platform, generally speaking. Now I think it could be better. So like for example, if you look at my, my page, so I'm the most engaged pro Palestinian account and for a very long time I was the most engaged political account.

[Richard Medhurst]

Okay.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

But then something happened with the algorithm where the is pro Israel accounts start doing better even though they get less engagement, they were getting more views. So what's the reason?

[Richard Medhurst]

Are you kind of censored in a while you think?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

I don't think I'm censored. Because, like, I'm still growing. I know there was like a month or two months where I was completely not growing at all, which was weird. But generally speaking, I don't think I'm censored. I think there's something happened, like a tweak within the algorithm where Israeli posts are, like, given, like, some kind of boost, and pro Palestinian posts are not given. Given a slight deep boost or not completely deep boosted. Like, I'm not saying we're banned. So, like, for example, if you look at one of my posts, it can have, like, look at my pin post. I think it has like, 30, 40,000 likes, maybe 20, 30, 10,000 retweets, and it's only got 4 million views. Right. Whereas, for example, a Pro Israel account will only have like a thousand likes or 400 likes, or maybe 2% of the likes, but have the same or more views.

[Richard Medhurst]

Wow. So that's definitely intentional. That's not a coincidence if that keeps happening again. So that's kind of concerning.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Exactly. So that's the only negative, I would say. But still, we're not banned. Still we're able to post, and still I'm able to get, like, you know, all the likes that I get and all the retweets and views.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah. Damn. Yeah. Dan Bazeran recently came out, spoke against it. Right. That was a big deal.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah. Dan Bilzerian is a monumental, important voice. I met him. He's a great guy, a great person, doing things for the right reasons. No personal benefit or gratification. Solely doing it because he has significant concerns about the United States of America, about the world, about where we're going. And he thinks it's his duty as a human being and as an American to speak out against what's happening. And that's what we're seeing right now. So, yeah, huge amount of props for him. He's risked a significant amount. He was removed from his own board for speaking out.

[Richard Medhurst]

Wow. From ignite.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

I believe it was ignite.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, he was also. So he was removed from that. He also has lost a significant amount of money just by speaking out. Speak. A significant amount of relations by speaking out. So, yeah, a huge amount of credit for him. He's a very, very honorable guy, and I think Americans should be proud to have someone like Dan Bazerian.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

No reason whatsoever. His life's so easy. He's doing well financially. He's like he's got the. Basically he's living the American dream. So to basically risk everything, know that they're going to come after you. So for example, there was a Twitter space, right, you had just a week ago with Andrew T. Yeah. Tristan Tate, Dan Bilzerian and Candace Owen. And you saw that the tits got arrested 48 hours after that. I saw that Candace Owen had a significant directed attack against us on social media. And then Dan Bilzerian is the only one. And I was saying to Dan that, look, they're going to come after. So they're going to come after him next. So yeah, I mean, I give him a huge amount of credit.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah. How does your family feel about you being in the public spotlight like this? Are they scared?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

I've never been asked this question, so it's a good one. Yeah. My mom is always like, leave this, like, don't do it whatsoever. Whatever. Like, listen, you've done what you needed to do. You've highlighted the issue. Just like, give it up now and live your life calmly. And I'm like, look, I believe that. I'm like, I have to make a difference. I made a huge amount of difference. If you look at a lot of the debunkings that happen on social media, I was behind them. So like the 40 beheaded babies, I debunked that. I debunked many of the, the mass rape issue. I debunked a lot of the propaganda that was coming out Also, if on social media, I did a lot of the big debates and, you know, defeated it. And there was one debate where I debated 13 Zionists and defeated them.

[Richard Medhurst]

Damn. Yeah, 13 at once.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, 13 at once. Yeah, I beat Destiny in a debate.

[Richard Medhurst]

How do you determine if you defeat them? Like, how do you base that?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, I mean you can. I think a good way of seeing it is I wouldn't say the public, although everyone was saying like, I won, but you can tell by the arguments that you make. So like when I, I'm like very self critical, like if I do a debate and I think ARC should have improved in this way, like my first debate with Destiny on Andrew Taehyung, I. I believe I beat him. I beat him. But then I think I didn't do a great job. Like, I think there were certain aspects that I could have improved on significantly. So I would have given myself like what, maybe 6 out of 10 or 5 out of 10 on that. But even then, like, because Destiny kind of was presenting a more weaker position anyway at that time, generally, if the truth on his side, you're going to win the debate. But. So I think so. And then if you look at the debate, I'd kind of like beat him because even when they did the poll, it was like 50, 50, and he had all his fans come onto the Paul and I had no following because I was like a new guy. This last one, it was like completely just destroyed him. He kind of conceded so many points. He was like. I was like, yeah, if your dual citizen shouldn't be able to hold office. He was like, yeah, I agree. I was like, anyone who has a right to retention the whole office? He was like, yeah, I agree. Like, and many of the points I made, he, like, just conceded him. Whereas I've seen him since then in debates and actually he's been on a debate recently where I moderated and he defeated the other guy quite well.

[Richard Medhurst]

So he usually wins.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

The fact that you beat him.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, he's a good debater. He's a good debater. He's great at Deb. So that was that and then them 13. It was just easy because what it is, is like, I've like, one of my skills has always been in life or in things is like, this is probably my skill anyway, that I find out holes in arguments very easily. So when I. Once, when I see something, I'll see the holes.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

So that's why I've always been good at debating or being very good. This is the reason I blew up. I blew up because. Not because I've got like, some kind of, like, amazing personality, but it's because academia, because my background is academic. And then I just like, break things down in an academic manner. But what I do is I just see the holes in people's arguments and then just break them down.

[Richard Medhurst]

Were you debating growing up too?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

No, I wasn't.

[Richard Medhurst]

Oh, you weren't?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

No, no, no. So I was a nerd. So, like, my background is like, I got a degree in law, then I became like a. A mathematics teacher. So I'd had a. I got a qualification, mathematics, and then MA in philosophy, and then I was doing a PhD in philosophy. So I'm very much like. Like, it was a nerdy reading book type of guy. So.

[Richard Medhurst]

Wow.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

I wasn't really debating that much. I debated a bit here and there, but it debated in the sense of writing articles, but it wasn't a debate. You're just literally writing your own perspective.

[Richard Medhurst]

Okay. Because usually the nerds aren't good at debates. So you got something else in you that's. That's making you good?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Maybe. Maybe. Yeah. So I try my best, but. Yeah. I mean, Gary would say it's because I'm a fight free, but. Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

Oh, you're 33.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Same here. Nice. Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah. Do you believe in any of the numerology stuff or. No.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Okay. I wish you didn't ask me that. Yeah, I do believe in it.

[Richard Medhurst]

Oh, you do?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah. Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

Okay. Why do you wish I hadn't asked that?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Because I'm gonna get canceled. Like, all. Everyone I know hits Gary and hates numerology.

[Richard Medhurst]

Especially from the academia space.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah. Not just the academia. On social media. Like, a lot of the Christian. A lot of my fans are Muslims and Christians.

[Richard Medhurst]

Okay.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

They all dislike numerology. A lot of them dislike numerology. They don't agree with it. So, like, yeah, whenever Gary turns up, like, I'm always, like, half of the time trying to defend him.

[Richard Medhurst]

But yeah, I like him, dude.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

I like him a lot. He's a nice guy.

[Richard Medhurst]

He's a great.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

He's a great guy. Great guy. Yeah. But I do. I do believe in it. Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah. I mean, you can't. So, like, there's not been some mass experiment to prove it, but because it's like something that is more anecdotal. Experience, based on experience, and remember, like, based on experience, then it's a bit hard to prove from an academic perspective. And also what is proven, anything academically. Like, if you look at academic studies, none of them are, like, very good. None of them are very vigorous. If you look at the data points, they're very minutiae. They'll have like 200 sets, 300 sets. They'll choose their parameters. They'll choose everything. So even anyone who basically appeals to science, like, it's silly. You're only doing that because you're seeing, like, these kind of academia academic people as appealing to authority. But in reality, when you look at it, they. Even their research isn't always great.

[Richard Medhurst]

Wow, that's interesting. I didn't know that.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, I don't. I don't read any of the research and not any of the. Let me rephrase that. So you have to always look at it. So, like, whenever. For me, it's very easy when someone presents me a study to, like, just break it down and find a sense of. Find the flaws in it. So if I'm able to do it, it shows that there isn't, like, great academia out there or because remember, even academia, how do you get into academia? You need to have a certain viewpoint, you need to have a certain perspective. Then someone needs to peer review you, so they need to agree with your idea and your thoughts. If you're too out there, you won't get that opportunity at that position. If you have something which is too drastic, too different, doesn't go with the mainstream. Let's say you're as an example, an extreme anti feminist. You won't be able to do studies as an example. Like in the, in the 70s there was this study done which demonstrated that women have much worse recall than men. Right? Significantly worse. This was allowed in the 70s. Do you think now in 2024 we'd be allowed to study? And so that tells you that. Wow.

[Richard Medhurst]

So women do have worse recall though.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

100. So in like, for example, again, I'm quite religious. In the Quran, there's this idea that there's a two women witnesses to one man witness. So two women witnesses are equal to one man witness.

[Richard Medhurst]

Interesting.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

And I was always like, because I'm like, not someone who just believes anything for anything. I was like, okay, it sounds a bit like, what's going on here? Like, why is two women to one man? I thought everyone's equal wherever it may be. So I looked into it and researched it and thought I was actually trying to think like, is this right or not? Because there's a lot of positions that I'll just break it down and find out the flaws in them. And then I found these studies and the studies literally showed that in the 70s there was like, showing that actually women have much worse recall than men from a memory perspective. And then when a drastic event occurs, it's significantly worse. So let's say like, for example, there was a car accident.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Or a woman was in a car and there was a car accident, her recall would be much worse than a man's, like significantly worse, never mind normal recall. So if that's the case, then it makes sense to me that there's going to be two female witnesses to one man witness. But like, what that, all of that tells you is that when it comes to academia, like you just said it, right? Because you know it and we all know internally that would never be allowed now. So that tells you, like, how academia is controlled.

[Richard Medhurst]

That's concerning though, especially with witness testimonials. Because if a woman's testifying and her memory is not as good as a guy's, you know, that could affect the case 100%.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

So in the west, obviously A woman witness is equal to a male witness. Right, Right. But women are easily influenced. We know this biologically and evolutionary. Right. Women are more amiable to points. This is proven against from psychiatry and psychology. Just because biologically, like if you believe in biological evolution, you know that a woman's development is different to a male's development. So therefore, if they are different and the memory recall is different and we know that their minds are different. Right. Because, for example, men are better than women in physical sports. Yeah, but you know that because it's biologically, physically. But why are men better than women in chess?

[Richard Medhurst]

Way better too. And poker.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah. Why?

[Richard Medhurst]

Because we think different.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Like, yeah, so we think different. Or chess requires a certain level of brain function or certain level of intelligence, some would say a certain level of intellect. But the fact that we now live in a society where there's equality and women are able to play chess and it's not something that's physical. And yet if you look at the top hundred, I believe there's only one woman in it, or there isn't even one in the top hundred. I can't remember. I was checked a while ago. That tells you that men, when it comes to, from an intellectual perspective or from a, from that aspect of the intellect perspective, are definitely more stronger than women. And therefore, obviously the Western legal system, it makes them equal in the sense of like, one wins, one winners. But in the Islamic system, this is the reason why there is that differentiation.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, it's just data and science.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah. So we can't even. It's not personal with us.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

No, it's not. Like I don't like, I think women are important in the sense of to bring children up to rear children, to basically give them time, give them, you know, give them the social development that a man doesn't have time to do. So, so women, like, I'm not degrading women, I'm not saying they're like second class citizens or whatever, but they just don't have this. Women and men are not the same. And this is proven like biologically, but for some reason we've got to throw biology out the window.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah. So do you think women should be able to vote?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

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

[Richard Medhurst]

Okay. Yeah. Myron said the same thing on Twitter.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

What did he say?

[Richard Medhurst]

He said women shouldn't be able to vote.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Okay. So I think not only women shouldn't be able to vote, but I think most men shouldn't be able to vote as well. Yeah, yeah. I think people are just dumb and what they do is make terrible decisions. And so you're seeing that by the people who are elected. Like people just follow whoever's, whoever it is and they just don't have their own intellectual capacity to do so. So then I have thought about it and I thought like, what would be an ideal scenario? Like where, how would the voting system be? So I said, okay, so it should be based on intelligence. But then the question becomes like, how do you work out intelligence again? So IQ test is like, I don't think it's an accurate display of intelligence because the different types of intelligence is like, for example, there's special awareness intelligence, then there's for example, analysis intelligence. So there's different types. And the IQ test is actually very specific, specified type of intelligence. Now I'm not trying to IQ test because I score highly on iq, but I don't, I don't, I still don't think it's a very good test for actual real intelligence. And so therefore there needs to be some system that's developed. Maybe some part of IQ is in there, other aspects of intelligence are in there. But then the question becomes like, is intelligence the only parameter that should be looked at? Then maybe it should be people who are like businessmen or rich people. But then the problem with rich people is all of them intellectually smart. Yeah. So then, so there needs to be a system in that. But then the. I did, I did think about that and there is still flaws in my system as well. Because the problem with that is what will happen over time is because I was just like thinking about this over time you'd basically have a scenario where let's say the intelligent people choose who is in power. You'd have an elite group of intelligent people. And what happened is the people, the vast majority of people wouldn't be in that group.

[Richard Medhurst]

Right.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

And this group would become smaller and smaller and smaller because what happened is these people won't get the same access to education, same access to be able to develop the intelligence. There might be a few people in there who will end up meeting it, but generally speaking, it'll be most people from here. But then like intelligent people don't always have intelligent kids as well. So even though you could put them in the best educational system, like, they'll do well, but they might not be on there. So then this little bit reduced and reduced. You'll get an extreme two tier system where the those in charge become a lot smaller. And then these people, and then what they do is because they live in the kind of reclusive, secluded society, they'll not value the people underneath them, they'll see them as second class citizens, they'll start treating them really badly and then what will happen is like these people are trying to overthrow those. So I do see the flaw in what I'm saying, but I do think it's a bad system than what we've got now.

[Richard Medhurst]

You've really thought about this?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, yeah, of course. I'm an edge. I literally think about all these things.

[Richard Medhurst]

How is it in the uk, is it popular vote or is it similar to the us?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

It's same as uk first pass the post. So we'll have certain areas that we'll have. Like you have to get past 325 seats.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah, three.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

You have to get 326 to basically be elected the first pass the post system. So for example, in specific, so you could get like a large proportion of the vote and yet only get less seats.

[Richard Medhurst]

Right.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

So in the last election, as an example, Reform Party and Lib Dems got the same amount or similar amount of the popular vote, but one had like four seats and one had about 50 or 60 seats. Damn. Yeah. So that is, it is the first past the poor system. But again, I'm. I'm someone who supports the first past the post system.

[Richard Medhurst]

Oh, you do?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, yeah, I do. Because again, when I look at it, and I think like the founding fathers in the us.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

And those in the UK who came with the system, I think they were actually a bit smart because what they thought about was this, that you could basically, what's the reason why you don't want first past. Why you want the first past the post system is because like you can get someone to manipulate the public into thinking that a certain idea is good and you get enough of a vote in enough of the areas to get a certain percentage. Right. And so for example, Reform Party was a good example of that. It's something that wasn't really a party in the uk. And then two months leading up to the election, somehow they were put on all the debate stages, they were perpetuated on social media significantly. They got such a boost that like dumb people just voted for them. Right. So they got like 20, 30 of them. I know it was 19 of the vote or 20% of the vote, which is shockingly high.

[Richard Medhurst]

Right.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

But they only got four seats because of first pass the poor system. Because what the first pass the poor system does is it says that, look, actually everybody in that area has to be for that specific party for them to win the seat in the party. And then you have to win enough seats to be able to become the Prime Minister. I think what that does is stop this level of manipulation that occurs. And this kind of. Sometimes you can cause a huge amount of hatred in a specific area. I'll give you an example of how social media caused that fake news and it caused riots in the uk. So what it does is ensure that. So I would say actually the founding fathers in the US and the electoral system in the uk, they were very smart in the first part of the poor system. So I should support you.

[Richard Medhurst]

So you still think like Republicans, Democrats, that's a good system for the U.S. i know.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

I don't think that Republican Democrats are the good system. Like, I do think there should be a third party alternative that isn't a uni party, but. And again, it would take time for that party to grow. But what will happen is like for example, the first pass the support system is like you have to win, like if you have to win Nevada, for example, don't you? Right. So, for example, if you win Nevada, then you won, for example, one area and then you have to win another area. So I think that's what the first part of the support system is, that you have to win the areas to be able to win. So it's not like you come, you get like, I don't know, 20% of Nevada, 20% of Los Angeles, 20% of New York. And overall you get 20% and somehow you can become like the Prime Minister or you can win the second most votes. I think that there's a lot of flaws in that system like the one I gave. It can cause parties that cause a huge amount of hatred or anarchist or want to cause destruction in society to be elected based on the popular vote. So I think the first pass vote system is actually better.

[Richard Medhurst]

I like that. Yeah, RFK did some numbers, but no, really, no independent before him really did this much damage.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

True. RFK did decent numbers. I think rfk, if again, I don't want to bring everything back to that issue, but if RFK hadn't been so pro Israel.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

I think he would have had a very, very, very good chance of even possibly getting more votes than the Democrats.

[Richard Medhurst]

Really?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

Whoa.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Because when I look at. Because I try, like with me, I'm not just on the. Although some of my views do Sound like I'm very much on the right, but like, for example, I'm actually not on the right or the left, just like in religion, I don't follow one group or one sect, Right. So I speak to people from all backgrounds, whether the right or left. And I traveled the US and I spoke to a lot of people in the left and a lot of them weren't willing to vote at that time. Biden.

[Richard Medhurst]

Oh.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

And the reason for it was, is because of like the genocide that's happened in Palestine. So they were like, we just can't support it, we just can't vote for it. So there was a, there's a huge amount of vote in the US So in certain states, like for example, Michigan and a few others, almost like I believe 15 to 20% of people in the primary vote are uncommitted, right. So that's a huge amount of votes that's available. And if you put that throughout the US after what happened in the college protests, after what happened, many people on the left in the US are actually anti war. Right? And so that vote was completely available. And remember Kennedy is that for Ukraine and for every other thing. It's just for some reason we know why he's not that for Israel, right? I mean he was, he was in Jeffrey Epstein's plane, right? So. So for some, for some reason he's not. But if he had been, I think that's a huge amount of vote that could have went his way.

[Richard Medhurst]

Right. It's super hard as a politician not to get compromised. I feel like 100% just because the money.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, because of the money, because of the associations you need. It's hard to not sell out, not just as a politician in like, for example, in the capacities we are in, in social media, it becomes like very difficult for most people not to sell out. I find it very hard, like in the sense of. Because I don't sell out, I get into beef with nearly everyone, right? Because I'm always like, look, I have my values, I'm never gonna give them up. I will respect you, I will align with you on certain things, for sure. Like we have an. I'll have an alliance with many people, right? For example, the Christian Muslim alliance. But then I don't sell out my, sell out my ideas, I don't sell out my views, I don't sell out my people, I don't sell out anyone. So in that way. And I'm willing to give up things I like when October 7th happened, I gave up like an egg, a huge deal. So, like, I'm willing to do that. And so most people aren't?

[Richard Medhurst]

No, definitely not.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

Has there ever been a debate where it shifted your view in any way or are you very firm on your views?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

No, no, I'm very open in my views. So I'm not the type of person who's just like, gung ho. If somebody. If I like. Okay, so I don't find most people smart, but let's say I find someone smart and they're coming up with certain ideas, I will think about them. Say, okay, that makes sense. That makes sense. Okay. That kind of fits in with what I think in this way, but it kind of contradicts in this way, but can it be infused in somehow? So, yeah, of course. I'm always trying to develop. I've got, like, my own worldview, but I'm very open to, like, infusing different ideas and different thoughts.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

No, I mean, Destiny's Dominique.

[Richard Medhurst]

You don't think he's smart?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

No, I'm being mean. He's. He's not. He's not dumb and he's not. He's not smart. He's not ultra smart, but he's just like. He's above average. Yeah, he's above average. He's good at, like, quickly checking things on Google and, like, you know, debunking people quite quickly. So he's really good in that. So that. That debate I was moderating with Myron where Destiny was debating other pro Palestinians, he did a really good job because what he was doing was like, they were saying all of XY evidence. And then he'd Google it and say, oh, look, look. But the evidence is this. So he was really good. He was really good at that. Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

Who was your most respectable debate in.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Terms of who was a good debater against me or whoever seen. Who are.

[Richard Medhurst]

Who are good debaters against you?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Against me? Who's. I would say maybe. Maybe. I'd say Destiny was probably the better one.

[Richard Medhurst]

Okay.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

But again, like, I didn't think it was that good. So I've been like, I don't think I've debated anyone hard.

[Richard Medhurst]

So you haven't been fully challenged yet?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, yeah, I don't think I've debated anyone difficult.

[Richard Medhurst]

Who do you think could give you a run for your money? Maybe Jordan Peterson.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Oh, Jordan Peace. And I'd easily destroy really? He's easy. Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

He's a psychologist.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, he's dumb. I literally said about Jordan Peterson, like, a year ago now. Everyone's like, yeah, yeah, Jordan Peterson isn't that smart. He makes a lot of contradictory points. But I, like, wrote a thread on him, like, a year ago debunking, like, his ideas, his thoughts, how he's not very smart like Jordan Peterson. Ben Shapiro called me out.

[Richard Medhurst]

Ben would be a good bit.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, he would. He's too scared to debate me. He called me out on his show, and then he won. He was like, oh, there's a guy on Suleiman on Twitter. He's doing propaganda, blah, blah, blah. And I was like, look, I'll debate you then. But he was unwilling to debate. Who would give me a good run for my money. Who's a really good debate? I'm due to debate Tommy Robinson. He's gonna be very easy.

[Richard Medhurst]

Okay. Elon Musk, maybe.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

I don't think Elon Musk is good debater.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah. I've never seen him debate, actually. Yeah. I don't know. I mean, there's no one really on the left that I could think of I can debate.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

I don't even think I would debate someone on the left. Like, what would I debate someone on the left about?

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah, good point, because you're not even on the right.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

I'm not on the right, or I'm not on the left. So I think. Who I think is a good debater, but I wouldn't debate him because I, like, I respect him. I think Hazeldine's a good debater.

[Richard Medhurst]

Okay.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

He's like American Communist Party.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

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

[Richard Medhurst]

Dave Smith, the guy that debated Cuomo.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah. So what would I debate him on? Because, like, with Dave Smith, my issue with him was. So Dave Smith, I respect him a lot for being pro Palestine. He's been supporting the Palestinian cause. But, like, there was this debate between Dave Smith. He's Jewish, but anti. Anti Zionist.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

And then you've got basically Laura Loomer, who's Jewish but pro Zionist. And then it was moderated by Andrew Sosniak, you know, from the. Yeah. And he's Zionist. Jewish guy. So they were all debating. Right. And it was about Palestine. But, like, in that debate, like, they were all agreeing, like, Islam's a problem, Islam's extreme. Islam's issue.

[Richard Medhurst]

They disagreed on everything.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah. No, no, they disagreed on the Palestine issue but agreed about Islam being a problem and that was like really annoying me. So, like, on that regard. Yeah, I would debate Dave Smith on that, but I don't know if he would debate me. I think that was more that he would just keep to. Kept on conceding it because he's probably been perpetuated the same lie about Islam or Islamic ideas.

[Richard Medhurst]

I've never seen such a one sided debate with him and Cuomo. I mean, he destroyed him.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Oh, don't doubt it. Don't doubt Cuomo's again. He's not great, is he? But dear, Smith is good. So I'm not trying to harm him, attack him. I know he's, you know, you know, he's got decent knowledge historically, that was my only issue with him in that regard. So if that would be probably the only thing I disagree with him, I don't know what else I disagree him on.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah, damn. We got to think of someone for you, man.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, I mean, I'm debating Tommy Robinson in this month, but that's going to.

[Richard Medhurst]

Be easy debate on Israel stuff.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Not the riots.

[Richard Medhurst]

Oh, the riots, yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah. The rice that he was influential on, which he denies now. Right on in the uk. And we'll probably be talking about immigration. Yeah, we'll be probably talking about Islam because he's extremely anti Islam.

[Richard Medhurst]

So I saw, Yeah, I saw Piers Morgan going at Tate for the riot stuff. Right?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

That's right, yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

A few weeks ago.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah. Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

So what do you. What do people think of Piers Morgan? Is he based in the uk?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

So Pierce. He is best in the uk. So Piers Morgan. I don't like Piers Morgan. So I'll tell you what issue I have with Pierce Mongol. So first of all, I give him credit for him speaking out in the war in Iraq. Right. So give him credit for that. In 2003, he exposed some of the crimes that the British army was doing as well. And obviously people said that he did fake pictures, but it was happening still. Right, so give him credit for that. Give him credit that he was against the riots this time.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

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

[Richard Medhurst]

Whoa.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Significantly harmed it. So I'll give you a couple of examples. First example, teaching LGBTQ in schools. So what he did was he was very much a big proponent of teaching LGBTQ education into schools in the uk.

[Richard Medhurst]

Wow, I didn't know that.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah. And the problem with that is children's minds aren't developed enough to be able to decipher right from wrong. And therefore, when you're teaching them this, you're basically making them conform to a specific ideology when their mind and body isn't developed to do so. He, what he did was he brought many people who were against LGBTQ education into school and attacked them and destroyed them. He also, what he did was, for example, there was a Muslim guy. He brought him on because in the UK it was mainly the Muslims who were against LGBTQ education in schools. Christians in the uk, Christians aren't that religious anymore. Christians kind of Christianities died in the uk.

[Richard Medhurst]

Oh, wow.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah. So it was only the only Muslims who spoke out. So what he did was he brought them on the show and was like, oh, my God, you're barbaric, you're backward. Why do you. Why do you not agree with British values of LGBTQ education? And he attacked them so badly and harmed anyone who was anti to the extent where it became a kind of normal idea within the uk because he is very influential. Piers Morgan is. His channel is highly viewed. He's probably one of the most viewed people in the UK at that time. He was in Good Morning. I think it was Good Morning or whatever, one of the morning shows. It was again, one of the higher viewed shows. And so his. What he did perpetuated this and also made it so now. Then it became mainstream. It became part of the educational system. So now in the uk, children as young as five learn LGBTQ education in schools. And Piers Morgan, in my view, was a major proponent of that.

[Richard Medhurst]

Holy crap. They're teaching that to kids there.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, as young as five.

[Richard Medhurst]

That's terrible.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Like, not just lgbtq, even sex education, you look at some of the stuff that they learn and you think a five year old, that's crazy that they're learning it. That was one of the major things he did. Another one was Covid. So again, he was someone. What happened was in the uk, like, like I said, UK followed us, right?

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

But even then, UK we were kind of a bit more not as crazy as you guys. Like, we were kind of holding back a bit on certain things. And what Piers Morgan would do is he would bring ministers in from the government, was a Conservative government, and he would literally attack them and destroy them for not being as extreme in their measures.

[Richard Medhurst]

Wow.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

And he would push extreme lockdown measures, extreme Covid measures. And again, he was a major impact on lockdown and Covid being so extreme in the uk.

[Richard Medhurst]

Right.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

So again, he's Again, that was another major issue, that he was on the wrong side of history and he harmed it significantly.

[Richard Medhurst]

But do you think he had the right intent or do you think he was being told to say those things?

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

It's a good question. If I had to say, I think that with Piers Morgan up until this, Israel, Palestine, he just did what he thought would get him the most views. So he'd take a position that would get him the most views.

[Richard Medhurst]

Got it.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

And he did that. A good example of that is when he was anti Tate.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

In his very first interview. And then he shot. Yeah, he got. But then he also saw that Tate got me the numbers. Got him the numbers. So then he bought Tate on again and then he got there, you know, so he. I think he goes more for numbers, but I think what Israel and Palestine. He was very much pro Israel at the beginning because again, his, he, he, he was working for talk tv. And talk TV is Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch is the Australian Zionist guy. And therefore he was perpetuating a certain. In my view, in my opinion, he was perpetuating the ideology because of that reason. And since he's left talk TV and his show is YouTube and it's just his own show, you're seeing how he's getting more of a balanced position now.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Oh, he's pulling huge numbers as well. He's probably in the uk, is probably the number one guy.

[Richard Medhurst]

He has to be.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Yeah, Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

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

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

True. Yeah.

[Richard Medhurst]

I mean, Diary of a CEO. Right, Sorry. Diary of CEO, have you seen that one? No, that's a business podcast.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

Okay. Okay.

[Richard Medhurst]

Yeah, he's more political, so. Damn, dude. Interesting. Well, anything you want to close off with, dude, or.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

No, no, that's everything. Thanks.

[Richard Medhurst]

That was awesome, man. Thanks so much.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

No, thank you.

[Richard Medhurst]

I hope you land and don't get arrested.

[Sulaiman Ahmed]

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

[Richard Medhurst]

If not, I'll post gofundme or something. Thanks for watching, guys. See you next time.