'Lord of the Rings' star shares surprising story about Islam and slavery

John Rhys-Davies, star of the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy and 'Indiana Jones' films, joined Glenn on radio to discuss his new movie that Glenn really enjoyed - 'Beyond the Mask'. The conversation took an interesting turn when Davies spoke of his fear of the end of western European Christian civilization and need for people to unite against true evil in the world. To illustrate his point, Rhys-Davies shared a story from his childhood when he saw a real-life slave ship bringing children to Saudi Arabia.

WATCH:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment:

GLENN: So last night, Tania and Cheyenne and I went and we saw a new movie that we hadn't heard about. Somebody on Facebook said, hey, Glenn, you need to look into this movie called Beyond the Mask. I posted, does anybody know about it? It posted in select theaters. We saw it last night and absolutely loved it. Just loved it. It is made by two guys. Two families that were home-schooling families, and they used to get together. And they liked to make historic videos and films. Well, that doesn't sound like a good movie. That sounds like, okay, that's great. And I'll let somebody else watch that. This is a really good movie. This is something that reminds me very much like the Swamp Fox or Johnny Tremain that Walt Disney did with, you know, modern production tied to it. Really well done. Well acted. And one of the main guys in it, in fact, he plays the evil uncle is John Rhys-Davies. You may not know his name, but you've seen him a million times. He played Gimli in Lord of the Rings. He was the guy who wore the fez -- I don't remember the character's name -- but the guy who wore the fez in Indiana Jones. Indie's -- I can always just hear him say, Indie! He was the friend over in Egypt of Indiana Jones.

John, are you there?

JOHN: I am indeed -- [inaudible] welcome for our film. I think it's rather generous of you. Thank you very much.

GLENN: Thank you. First of all, you're over in England. And we appreciate you talking to us today. But one thing that I don't think people know is you were a guy that you were very radically left in the 1960s, and Margaret Thatcher kind of changed your mind. Actually kind of -- you were trying to shout her down or something. And she had a great comeback. Right? Do I have the story right?

JOHN: I was a young left-wing idiot in those days. And she was our constituency MP in Finchley, and a bunch of us decided to go along and, you know, make her look tough, rough. And each one of them got up and asked a question, and she shot them down in flames. I chickened out. I decided that I would just forget my question. And just -- just listen for once. And she was -- she hadn't actually gotten into her full stride yet. Her voice was still a bit shrill. But she had an absolute mastery of fact. And she could -- it was pretty easy for her to shoot us down.

GLENN: Now, here you are, you're playing a bad guy, and you play it really well. A bad guy in Beyond the Mask. It's opening in select theaters this weekend. You're in Whales. Are you not?

JOHN: I'm in London, actually. But I'm working on something else in London.

GLENN: So how did you get involved with this American family Christian movie that, you know, was made by homeschoolers. I can't imagine that that was the thing, hey, I have to do a film done by a couple of homeschoolers.

JOHN: Well, you make it sound a little more radical than it was. The truth of the matter is, I like independent films. And I like independent filmmakers. And you can get great production values out of Hollywood. But you seldom really get something where people are trying to talk from the heart. And, you know, I -- I'm -- I'm in this paradoxical situation of being I suppose a radical -- a skeptic and a rationalist really. But I have an enormous -- I have an enormous number of Christian friends who put up with me rather well. And I have an enormous sympathy for them. And, you know, right at the moment, I'm one of those who actually believes that we're in danger of losing western European Christian civilization. And now is not the time to bicker. Now is the time to find what we have in common.

GLENN: Holy cow.

JOHN: And, you know -- you know, and build bridges, rather than sneer and scoff and scorn.

GLENN: John, you are -- you're speaking to an audience of 10 million people here in America that feel exactly the same way. That we are -- we're in real trouble. And nobody is willing to say it. Nobody is willing to do it. And the religious people -- and really, some of the atheists too. We're just tearing each other apart. And we have a lot we agree on. We have a lot we agree on. I'm good friends with Penn Jillette who is a big atheist in America. And we get along famously because there's so much to agree on, the basic principles of life. And western civilization and we really are on the verge of losing it.

JOHN: Well, I mean, I think -- I think America is still the last best hope of mankind. But I think we really are going to lose it in Europe. You know, we --

GLENN: When was the last time you were here? We're not doing so well?

[laughter]

JOHN: I lived in the states incidentally. I used to live -- I listened and watched your show whenever I got back to the states.

GLENN: Oh, you're kidding.

JOHN: So, but the -- here in Europe, you know, the demographics have just been ignored by the politicians. And, you know, I'm not a statistician or anything like that. But, you know, when you have contraception in a country for 40 or 50 years and your birthrate goes below that magical 2.1 per woman figure on average, you get a declining population. And what we are doing, we're not merely replacing our indigenous European population with refugees from Africa and the third world, we're actually replacing our culture as well. And that is catastrophic. You know, we are -- I grew up in Africa. I was taught to respect Islam in all those customs that Muslims must endure. I was aware of. You know, and would try and observe. I have some -- some -- let's put it this way. I have many friends of mine who are Muslim, but I would not wish to live in an Islamic world or an Islamic country.

There is -- there is -- it isn't a question of finding similarities. You know, there is in Islam a direct confrontational attitude towards, you know, the unbelievers. And it's -- and it's really set in stone because the prophet was the last -- the last person that God talked to as a prophet. Therefore, everything he says is set in stone. You cannot contradict the prophet. And some of the things that the prophet said, though you will always people saying, well, he didn't actually mean this. What it really means is, you know. But it is really there. And I've got -- I'm one of those people who have a particular bee in my bonnet about slavery.

The reason is simple. I grew up in Africa. My father was a policeman. He came home one day. We went at lunchtime. He said, get in the car. And he drove me down to the dockside. And there was an Arab dhow in the harbor. And he said, you see that dhow? Twice a year it comes down from Saudi Arabia. It stops in Aden. It comes down the Somali coast. It stops here. It's bringing trading goods down. Then it goes on to Beira in Mozambique. But on the way back up, it always have two or three little black boys ,and they're being taken back to Saudi Arabia as slaves.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

JOHN: And his anger was palpable and communicated itself to me. And I've always been -- you know -- you know, when people have a little bee in their bonnet about things and you say, oh, that's odd. But a little out of place. That was one of my bees in my bonnet. And I was outraged. Outraged to see justifications for slavery again.

GLENN: Yes. And the world is -- you know what is amazing. Here in America, we're spending so much time celebrating Bruce Jenner becoming Caitlyn Jenner. And we're not talking about the slave trade that's going on. The slaughter of even the homosexuals. The slaughter of -- the crucifixion of children because they're Christians in the Middle East. We're not paying attention to that. We're just dead asleep in America. It's shameful. It's shameful, John.

JOHN: Well, it's shameful. We have exactly the same thing here. I mean, you know, obviously I'm in show business. You and I both have friends who are gay. You know, but gay marriage here was just about the last thing that the -- that the gay community was expecting. It was so -- down the list of things that needed real serious attention because harm was being done. I mean, you would have got to about 15,000 other things that were priorities, you would have thought. And I always sort of -- I always say, look, if I could have one week to change the world, I would probably execute everyone who used the word "rights" if they didn't back it up with the obligation of responsibilities.

GLENN: Responsibilities. Oh, my gosh. Wow, John. Man, we are up against the clock here. I hope that we can have you back. Because you are fascinating. And one of the few that are really willing to say the truth and say it in a kind way, in a loving way, and just speak common sense. And, A, I wish you all the best of luck. And best of luck on this latest film. Which, again, I recommend highly. If you are anywhere, look for it this weekend. It's open in select theaters. It's called Beyond the Mask. But it is really good. Really, really good. And John Rhys-Davies plays the bad guy in it. And --

JOHN: The bad guys. How dare you, sir. I am the queen's most loyal object.

GLENN: John, thank you so much. And God bless you. Thank you.

JOHN: And you, sir. Thank you very much for having me.

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.