Transcription
Joining me now is the author of international bestsellers, including his latest work on democracies and death cults, Douglas Murray. Welcome back.
We are going to tackle some serious geopolitical issues shortly. But what good timing that we welcome you back in 2026 in the wake of the Grammys where we were treated to endless empty platitudes and virtue signaling from the celebrity class, including this absurdly contradictory statement from Billy Eilish. "No one is illegal on stolen land."
Douglas, how does she simultaneously advocate for open borders and also claim Americans are living on stolen land? How does that work?
I don't think it does work. I'm not sure what in Billie Eilish's head does work. I would just observe, would ask the question, what exactly is stolen land? Who stole the land? And did anyone steal the land before? Were there First Nations peoples who always lived there, or did they maybe themselves steal the land at some point from some other tribe or group? It's possible. I just throw it out there as a possibility.
Um, but of course, I think what Ms. Eilish thinks is that America, and presumably because this is the sort of pseudo-thought that a lot of people have in the celeb world, is that America and other Western countries are on stolen land, and that there's something unique about that, and that as a result, yes, you shouldn't have borders. No one is illegal. You can allow anyone in, and there should be no rules.
I just wonder if that rule, that thought, if you can call it that, applies anywhere else. I wonder there are other places in the world that are stolen land in her mind, and whether or not she thinks those places should also be somehow either punished with open borders, entirely open borders, or returned to some other people. I don't know. Africa would be a very interesting place to start. All sorts of tribal disputes and interreligious disputes. She could try it there.
But no, this is just pure, you know, virtue signaling, celeb stuff. What was pitiful about it was just that cutaway there where that blonde star, name I don't know, looked—
Sabrina Carpenter.
Is that right? That's Sabrina Carpenter. It was wonderful to know. She looked so deeply moved, didn't she, Rita? As if she had just heard something so profound and brave and stunning. And, yeah. Well, I'm very glad to know what's in Ms. Eilish's head as a result of this brilliant proclamation.
Well, when I see people sharing that statement of hers unironically and not mocking it, I think it just shows you where some people are. I think social media's been wonderful in revealing just the intelligence of some folk. And interesting development for Billie Eilish, because it turns out members of the Tongva tribe want to chat about the mansion she owns on their ancestral land. A spokesman for the tribe said, "As the first people of the Greater Los Angeles basin, we do understand that her home is situated on our ancestral land." And they confirmed, Douglas, that Eilish has not contacted our tribe directly regarding her property.
But it wasn't just her. The whole thing was one pitiful anti-ICE protest.
And everyone had to submit. Indeed, country star Jelly Roll has come under intense criticism for refusing to condemn ICE and Trump. This is what he had to say on the night: "So, I can tell you that people shouldn't care to hear my opinion, man. You know, I'm a dumb redneck. I haven't watched enough. I didn't have a phone for 18 months. I've had one for four months. I don't have social media."
Douglas, how much is this celebrity activism going to move the dial, do you think?
I think it'll help move the dial enormously in President Trump's favor. I think Jelly Roll—not something I've said before—Mr. Roll, I wish more people were like him. It's sinister to demand that celebrities should have views on things, and not least because they'll simply reiterate the same views of other celebrities and just say whatever pabulum they think will gain them some popularity among their peers. I wish more celebrities would say, "Look, I just don't know about this," if asked, and as a result keep—
But just to go back to our friend Billie Eilish there, I'm thrilled that the First Nations of the Los Angeles basin turn out to be the owners of Billie Eilish's house. The obvious thing to do on this occasion, I'm willing to grant them the benefit of the doubt, and that they have always, the people of the Los Angeles basin, always lived there and just contiguously for millennia. I think on this occasion, Billie Eilish can get herself out of this problem by just leaving the house and leaving it to the first peoples of the Los Angeles basin, whose rightful property it obviously is. And if she wants to show that it's not just wind coming out of her, but actually action, that's the really decent thing to do. So I look forward to her handing over the keys of her multi-million dollar house to the first peoples of the Los Angeles basin, who I'm sure will have a wonderful time in the jacuzzi and in the house as a whole.
I think that will happen. She has to be a woman of her word. She wouldn't just be spewing empty platitudes without action, I'm sure.
Now, let's talk about Iran. There is an uprising against the Islamist regime. There has been for weeks. They've ruled the country since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Thousands have been slaughtered in this latest uprising. You wrote in the New York Post that for decades the regime in Iran has acted with near impunity, not just at home but also abroad, where they are the chief sponsors of terror. But the response from the international community, for too long, Douglas, has been weak and confused. Do you see that changing under the Trump administration?
Well, it's very interesting. First of all, to segue from what we were just talking about, Rita, I don't need to tell you. One of the extraordinary things about this is that apparently tens of thousands, it seems, of Iranian protesters, including students, have been massacred by the revolutionary Islamic government in Iran. And all the celebrity airheads, of course, pretty much have just nothing to say about it. And I think there's a reason for that, which is that it's not involving America, the West, or Jews. And if any of those groups were involved, of course, then we would hear a lot more outcry.
Seems a lot of people are rather confused by the idea that someone like the Ayatollah Khomeini and his terrorist government do things under their own steam, have their own views, and act on their disgusting ideology, including by massacring the Iranian people. I think this confuses a lot of people, particularly in America, in the celebrity class. They're presumably also confused because they want to do whatever Donald Trump doesn't do, they want to do whatever he doesn't do, and don't do whatever he does do.
I actually think, as I said in the New York Post piece, I think that one of the things you can say about Donald Trump in general is that he does tend to do what he says he's going to do. Now, he said that if the regime continued with the massacres, the public executions, and much more, the Iranian revolutionary government would feel the might of the American military, certainly American air power. And he has, of course, moved a fleet of American war vessels to the region. And we'll see in the coming days whether he actually follows through on his threat. It seems that the regime is continuing the massacres. They're doing so with, of course, the added benefit that tyrants always have, which is that they can turn off the internet, turn off the electricity, and try to make sure that the world cannot see what they're doing to the Iranian people.
I hope that doesn't work. I hope that that trick of dictators around the world doesn't succeed on this occasion. The world does actually pay attention to this. But it is very striking. The New York Times and other papers of record have just not even bothered to put this story on the front page in weeks, and that speaks to a more general apathy about this. You know, I think this silence of so many people in the face of the massacre of the brave protesters in Iran is something that people will look back on with some shame, I think. Yes, they're on the wrong side of history there, undoubtedly.
Now, we saw in Davos, President Trump introduced the concept of the Board of Peace. It was not popular with a number of countries, including France and Britain. But do you see any merit in a Board of Peace, and would it coexist with the UN, or ultimately could it replace the UN?
The big problem, as you know, Rita, with the UN is that its so-called peacekeeping forces routinely failed to keep the peace. We saw that, of course, in the former Yugoslavia, particularly with the Dutch military who stood aside as the Srebrenica massacre genocide happened. And we've seen it more recently in the utter failure of the UN peacekeeping force in the south of Lebanon to stop Hezbollah activity. So I certainly wouldn't trust the UN to oversee security in the postwar Gaza period.
I think there are several things that are interesting about the Board of Peace. One is that President Trump has made himself the chairman, or has been asked to be the chairman, and that shows that he's going to be committed to the success of postwar Gaza, and that itself, I think, is a good sign. Secondly, there is concern among many people at the fact that Vladimir Putin has been invited to join, the Qataris, who of course are another state sponsor of terrorism in the region and extremism, have been asked to join. But the third thing is that it is very striking that a general in a genuine international coalition is in the process of being put together.
Now, what that looks like is still unclear. There is going to have to be very, very specific oversight to stop a security oversight to stop Hamas regrouping and being able to continue their persecution and murder of Palestinians in Gaza who stand up to them. And that's going to be probably the hardest bit of the whole puzzle to solve. But there are other countries, including the Emiratis and others, who I think will be able to help out in a meaningful way in the rebuilding process. And I think to get a regional coalition like this is a considerable diplomatic success. But of course, it's going to rely on what happens in the months and years ahead.
I'm all for any new thinking on this because the status quo has been so appalling, and the UN status quo was basically that Hamas would end up rearming, you rebuild Gaza, the same thing happens again in a few years' time, and that's just not—I don't think that should be acceptable to anyone. So any new thinking on it, I think, is to be welcomed.
I've been wanting to ask you about this shocking story from the Netherlands where an idealistic project to house refugees and students together in a custom-built block became a nightmare of sexual assault and violence. The scheme placed 125 students alongside 125 refugees, with residents encouraged to form buddy partnerships to help migrants adjust to Dutch society. However, testimonies from former residents shared in an investigative documentary described repeated sexual assault, stalking, and violent confrontations. And Douglas, this nightmare endured for years because everyone seemed to be so desperate for this pioneering project to work. And immediately for me, it brought back the grooming gang scandal in the UK, supposedly well-intentioned people turning a blind eye to just some horrific behavior.
Yeah, I mean, this is reminiscent of that and sadly of many other such cases, Rita. I mean, it reminds me of cases I wrote about in "The Strange Death of Europe" 10 years ago now, where, for instance, there was a case I mentioned where an aid worker who worked with refugees and encouraged open borders was herself raped by some so-called refugees, migrants, and was encouraged by her colleagues not to report it and indeed to cover it up so that the narrative held. And this story from the Netherlands is very similar to that.
And I think it speaks to a really big problem in our time. You have to say, you have to ask the question, how many, for instance, sexual assaults do you want to cover up in order to protect the narrative that you're pushing on the people? See, I would have thought the answer is none. I think that would be the obvious one. If you stick a bunch of students beside a large number of recently arrived males from other cultures who will not share the Dutch attitudes towards sex and much more, you are going to have problems. I would have thought that the moment that the first assault happened, you scrapped the experiment.
But isn't it interesting, Rita, that in all of these cases, there seems to be this belief that the foundational—not I wouldn't say myth, but the foundational belief of the society has to be held to, even if a massive number of lives are ruined along the way? And I don't think that should be the deal. I think we should be able to pivot. We should be able to reverse mistakes. We should be able to alter the course we're on if the course we're on isn't working.
But we'll see. You know, maybe the Dutch authorities, like many of the British authorities and others in recent years, will decide that there is some permissible amount of rape that you can have in your societies in order to continue the shibboleths of our time. I think it's lamentable that, and you mentioned history earlier, I really think that when people look back at things like this, look back at the way in which in 21st-century Europe, we regarded people and victims of domestic—victims of sexual violence as being just sort of easily counted up as just collateral to the prevailing ideology. I think we'll look back on that with not just bewilderment, but serious judgment.
Yes. Let's hope so. Let's hope there's some lessons learned, because in the UK, it doesn't appear to be the case. Douglas Murray, thank you so much for your time tonight.
It's a great pleasure as always. Thank you.