The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad - The Signal Security Breach, Woke Women, and Islam in the US (The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad_811)

00:00:00.580 Professor Gad Saad is a visiting professor and global ambassador at Northwood University.

00:00:05.520 He's also the author of both The Parasitic Mind and the upcoming book, Suicidal Empathy.

00:00:10.800 And he's the host of The Sad Truth with Dr. Saad.

00:00:14.140 What's up, Gad, if I may be so familiar?

00:00:17.700 Oh, please. I'm doing great. Congratulations on your continued success.

00:00:23.720 I am very happy to see your voice growing, and I look forward to our chat.

00:00:30.000 We had a great chat just a few days ago on The Will Kane Show, and I intend to continue to be a place where we have not only debates with people who disagree,

00:00:40.040 but deeper dives and fascinating conversations with people that help us with greater understandings on things we might already agree, like you, Dr. Saad.

00:00:47.080 I don't normally look to turn to you on a story like the one that is dominating the news over the last 48 hours,

00:00:53.540 only because it is both hyper-partisan, very political, and in the minutiae and the details of operations within Washington, D.C.

00:01:02.000 But if you've been keeping up, I am curious your reaction to the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg's release today of the quote-unquote war plans.

00:01:10.360 Yeah, thanks for your question.

00:01:12.840 Look, the best way I can describe it is to refer to a wonderful book, and it seems as though recently I've been referencing this book often.

00:01:21.820 I'm not their publicist. I'm not getting royalties on their book.

00:01:24.660 There is a book called The Enigma of Reason by two French psychologists, whereby they argue that our ability to reason did not evolve to seek truth, but rather to win arguments.

00:01:39.780 In other words, truth doesn't matter if I can win an argument against Will Cain.

00:01:46.020 And so, regrettably, what you're seeing with this Atlantic editor is that he's not beholden to some deontological principle of journalistic integrity.

00:01:55.160 He goes at the truth, whether it is the left side or the right side that engages in a behavior.

00:02:01.880 Clearly, what he cares about is to make the Republicans look bad.

00:02:05.340 And in that sense, your earlier point about hyper-partisanship is exactly that, right?

00:02:09.900 He's not a true journalist.

00:02:11.620 He's not pursuing objective truth.

00:02:13.680 He simply wants that his team wins an argument by making the other team look bad.

00:02:19.300 That's not what journalistic integrity is.

00:02:22.760 You know, and it's an instinct that all of us have to fight, including myself.

00:02:26.060 I think the first step is being honest about the nature of the human mind.

00:02:30.340 And I try to be self-aware.

00:02:33.080 I'm sure you're aware, Dr. Satt, of the Hegelian dialect.

00:02:37.180 And I was practiced, almost trained in the Hegelian dialect in a way by spending, you know, five years on ESPN's first take, where you're presented with a debate.

00:02:47.320 Two sides take the debate.

00:02:48.640 And it's winner take all.

00:02:50.060 And in a lot of ways, I respect the format because it's like a challenge of ideas.

00:02:53.540 But I've come to understand also the false frame of a Hegelian dialect.

00:02:58.960 That is, there are two opposite sides of an opinion.

00:03:02.400 And those two sides need to be pitted against one another.

00:03:05.460 What I've kind of evolved to try to help myself understand is that doesn't necessarily help you arrive at the truth.

00:03:13.860 You need to have a forward-advancing conversation that, yes, doesn't have to win every point.

00:03:19.660 And doesn't even have to come out with a championship belt at the end of the match.

00:03:23.540 And some will be right at times, and some will be wrong.

00:03:26.280 But you've got to start thinking beyond this sort of framework if you really want to arrive at the truth.

00:03:32.000 Indeed.

00:03:32.900 And so in Chapter 7 of The Parasitic Mind, I actually have a whole chapter titled How to Seek Truth.

00:03:40.480 And I argue that one very powerful epistemological tool that we can use in seeking truth is to build what I call nomological networks of cumulative evidence.

00:03:50.880 Now, that's a mouthful, so let me break it down for you.

00:03:53.240 So let's suppose I wanted to demonstrate to you that toy preferences are not socially constructed, as most social scientists argue.

00:04:00.800 But rather that there is a universal evolutionary and biological reason why boys prefer certain toys and girls prefer other toys.

00:04:09.300 How would I go about doing that, Will?

00:04:10.940 Well, I can get you data from other species showing you that vervet monkeys, rhesus monkeys, and chimpanzees exhibit the same sex-specific toy preferences.

00:04:20.300 I can get you data from 2,500 years ago, where young children are shown on funerary monuments playing with the exact same toys that your children and mine play with today.

00:04:40.180 So what I'm doing here is I offer you distinct lines of evidence, all of which triangulate to making my position apparently a vertical one.

00:04:52.280 And so I don't need to engage in emotional incontinence.

00:04:55.260 I don't need to call you names.

00:04:57.040 I simply show you the data, and hopefully I win the argument that way.

00:05:01.760 All right.

00:05:02.340 Just to deliver for the audience as well, then you and I will move on to what I think are some interesting conversations off of what you just shared.

00:05:08.140 What we learned this morning is that in the signal group chat, as released this morning by Jeffrey Goldberg, is a minute-to-minute sort of gameplay of what would happen in Yemen, strikes on Houthis, as shared by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to basically all top cabinet members.

00:05:34.780 And then presumably, inadvertently as well, Jeffrey Goldberg.

00:05:39.560 It does say which planes will be used, and it does say what time this will happen.

00:05:43.900 It doesn't say who will be struck, and it doesn't say where there will be a strike.

00:05:48.780 I think there's two questions.

00:05:50.320 Should this have been used on signal?

00:05:51.740 And I'm in the process of researching this and understanding this, but the bottom line appears to be this.

00:05:57.100 Signal is not officially a government-sanctioned channel for highly classified information.

00:06:03.720 And then you say, well, was this highly classified information?

00:06:07.600 But signal is also used by everyone in government, and that's the reality of the truth because it's a better technology, more portable.

00:06:14.500 All the things they have, which we've talked about, like there's one called Sipper, these are not on phones.

00:06:20.100 They're not portable, and the ones that are portable are no more encrypted than signal.

00:06:23.540 And signal, even according to Jeffrey Goldberg, and you can put this up two-a-days, is considered the gold standard.

00:06:28.120 This is what Goldberg wrote some time past.

00:06:30.880 He said, signal the gold standard of encrypted messaging.

00:06:34.940 So what we're talking about is reality.

00:06:37.100 This is how it's treated, and whether or not it's officially the place where it should be used.

00:06:42.840 The question is like, could the Russians or Houthis hack it? 0.60

00:06:45.320 And I see no evidence yet that that's the truth, that they could.

00:06:48.700 And then there's the perishable nature of the information.

00:06:51.360 I don't know that anything there is actionable.

00:06:52.780 If the Russians got it, could they understand what was about to happen, share it with the relevant parties, and somehow, as Congressman Jim Himes, who I got in this debate with, said, we could lose an American fighter.

00:07:04.500 I think that strains the imagination.

00:07:07.400 It's not realistic.

00:07:10.180 So it's not this.

00:07:11.520 I think when you come away with it, there's at least one big mistake.

00:07:14.860 That's including Goldberg.

00:07:16.520 Is it a mistake to use signal?

00:07:18.840 I think that's more of a gray area.

00:07:20.620 And then, finally, is it a mistake that amounts to the type of thing we're seeing today from Capitol Hill and splashed across CNN and the New York Times?

00:07:29.240 I think the answer is no.

00:07:30.320 And I think we know why.

00:07:31.740 It's the first time in two months Democrats have been on the front foot and had an issue where they could play offense, and they're taking their opportunity to do so.

00:07:38.220 I'll give you a response, and we'll move on, Dr. Saad.

00:07:40.920 Well, but I mean, your last statement exactly speaks to what I mentioned earlier about the enigma of reason, right?

00:07:47.620 What was the purpose of this editor in sharing this information?

00:07:53.260 If it was because there is some deontological pursuit of truth, then more power to him.

00:07:58.900 But we know that that's not true, because if he was so concerned about the safety of Americans, then he would have been the first one writing editorial pieces when you had a corpse who was president of the United States for four years, right?

00:08:11.180 But that's not what he's concerned about.

00:08:13.080 So you know for a fact that the reason why he shared this story is because he knew that it would make his political enemies look bad.

00:08:21.660 That's not how a journalist should behave, and that's about it.

00:08:25.820 Or not just the incapacity of Joe Biden, if he had shown the same level of outrage over the 13 Marines killed over a mistake in Afghanistan, or if he showed the same level of outrage over General Mark Milley intentionally sharing information with the CCP, or if he showed the same level of outrage over a member of Congress.

00:08:43.400 Excuse me for interrupting, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to speak over you, or having open borders where 15, 20 million people have come into the country, right?

00:08:52.500 So if your concern is a objective pursuit of safety, then all of those stories should have been covered by him. 0.64

00:09:01.460 But if you're selective and you're outraged, then we know that you are a charlatan.

00:09:05.120 Right. And as I said yesterday, I don't want to hear from Jeffrey Toobin, who is well-known to abuse internet communication channels and abuse himself.

00:09:15.760 Or I don't want to hear from Eric Swalwell, who slept with a Chinese spy.

00:09:19.920 So spare me your selective and overhyped outrage.

00:09:24.180 Okay, let's go back to that thing you were just using as an example, men's and women's toys.

00:09:29.320 So I find there's increasing evidence coming out about this that I think is fascinating.

00:09:34.100 First of all, about a week ago, there was polling that showed where we stand as a society in support of Donald Trump versus Democrats.

00:09:40.800 And there is one demographic group that stands out and stands alone, and that is educated white women.

00:09:47.840 Educated white women are over-indexed hugely to anti-Trump, pro-Democrat, and now what we're seeing as well is very accepting or endorsement of wokeism.

00:10:00.540 And I think it's fascinating, Dr. Saad.

00:10:03.600 Like, what does this say?

00:10:06.180 I mean, I want to talk about it through the lens of gender, and I think it primarily is gender, but there is the education factor and also the marital status factor and the race factor.

00:10:17.100 Like, it is single-educated white women that index the most apart from the rest of society. 1.00

00:10:24.320 Yes, and I mentioned this to your producer prior to coming on the show when he shared with me what we were likely to talk about.

00:10:33.080 I said, well, coincidentally, the story that you're just raising now, sex differences and, you know, woke susceptibility, is something that I was exactly writing about yesterday in my forthcoming book on suicidal empathy.

00:10:45.880 Because I'm trying to explain what is it that drives, for example, women in Europe to stand as, you know, invaders come in from foreign cultures with a placard that says, refugees, welcome.

00:10:59.160 You never see guys that look like Pete Hegseth or that look like Will Kane holding those placards.

00:11:05.060 You usually see completely clueless, lobotomized, ultra-liberal white women saying, refugees, welcome. 1.00

00:11:12.060 Now, there are several reasons for that sex difference, and from an evolutionary perspective, since I'm an evolutionary behavioral scientist, look, the research is unequivocal that women score higher on empathy throughout the life cycle trajectory of a human being.

00:11:29.800 So, from a very young age, you see little girls exhibiting, and there are various forms of empathy.

00:11:34.840 There's cognitive empathy, there's cognitive empathy, there's affective empathy, and women do show greater empathy, and we could talk about the evolutionary reason for that, but that makes them more prone to then be parasitized by the misfiring of the empathy module, hence suicidal empathy, right?

00:11:52.260 And so, it makes perfect sense that not only would women be more likely to succumb to parasitic ideas, hence wokeism, but then to succumb to an orgiastic, you know, miscalibrated form of empathy, which I call suicidal empathy. 0.75

00:12:08.380 It all makes perfect sense.

00:12:11.180 You know, this ties into something I've been thinking about since over the weekend.

00:12:14.820 Actually, it's been going on in my mind for more than a weekend, but I spent a lot of time this weekend reading, and I want the audience and you to understand that when I describe what I'm about to describe, I'm actually not passing judgment.

00:12:26.700 I'm not giving moral endorsement nor moral condemnation.

00:12:29.860 I'm simply noticing, and noticing is nothing more than having eyes, ears, and a critical mind.

00:12:36.080 What has happened in modern society, and you're the perfect guy to talk about this with, because you think of, through evolutionary psychology in broad terms, what's happened over the last, let's call it 200 years.

00:12:50.340 It's a little more.

00:12:51.380 It's probably 250 years.

00:12:54.560 In civilizational evolution is nothing short of revolutionary, and it requires us to understand that there's a long history of humanity, thousands and thousands of years of organizing societies.

00:13:06.080 And, of course, I think we are at the apex, so there is no doubt we have progressed in a positive manner, but it is still no less revolutionary.

00:13:14.780 And I could put that, Dr. Satt, on a number of levels, the creation of the nation state, the revolutionary era of the late 1700s into the early 1800s, all the way through the beginning of the 1900s, actually, where you had the move towards ideology.

00:13:29.900 We created nations now not under kings but under ideologies of people believing we should organize it in certain ways, and there was different experiments in that, French Revolution, Soviet Revolution, American Revolution.

00:13:41.660 Even, like, women voting, which is now a little over 100 years old, is a revolutionary concept in the scope of humanity, meaning we've been doing it for 100 years, but we've been on this planet for thousands and thousands of years.

00:13:57.900 And there are outliers.

00:13:58.720 There have been matriarchal societies, but the vast majority were paternalistic societies.

00:14:03.460 And, again, I'm not morally condemning nor am I morally endorsing.

00:14:08.740 All I'm doing is noticing.

00:14:10.180 And it just makes me think, like, we are babes.

00:14:13.020 We're, like, in the startup phase.

00:14:14.660 This is an innovation period.

00:14:16.240 And where this all goes, I mean, we're kind of like in the it's balls in the air moment.

00:14:22.620 You know, like, if you and I were alive in 1650, we would have a reasonable expectation that society was going to look relatively similar to the way it looked in, you know, 1050.

00:14:35.060 There are more similarities between that 500-year span than in the 100-year span that we have just been experiencing.

00:14:41.420 And it's just revolutionary.

00:14:42.780 That's what I'm noticing.

00:14:44.300 It's just – and I have friends who be like, well, who cares, right?

00:14:48.300 Who cares?

00:14:48.880 And what's the point?

00:14:49.700 Well, the point is I don't know.

00:14:50.740 It's like it's – this is the nature of progressivism versus conservatism in a way.

00:14:55.960 It's like I don't know.

00:14:57.220 It's just – I just know that we are in a moment of rapid experimentation and change.

00:15:02.280 Yeah.

00:15:02.720 Well, to your point, I often argue and remind people that some of the staunchest defenders of the Western tradition turn out to be immigrants who don't come from the Western tradition. 1.00

00:15:17.360 Because to your point, we've sampled from the full buffet of possible societies.

00:15:24.080 And the society that the United States has built is exactly, as you said, an anomalous one.

00:15:31.140 It's a little bleep within the greater context of human history.

00:15:35.140 And so most Westerners, most Americans come to the world thinking that this is the default value.

00:15:41.800 This is what – this is what every – how it is everywhere.

00:15:44.520 But then it takes people like me, it takes people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali to say, hey, guys, don't think that this is the default value.

00:15:53.220 As a matter of fact, it takes very little for the human reflex to erase what you have in the West.

00:16:00.640 And this is exactly why, you know, I don't have the exact quote in front of me when Ronald Reagan said, you know, every generation, you know, there are new enemies of freedom that are coming to take your freedoms away and you have to be vigilant.

00:16:12.420 That exactly speaks to that reflex, which is the default value of the organization of human societies is for someone telling the rest of us what to do and feel.

00:16:25.060 This is why it was so easy for everybody to become sheep during COVID because we were returning to the literal state of things.

00:16:33.640 And so beware, be careful.

00:16:36.580 The enemies of liberties are coming for you.

00:16:39.000 Don't take it for granted.

00:16:41.440 So I got into this debate.

00:16:43.420 It's, you know, I am fascinated also as well right now with the concept of frame, which I think this whole signal story is about as well, how it was framed.

00:16:51.780 It was framed for us originally as war plans were leaked to me two hours ahead of time.

00:16:56.260 And then you dig into the details.

00:16:57.540 You're like, so we're all having a debate like based upon that frame, erase that frame.

00:17:02.200 Goldberg established that frame.

00:17:03.980 Now get into the details and ask yourself really what happened. 0.99

00:17:08.080 The frame on this debate I got into is Beaumont Jones whips Will Kane's ass. 0.98

00:17:12.100 And I don't even know how that frame got created. 0.98

00:17:13.560 But we had this debate on ESPN about slavery.

00:17:16.300 And he's like, what do you think caused slavery?

00:17:18.420 And I was like, well, I think basically what I argued was what you just said.

00:17:22.040 It's the human reflex.

00:17:23.200 Like it's a constant throughout humanity.

00:17:25.320 Slavery has been present always, right?

00:17:28.640 And we have to fight against that reflex, that tribalistic nature, that conquest nature to land at a more enlightened place in society.

00:17:38.880 But that's why it happened.

00:17:40.420 And, you know, his argument back to me was no, white people did slavery.

00:17:43.240 It was something about just – it was really simplistic about like the element of race involved.

00:17:47.780 But slavery is the constant regardless of races, right, regardless of races. 0.84

00:17:53.080 And so, yeah, the civilization in and of itself, now there's a moral judgment.

00:17:58.820 I am going to say where we are today is better than we were in 1650.

00:18:02.880 But it's fragile because the reflex is easy to snap back toward.

00:18:08.260 Exactly.

00:18:09.260 And by the way, the fact that you said the existing society that's been built in the United States is inherently superior to other societies is a terrible no-no in the context of academia, right?

00:18:26.360 Cultural relativism, which is one of the dreadful parasitic ideas that I discuss in The Parasitic Mind, says that no, Will Cain, who are you to judge other societies using your standards?

00:18:39.160 You're engaging in cultural imperialism.

00:18:41.920 If other societies wish to organize themselves –

00:18:44.760 Sorry?

00:18:46.680 Of course I am.

00:18:47.820 Yes.

00:18:48.720 Exactly.

00:18:49.280 And so what that does is it causes you to become impotent to actual barbaric practices of, say, immigrants coming in. 1.00

00:18:59.160 So let me tell you a quick story.

00:19:00.360 Thank God he's no longer prime minister, although the new prime minister is maybe not much better.

00:19:06.160 But when Justin Trudeau was a member of parliament, so he hadn't yet become prime minister, the former conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, had put out a statement saying that in Canada we will not tolerate barbaric practices such as honor killings, child brides, and female genital mutilation.

00:19:28.140 And then Justin Trudeau, in his substitute drama teacher, absurd way, got on television.

00:19:34.800 He wasn't angry by the barbaric practices.

00:19:38.540 He was angry that Stephen Harper referred to them as barbaric practices, right?

00:19:44.360 So what he was doing there is he was intimating the reflex of cultural relativism. 0.98

00:19:50.800 Who are you to judge the practices of noble Muslims if they decide that they want to cut off the clitoris as a five-year-old girl? 0.98

00:19:58.420 Well, guess what? 0.93

00:19:59.780 There are deontological moral absolutes, and I will judge those who violate them, and I'm not going to apologize for that.

00:20:08.360 What I also like about the example is, like, I keep doing this historical thing.

00:20:12.180 I keep going back in time.

00:20:13.660 The civilizational outlier is also in the present tense.

00:20:16.640 Like, right now, slavery is going on in other parts of the world.

00:20:20.400 Right now, you have societies organized in these manners that we're talking about that are consistent with the long arc of history.

00:20:26.300 Those are consistent.

00:20:27.780 We are the outlier.

00:20:29.120 This is a perfect segue.

00:20:30.040 Anyway, I find this a little difficult.

00:20:32.600 So here's the story, Dr. Sab.

00:20:33.660 Here in Texas, not 20 miles from where I am sitting today, in a suburb of Dallas, north of Dallas, there's a proposal for a Muslim community development.

00:20:45.320 I think it's like – I don't know if it's 1,000 acres or 1,000 homes, but it's a development like any other.

00:20:51.000 You know what I mean?

00:20:51.340 Like how you – a planned development.

00:20:52.980 But the planned development will be centered around a mosque, and it will be marketed towards and catered towards in their community development Muslims.

00:21:00.680 Now, the governor of Texas, the attorney general of Texas are highly concerned that this is going to be a circumvent, a runaround around civil law, that they will, within their community, be using Sharia law, which is not cool, not good, and so forth.

00:21:19.600 And they're looking into this.

00:21:21.540 This, though, runs – and by the way, I think you and I should talk about the fact that we've seen these experiments play out to some extent in places like outside of London and outside of Paris.

00:21:29.860 And the really negative consequences for Western civilization in those places.

00:21:36.380 But on the other hand, I do feel like in America we endorse the idea of – what is it?

00:21:44.700 Self – you know, self-determination, picking your community, organizing around.

00:21:51.080 Like if Mennonites want to create a community in Pennsylvania, okay, create a community of Mennonites. 0.94

00:21:56.400 You know?

00:21:56.780 Well, same thing of any other minority group. 0.51

00:22:01.300 So why should this one, even if we know the practical real-world outcomes of it, be treated differently than any other self-selecting group?

00:22:08.980 Right.

00:22:09.520 So let me give a few analogies.

00:22:12.780 Badminton is a sport.

00:22:15.860 MMA fighting is a sport.

00:22:17.480 They're both called sports, but they're very different from each other in their capacity to cause brain damage.

00:22:25.700 The fact that they are both called sports doesn't negate that reality.

00:22:30.220 Here's another one.

00:22:31.540 Fido, your domestic cat, is a feline.

00:22:34.560 The wild lion in this African savannah is a feline, but I will lay down and cuddle with Fido the cat, but I won't lay down and cuddle with the wild lion, even though they're both called felines.

00:22:49.220 So the Mennonites are a religion, the Amish are a religion, Orthodox Jews are a religion, Jains are a religion, and Islam is a religion. 0.94

00:23:00.420 They are not equal in their capacity to assimilate in a host society, right?

00:23:07.100 The fact that they are all called religions doesn't mean that they have equal likelihood of, say, committing terror acts.

00:23:14.600 The Jains are such pacifists that when they walk on the street, they actually walk with a broom and they sweep the floor, lest they might inadvertently, you know, squash an ant. 0.99

00:23:28.680 Therefore, an extremist Jain is an extremist in his pacifism.

00:23:34.440 That's not quite the same thing for Islam.

00:23:37.100 Islam has certain edicts that are perfectly antithetical to Western principles. 1.00

00:23:45.000 Now, that doesn't mean that every Muslim is a mean person.

00:23:48.540 There are nice Muslims and mean Muslims, just like there are nice Jews and mean Jews. 0.74

00:23:52.440 But does Islam contain tenets that are perfectly seditious to the founding principles of the United States? 0.99

00:24:01.260 Yes.

00:24:01.580 And so, to your point, we've seen what happens when you build slowly Sharia no-go zones in Sweden, in Italy, in France, in Britain, right? 0.63

00:24:13.740 But you have to do it slowly, you know, so that the greater society doesn't go up in arms, right?

00:24:21.020 So, let me give you an example from marketing.

00:24:22.760 There is something in marketing called the just noticeable difference.

00:24:26.480 So, let's say you are a chocolate-making company and you want to increase the price of your candy bar.

00:24:33.300 Well, you can't increase the price because people are attuned to the price.

00:24:36.900 So, what you will do is you'll reduce the weight of the candy bar and you'll reduce it such that it falls below the just noticeable difference, right?

00:24:47.140 So, most people can't tell the difference between a 100-gram candy bar and a 95-gram candy bar.

00:24:52.740 So, I can slip the fact that I've reduced it from 100 to 95 grams without most consumers noticing.

00:24:59.780 That's how Islam operates when it is in the minority. 0.99

00:25:03.520 It's a just noticeable difference.

00:25:05.420 What's the big deal if we set up a community where we peacefully get together?

00:25:11.440 It's just like the Mennonites. 0.82

00:25:13.040 Well, it isn't because once we become the majority, you better wear really good running shoes, Will, and run fast as I did in Lebanon.

00:25:21.940 So, no, they're not the same thing.

00:25:24.560 Okay.

00:25:25.360 I get all that.

00:25:27.100 And even if we submit that the tenets of Islam separate it from other religions, if we submit that, okay, what does that – but still in America, what does that – look, I know you're Canadian.

00:25:38.940 We – but you're familiar.

00:25:41.000 I mean we have a constitution that protects freedom of religion, freedom of association.

00:25:46.760 I mean I don't know what that does for us.

00:25:50.080 I mean what that does at the front end is I think it opens up a really real conversation about migration and immigration and who you open your country to.

00:25:59.000 We've always had quotas and we've always been careful about assimilation.

00:26:03.120 That should be non-controversial.

00:26:05.740 But once we have someone who's an American citizen, I don't know what we can do to say, well, you can't self-associate.

00:26:13.380 Well, you're ready?

00:26:16.300 You want me to be diplomatic or you want me to be frontal and direct?

00:26:19.380 Which one – which God version do you want?

00:26:22.580 You want the frontal direct?

00:26:23.700 I prefer direct.

00:26:24.740 Yes.

00:26:25.140 Okay.

00:26:25.380 You have to lose that reflex.

00:26:29.260 All religions are not equal. 1.00

00:26:32.220 But it's constitutional, Dr. Saad.

00:26:33.960 It's literally constitutional in the United States.

00:26:36.380 So you're the lawyer and I'm not, so I'll leave it to you to do whatever legal gymnastics that need to happen in order for this to happen.

00:26:45.860 But let's suppose that tomorrow there was a new religion that came to be.

00:26:50.440 Now, you can't argue, oh, but it's a new religion. 0.77

00:26:53.080 That's not like an old religion that is a true one, right? 0.99

00:26:56.480 Tomorrow there's a new religion that comes along that says, hear ye, hear ye. 0.99

00:27:01.740 All people with green eyes must be exterminated because my God has said so. 1.00

00:27:07.800 Could I then set up an organized society around the tenet that we should get rid of green-eyed people? 1.00

00:27:15.760 By the way, I would be in trouble because I have beautiful green eyes.

00:27:19.180 Would you then say in the United States, we just can't – we're impotent to fight against this religion, against green people, 1.00

00:27:28.860 because we have this constitutional protection for all religions?

00:27:32.860 Or would you say to me, are you insane that you have in your religion an edict that says get rid of green-eyed people?

00:27:40.740 No, we will not. 0.99

00:27:41.860 How about if we have a religion that says as of the age of five-year-old, we can have sex with any person who's five-year-old?

00:27:49.880 Would you say that's okay?

00:27:51.060 Well, by the way, there are some religions that are not too non-open to that possibility.

00:27:56.020 So the idea – I mean, we do have amendments to the Constitution.

00:28:00.500 And again, forgive me, I'm not a lawyer, but I think I know enough about it –

00:28:03.880 that we understand that the Constitution is not a divine thing that can't evolve with the times.

00:28:10.320 That's why we have amendments.

00:28:12.160 So add an amendment that says that, yes, religions are allowed to exist freely in the United States

00:28:18.800 as long as they're not seditious to the foundational principles of the United States.

00:28:24.020 Once I demonstrate that they are, sorry, but you're not welcome here.

00:28:27.880 Yeah, I think you're very persuasive in many ways.

00:28:34.700 I still am not all the way there on when you lose yourself.

00:28:40.360 So what I mean is like what you described, should a religion hold some of those tenets,

00:28:44.220 the actual application of those amendments would be precluded by law.

00:28:47.800 You know what I mean?

00:28:48.400 Those tenets would be precluded by law.

00:28:50.040 You're not having sex with five-year-olds.

00:28:51.360 I don't care if you believe it.

00:28:52.440 That's a law of the United States.

00:28:53.600 But can you organize a community together where you all live together centered around a mosque? 0.99

00:28:59.220 I don't know where a law precludes that, nor – in fact, I think the Constitution precludes you from stopping it.

00:29:08.820 Now, if you're implementing Sharia law above domestic law, that's different.

00:29:12.300 But –

00:29:12.360 Can I ask you something?

00:29:13.420 If at the mosque that you're saying they're allowed to congregate, a lot of the prayers are in an extraordinarily direct manner inciting violence against the kuffar, 0.99

00:29:28.620 which is a derogatory term for the non-Muslim.

00:29:31.060 Is that protected because it's happening in a mosque and it's the free expression of my religion? 0.99

00:29:37.320 Or it is not permitted because it is a direct incitement against those dirty Jews? 1.00

00:29:43.480 Which one is it? 0.98

00:29:44.440 I think that would not be protected.

00:29:46.060 I don't think religion would preclude you from a direct incitement of violence.

00:29:48.940 I will send you clips of what is being prayed at at a whole bunch of mosques, including some that are not too far from where I'm speaking to you right now in Montreal.

00:29:59.040 And the reflex is precisely to your point, Will, that we can't really do anything because that's happening in a mosque. 1.00

00:30:06.060 That's just their religion.

00:30:07.340 Well, it's the same thing as the green-eyed thing.

00:30:09.900 You cannot be preaching this stuff.

00:30:12.220 Find a way to remove that content from your religion.

00:30:16.620 Otherwise, maybe your religion shouldn't find such a hospitable place in the West.

00:30:24.000 Fascinating conversation.

00:30:25.200 Still a lot for me to think about there.

00:30:26.820 A lot more for me to think about.

00:30:28.220 I understand the practicalities, too, by the way.

00:30:30.520 I really do.

00:30:32.240 We've seen it play out in Europe.

00:30:34.240 Fascinating conversation, Dr. Gadzad.

00:30:36.220 Always love having you on.

00:30:37.400 I know you've got to run.

00:30:38.180 You probably have a class to teach at Northwood University,

00:30:40.820 where you're a visiting professor and global ambassador.

00:30:42.980 Check out his books, Parasitic Mind and Suicidal Empathy.

00:30:45.240 Thanks for your time, Dr. Saad.

00:30:46.840 Thank you, sir.

00:30:47.520 Cheers.

00:30:47.860 Take care.

00:30:48.840 All right.

00:30:49.220 Take care.

The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad - March 26, 2025

The Signal Security Breach, Woke Women, and Islam in the US (The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad_811)

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript