'Islamophobia': Pakistan-born MP attacks Restore colleague for exposing Muslim rape gangs to Joe Rogan



Rupert Lowe, the Restore Britain leader who unveiled the stomach-churning "Rape Gang Inquiry Report" last month, spoke to podcaster Joe Rogan in an interview released on Wednesday about the mass rape of young white girls in the United Kingdom by predominantly Muslim Pakistani gangs.

Lowe also highlighted the U.K.'s problem with parallel Islamic legal systems operating in the U.K. and their apparent tolerance by British authorities who are sensitive to the "Muslim bloc vote."

'They will all be banned on day one.'

Afzal Khan, a Pakistan-born Labour member of parliament who previously served as parliamentary chair for the Labour Muslim Network, melted down publicly over this illuminating interview.

Rather than engage with Lowe's commentary, Khan sought the regulation and possible punishment of his colleague's free speech by submitting a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, which is responsible for investigating alleged breaches of House of Commons Code of Conduct and Registers.

Khan wrote in a Thursday letter to Commissioner Daniel Greenberg that "on 8th July, Rupert Lowe MP appeared on 'The Joe Rogan Experience' podcast, in which he claimed that parallel Sharia courts are tolerated within the U.K. judicial system. This is not only a flagrant lie but is deeply inflammatory and fuels Islamophobia."

RELATED: 'Rape of Britain' ignored because of the Muslim vote, UK lawmaker tells Joe Rogan

L-R: Mary Turner/Bloomberg/Getty Images; Carmen Mandato/Getty Images (R)

While the British government officially rejects the idea that Sharia law and Sharia councils have any legal authority in the isles, lawmakers have for years expressed concerns that the councils are forming a parallel legal system.

According to a 2019 parliamentary brief, Sharia courts have existed in the United Kingdom since the 1980s. By 2012, there were at least 30 major Sharia courts in England. According to a 2018 independent review commissioned by the Home Office, the number of Sharia courts in England and Wales is as high as 85.

The 2018 review found that many Muslims couples were not civilly registering their marriages with the appropriate authorities and were therefore reliant on this parallel legal system for resolving marital disputes and securing religious divorces.

The report also found that these Islamic courts engaged in discriminatory practices and that some of the councils inappropriately questioned women, pressured individuals into making financial concessions to obtain a divorce, and in some cases failed to refer domestic violence or child abuse to the police or real courts.

Despite identifying various problems with the parallel legal system, the report effectively recommended tolerance, stating, "We consider the closure of Sharia councils is not a viable option."

Khan — who recognized in his letter that Sharia councils exist in the U.K. and that they adjudicate religious divorces and "may also give verdicts on other aspects of day-to-day life for Muslims" — made clear that he resents more than just Lowe's remarks about the Sharia court system.

The Pakistani native complained to the commissioner that the "Rape Gang Inquiry Report" commissioned by Lowe claimed "that 'Muslim' gangs are to blame for child sexual abuse in Britain" and "that 'at the very least, 250,000 young white girls have been subjected to repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture' primarily by Pakistani Muslim men since mass immigration began in the 1950s."

Khan suggested that such claims were unfounded and were "Islamophobic."

RELATED: 'Beyond evil': Nightmarish report reveals full scale of mass Islamic rapes of '250,000' white British girls

L-R: OLI SCARFF/AFP/Getty Images; Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images

After leaning on an Al Jazeera commentator's characterization of Lowe as a neo-Nazi, Khan returned to the matter at hand, claiming that Lowe's appearance on Rogan's podcast was "extremely problematic" — especially since Rogan previously "failed to counter [Vice President JD] Vance's 'sort of joke' that the U.K. is heading towards being 'the first Islamist country with nuclear weapons.'"

'These are barbaric, medieval and backward Islamic practices that have no place in our country.'

Khan closed his complaint by suggesting his Oxford-born colleague's "words and actions create a hostile working environment, particularly for Muslim MPs," and that Lowe's supposed "rampant racism" warrants an investigation.

Lowe responded to Khan on Friday by sardonically thanking Khan for reporting him to the parliamentary authorities over his appearance on Rogan's show, the rape gang inquiry, and his criticism of Sharia courts, the burqa, and halal slaughter.

The Englishman claimed that "these are barbaric, medieval and backward Islamic practices that have no place in our country. When Restore Britain gains power, they will all be banned on day one. It will be glorious."

In addition to forwarding the report and Restore Britain's mass deportation plan to Khan, Lowe told the Pakistani native, "If you have an issue with my politics — please come directly to me for an adult discussion, rather than running to the authorities in an attempt to censor my views which are held by a large majority of the British complaint."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Rape of Britain' ignored because of the Muslim vote, UK lawmaker tells Joe Rogan



Rupert Lowe, the head of Restore Britain in the U.K. Parliament, released a damning report on June 16, detailing the staggering scale of the horrific crimes committed against generations of young white girls in Britain by predominantly Muslim Pakistani gangs.

The 219-page "Rape Gang Inquiry Report" — which was commissioned by Lowe and led by Sammy Woodhouse, a rape-gang survivor who over a decade ago helped expose the mass rape of girls in Rotherham, England — estimated that the number of white girls subjected to "repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma" since the 1950s is "at the very least, 250,000."

'You're going to have a real problem.'

The report's disturbing insights not only into the crimes but into the British establishment's egregious response captured Joe Rogan's attention last month. In an interview released Wednesday, the podcaster sat down with Lowe to discuss what Elon Musk has elsewhere dubbed "the rape of Britain," as well as the correlated issues of mass migration, the failure of multiculturalism, western Islamicization, and the fall of civilizations.

After raising the alarm about the costly and seemingly interminable inundation of foreigners into the United Kingdom, Lowe — whose party advocates for mass deportations — highlighted Britain's problem with migrant populations, particularly those originating from Islamic nations, that "are increasingly living in small groups of people who haven't integrated, who are living under Sharia law, and who have their own courts."

Rogan, unsettled by Lowe's observation of parallel Islamic legal systems operating in the U.K. and allegedly tolerated by British authorities, said, "There's certain cultures that if you allow them to come into your community and then they institute the laws of the country where they came from, you're going to have a real problem."

"They don't live the way you live. They don't have the same respect for women that you have. They don't treat them the same way. They don't allow dogs," continued Rogan.

"The idea is supposed to be that Western society is inclusive and progressive because we're intelligent and educated and we care — but you can care so much that you let in criminals, and then you give those criminals all your money, and then the criminals can take over your country, slowly but surely."

RELATED: 'Beyond evil': Nightmarish report reveals full scale of mass Islamic rapes of '250,000' white British girls

L-R: OLI SCARFF/AFP/Getty Images; Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images

Rogan suggested that people are wrong to be skeptical about the possibility and ramifications of such a takeover, referring back to the collapse of the empires of yesteryear.

"People look at the Colosseum, you look at ancient Greece, and they think, 'Wow, I wonder what happened to those guys.' What do you think happened?" said Rogan. "Probably the same s**t that's happening right now to England, the same s**t that could have happened to America. It's — civilizations fall apart for various reasons. And one great way to get them to fall apart is to bring in a bunch of people and they don't have to follow your laws."

Lowe bridged the topics of civilizational collapse and rapacious parallel societies to the rape gang inquiry, suggesting that he and others had to crowdfund the report because the "government will not have a statutory inquiry" — a special kind of state inquiry that can compel witnesses to give evidence or to supply documents — because the powers that be are sensitive to the "Muslim bloc vote."

Lowe claimed that as the result of his efforts to force disclosures in Parliament relevant to the inquiry, it has become clear that "a lot of the data has not been properly collected" by the police, the National Health Service, social services, and other institutions with regard to the crimes and the particulars of their perpetrators.

The Restore Britain leader suggested further that while the powers that be know that members of imported populations are disproportionately prowling about and preying on native British girls, "they don't want to admit that their multicultural experiment" has failed, "which as you probably know, famously Enoch Powell warned would fail with his ... 'Rivers of Blood' speech, for which he was heavily criticized."

"They don't want to be called racist," added Lowe.

Rogan said, "We hope you guys turn it around."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Piers Morgan Clings to Debunked Narrative as New Report Proves Him Wrong
play icon

Piers Morgan Clings to Debunked Narrative as New Report Proves Him Wrong

What Rock Bottom Looks Like & When Will It Hit w/ Adam Carolla & Jillian Michaels
play icon

What Rock Bottom Looks Like & When Will It Hit w/ Adam Carolla & Jillian Michaels

Glenn Beck warns: AGI is already here after Andreessen’s bombshell on Joe Rogan



For years, Glenn Beck has warned that artificial general intelligence — a true master of all human intellectual tasks — will completely upend society by the year 2030.

But according to internet pioneer Marc Andreessen, AGI is already here. On a recent episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” he claimed that we quietly crossed the threshold with the latest chatbot models like GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.6, Grok 4.3, and Gemini 3. Andreessen declared that these models now outperform top human experts in many domains.

Glenn believes this is critical information. Like electricity, telephones, television, the internet, and other general-purpose technologies that are so powerful and broad they fundamentally reshape how society, economies, and daily life function, AGI will revolutionize the world.

Is humanity ready to navigate the rapids, or will it crash on the rocks of blind trust and indiscrimination?

Unlike the aforementioned technologies whose transformative powers were slow, AI is “coming at the speed of light,” Glenn says.

“And because of that, there will be almost no chance to adapt or to stop and think, ‘Wait a minute, what is it we’re losing? And what is it we’re gaining here?’” he warns.

AGI, Glenn explains, will render much of the world’s experts obsolete.

“This is a tool that touches every single field at once: medicine, law, education, programming, finance, therapy, research, media, art, science — everything,” he says.

In his conversation with Rogan, Andreessen claimed that medical doctors are already relying heavily on AI models to assist in diagnosing and treating patients.

“When doctors are using this in examination rooms, you need to pay attention,” Glenn says, “because it’ll reveal something really important that always comes first in history, and that’s this: The experts themselves already know.”

“While we’re sitting here using it as a toy and debating whether AI is useful, the professionals, the ones who have those deep credentials, they’ve already quietly moved on to depending on it,” he continues.

Adoption before disruption, Glenn says, has long been the pattern.

“Factories automate before workers hear about it; banks digitize before the tellers disappear; retailers optimize before the storefronts close. The future arrives inside the institution first,” he explains.

While this seems like apocalyptic news, he acknowledges the bright side: People who learn how to use AGI to their genuine advantage by employing it as their own personal “staff” will not only avoid being replaced; they’ll create new opportunities that were impossible before.

“With AI, if you know how to prompt, a small company can compete against giant corporations. A teenager can launch a product that used to have millions in capital behind it. ... A single mom can get tutoring, legal explanations, business advice, health analysis ... free,” Glenn says. “The upside of this is staggering.”

But there is a dark side that “matters just as much,” he warns.

While access to information has been democratized, judgment remains a skill that must be cultivated with care.

“When everyone has access to infinite information, discernment becomes priceless,” Glenn says.

He fears that those who never learned how to think critically and ask questions will blindly follow whatever AI tells them, perhaps to their demise.

“I can ask AI how to treat symptoms, but do I know the right questions to ask to see if that analysis of what I’m treating is wrong? ... You can ask it legal advice, but do you know when you need a real, actual, physical attorney?” Glenn comments.

When people lose that “living moral compass” inside them — the one that detects manipulation, corruption, and ill advice — we’re in a dark age indeed.

“That’s why I have said you will be lost without the spirit to guide you,” Glenn says, “because [AI arguments are] going to be so overwhelmingly well-crafted, you may not know what is true.”

“The whole thing is not whether machines can think. Yes. The real question is whether humans can still think, and I’m not sure about that.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

LA Mayor Humiliated When Elon Musk Confirms Spencer Pratt's Exposing of LA’s Homeless Scam
play icon

LA Mayor Humiliated When Elon Musk Confirms Spencer Pratt's Exposing of LA’s Homeless Scam

Do Joe Rogan and Theo Von care if their audiences go broke?



America's gambling problem has a new face, and it looks suspiciously like yours. Or your brother's. Or the guy next to you at Mass who keeps checking his phone during the homily.

A recent Ohio State University study found that religious affiliation does almost nothing to prevent sports betting. Catholic men ranked among the most enthusiastic gamblers in the dataset. The pew and the parlay, apparently, get along fine.

It trains people to seek deliverance through randomness rather than work, discipline, family, or faith.

Americans love believing that gambling addiction belongs to someone else: the degenerate, the Vegas burnout, the man at the racetrack, clutching losing tickets and emitting fumes that could strip paint.

Bottoming out

That stereotype has expired. Online gambling has democratized self-destruction, and the business of bottoming out is booming.

Personal responsibility matters — nobody disputes this. No app physically forces a man to wager his rent on a Tuesday game between two NBA teams he has never watched or followed and whose rosters he couldn’t name under torture. Adults make choices, and adults must own those choices. But treating this purely as a failure of weak individuals overlooks the scope of the problem.

America built a digital temptation machine that previous generations couldn’t have imagined. Old-school gambling required some effort. You drove somewhere. You walked through doors. You made bets in person. It also carried a healthy stigma: Someone might spot you. Shame had room to operate.

Online gambling vaporized that friction. The casino now follows you to the kitchen, the office bathroom, your daughter's soccer game, and, yes, occasionally a funeral reception.

Value play

The trick of online gambling is that it markets itself as entertainment and finance at the same time. You’re not gambling. No, you are "making picks." "Building parlays." "Finding value." The jargon sounds vaguely like a hedge fund internship for guys in tank tops.

The apps borrow heavily from social media design. Bright colors. Instant dopamine. Notifications calibrated to land at psychologically vulnerable hours. Near-misses engineered to keep users emotionally hostage. Vegas relied on free drinks and flashing lights. Modern sportsbooks use behavioral science perfected by Silicon Valley.

Sports betting hits young men particularly hard because it bonds with masculine identity. Sports have always offered escape, but now they double as a cruel promise of freedom from economic anxiety.

Every game now functions as a financial event. A chance to win. A chance to recover. A chance to prove you outsmarted the algorithm. I say this as someone who enjoys the odd wager, maybe 20 bucks on a soccer match or a UFC fight every few months. Plenty of my friends go harder. A few are clearly addicted, though they would never admit it.

RELATED: Predatory gambling apps are using loopholes to avoid state laws

Gabby Jones/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Undue influence

This is not a male-only problem. Women participate too, in growing numbers. The image of gambling addiction as a strictly male affliction belongs to the era of landlines, fax machines, and Blockbuster late fees. Apps market aggressively to everyone, repackaging an old vice as lifestyle entertainment.

Casual. Social. Empowering. America took compulsive wagering and gave it influencer branding. Lives ruined, families wrecked, mounting debt across every demographic. Yet the celebrity endorsements roll on without a hint of hesitation.

Joe Rogan and Theo Von have both taken DraftKings sponsorships.

Neither man invented gambling. Neither forces a listener to do anything. Both have every right to accept advertisers.

But there’s an important question worth asking. At what point does cultural influence carry moral weight? Both men are multimillionaires. Neither needs the sponsorship money to keep the studio lights on. With tens, perhaps even hundreds, of millions of dedicated listeners, they could sell practically anything. Sneakers, protein powder, trucks, premium tequila, leather wallets thick enough to stop a bullet, ergonomic office chairs, mattresses that promise spinal enlightenment. The list is endless.

But they choose gambling, which is reckless given that many of their listeners are young men who treat an ad read by either of them as an endorsement, a recommendation from a trusted voice, practically a green light from an older brother who has supposedly figured life out. Von, in particular, should know better. He has spoken honestly about his battles with addiction, and yet here he is, reading copy for an industry built on the same psychological hooks.

Gaming addiction

A ruthless and exploitative industry, I might add. The online gambling giants don’t build empires on casual users dropping five dollars on the Super Bowl. Profits come disproportionately from heavy users chasing losses at 2 a.m. while insisting they are "due." America has normalized this sickness into something that no longer registers as strange. Ads run during games, before games, after games, across social media, and occasionally during segments warning about gambling addiction itself. "Call this hotline if you have lost your house. Also, use code TOUCHDOWN for a risk-free bet."

The damage runs deeper than money. Online gambling sells the fantasy that rescue is one lucky bet away. One hit. One miracle payout. It trains people to seek deliverance through randomness rather than work, discipline, family, or faith.

The isolation makes it uniquely dangerous. Alcoholics gather in bars. Drug users move through visible circles. The online gambler hemorrhages money for years beside a sleeping spouse who trusts that everything is under control. Across the country, an increasing number are rolling the virtual dice, each one believing he is the exception.

He is not. The house always wins, and these days the house fits in your back pocket.

Trump Signs Executive Order Speeding Up Research On Using Psychedelics For Mental Health

'lead a happier life'

Canada’s conservative challenger Pierre Poilievre wins big on Joe Rogan's podcast



Pierre Poilievre may be taking a page from Donald Trump’s playbook. For American audiences, Poilievre is Canada’s Conservative leader and top challenger for prime minister — a sharp-tongued critic of liberal governance who has fused free-market economics with a populist political style.

Trump’s appearance on "The Joe Rogan Experience" podcast was widely credited — fairly or not — with helping him connect with voters outside the traditional media bubble. Now, with his own poll numbers tightening, Poilievre has stepped onto the same stage, betting that a long-form, unfiltered conversation can do what scripted interviews often cannot.

Poilievre didn’t just avoid the risks his critics predicted; he made the format work for him. Like Trump before him, he used Rogan's show not as a gauntlet, but as a platform.

If that was the strategy, it worked.

Worth the risk

It’s hard to pinpoint the high point of Poilievre’s appearance on Rogan's show. There were several.

Before the interview — recorded, not live — Canada’s media class warned that it was a risk. Two-plus hours with Rogan, they suggested, could expose Poilievre to awkward questions or even embarrassment on the world’s most popular podcast, which also commands a massive Canadian audience.

There was little reason for concern.

Rogan opened by praising Poilievre as “a very reasonable, intelligent person” — a rarity in politics, he added — before launching into a broad critique of Canada’s recent direction. It set the tone: friendly, expansive, and largely unhostile.

They quickly turned to the now-famous “apple video,” a viral exchange between Poilievre and a British Columbia reporter that has become political folklore. What began as a would-be “gotcha” ended with Poilievre — casually eating an apple — deflecting accusations of populism and comparisons to Donald Trump. The clip circulated widely, hailed by supporters as a small master class in message discipline.

Poilievre told Rogan he hadn’t thought much of the moment at the time and didn’t even realize he was being recorded, assuming it was a routine print interview. The footage, captured by his own staff, was initially posted online without much notice before suddenly going viral weeks later, turning the exchange into an unlikely political talking point.

Mind your own business

Over two and a half hours, the conversation ranged widely — from martial arts to Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying program.

On euthanasia, Poilievre struck a more serious tone, arguing that public policy should emphasize helping people endure hardship rather than steering them toward death. He suggested the system should be oriented toward preserving life and ensuring that vulnerable people are not nudged toward assisted suicide as a default outcome.

He also revived a theme he has largely shelved since 2023: the idea of a “mind your own business” approach to government.

Poilievre framed the role of Parliament as limiting state power while expanding individual freedom — focusing government on core responsibilities like infrastructure, defense, and public safety while otherwise leaving people alone to live their lives. He added that if he were to build a party from scratch, it would embody that philosophy.

RELATED: ‘I couldn’t believe it’: BC tribunal orders ex-school trustee to pay $750K over trans 'hate'

David Krayden | NurPhoto/Getty Images

Fight club

At one point, the dynamic flipped. During a discussion of the UFC and martial arts, Poilievre began quizzing Rogan on his own background, demonstrating an unexpected fluency in the subject — and even offering details about Bruce Lee that appeared to catch Rogan off guard.

The performance was confident, relaxed, and at times surprisingly deft.

Poilievre didn’t just avoid the risks his critics predicted; he made the format work for him. Like Trump before him, he used Rogan's show not as a gauntlet, but as a platform.

It’s the kind of appearance he may wish he had done sooner — and one he’ll likely repeat as he continues his bid to become Canada’s next prime minister.

The right’s only way out of podcast chaos is radical honesty



To say the conservative movement has come off the rails would comically understate the damage. Wild accusations bounce from show to show. Members of Congress pick petty fights on social media. President Trump even waded into internet drama while another war rages in the Persian Gulf.

Plenty of commentators blame podcasts for this new disorder, and the new ecosystem gives them no shortage of bad behavior to cite. But that diagnosis misses the deeper cause. Establishment conservatives treated their audiences the same way the legacy press did: as a resource to be managed, manipulated, and occasionally milked. A movement that spent decades being lied to will not be stitched back together by scolding the people who finally stopped listening.

Conservative audiences will not return to reality through scolding. They will return through honesty.

After Democrats lost in 2024 to a resurgent Donald Trump, they went hunting for culprits. They blamed a new breed of podcasters who cracked the information monopoly progressives had grown used to enjoying. Talk radio always bothered the left, but it remained a kind of cultural ghetto for older conservatives. Podcasts like Joe Rogan’s reached a younger, largely male audience that rarely participated in politics at all. Democrats screamed about “disinformation,” warned about the danger of free speech, then launched research projects designed to replicate what they claimed to hate.

The right cheered the upheaval. Establishment conservatives, however, never fully grasped what the shift meant for them. The left’s control of mainstream media gave it a weapon of enormous magnitude, but Fox News and talk radio served a parallel purpose on the right: discipline the acceptable narrative, keep Republican voters inside a manageable story, and punish those who stepped too far outside it.

Institutional conservatives also abused that power. They sold narratives that served donors, careers, and comfortable assumptions. They treated their base as a captive audience. This behavior helped fuel the Trumpian revolution in the first place. Trump did not rise only as a battering ram against progressive media. He rose as a middle finger to a conservative establishment that had earned the people’s contempt.

That plan worked, then kept working in ways many people did not anticipate. The democratization of information that destroyed the progressive narrative machine has now turned its solvent on the conservative one. Populism behaves like universal acid. It rarely dissolves only the targets you prefer.

Conservative gatekeepers now display the same panicked reflexes the left showed: warnings about “dangerous rhetoric,” demands for deplatforming, and pleas for “responsible” voices to regain control. These instincts never belonged to one ideology. They belong to institutions that sense their monopoly slipping away.

RELATED: America First can’t survive an Iran quagmire

Blaze Media Illustration

Podcast distribution changes the game. Commentators once required the reach of major networks and the production value that came with large teams. Now anyone with a microphone, a ring light, and an internet connection can reach millions.

It turns out that younger audiences value relatability and long-form conversation more than professional polish. Even established names found the freedom of the podcast more attractive than a coveted cable slot.

The low barrier of entry produces obvious downsides. Wild speculation spreads faster than corrections. Personal feuds drive engagement more reliably than careful analysis. The audience rewards charisma and intensity, not always judgment. The result looks ridiculous at times. This week, the president inserted himself into a juvenile online dispute while U.S. forces struck Iran, a perfect example of how unserious the culture can become when attention becomes the currency and everyone fights for a share of it.

But all the moralizing in the world will not restore the old order. Mainstream conservatives cannot lecture podcast audiences about “responsible broadcasting” after years of manipulating their own viewers. The level of mistrust runs too deep.

Censorship will fail too. Shaming and platform policing did not rebuild credibility for Democrats. It will not rebuild Republicans’ credibility.

RELATED: The SAVE Act is the hill voters will die on

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

This is the part conservative leadership does not want to hear. The path out requires admitting that the problem did not begin with podcasts. The problem began with institutions that treated truth as a tool. Restoring coherence demands that conservative leaders stop trying to reassert narrative control and start rebuilding trust. That means fewer games, fewer insinuations, fewer anonymous smears, and more willingness to say, “We were wrong,” and explain why.

Conservative audiences will not return to reality through scolding. They will return through honesty. That will require a different posture from conservative leaders: less control, more candor; fewer moral lectures, more receipts; fewer slogans, more clarity about what can be done and what cannot. The movement will stumble until it learns that discipline beats drama.

So expect things to get worse before they get better. Conservative media spent years breaking trust. The bill has come due. And now the only way out is through.