Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 9, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:36

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1182

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, everyone.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Seaters.
	Today is Monday, the 9th of June, 2025, and this is episode 1182.
	I'm your host, Elios, and I'm joined today by Firas and Stephen.
	Hello.
	And we are going to talk about California in flames, Britain's Muslim networks, and how concern over migration is basically now terrorism.
	But before we begin, we have several announcements to make.
	Big changes are coming ahead.
	We have released a documentary trailer about the death of men.
	Karl has made this documentary.
	You can check the trailer.
	The documentary is going to be released at 5 p.m. today.
	It's very exciting and the content is really great.
	You can see here we've worked a lot on this, Karl and the editors especially, and definitely check it out.
	Definitely check it out.
	It's premiering today at 5 p.m.
	Also, Carl has a video for us.
	He is giving us some updates about the development of the website.
	He's talking about new hosts, new series, new content, and the redesigning of the website.
	Definitely check this video out.
	I see 342 views already of it.
	Let's raise the number.
	Right, and we are going to have a roundtable today at 3pm, talking about the vizier of reform, Zia Yusuf.
	I think this was one of the most unwanted end cause, as far as, you know, talking about it.
	Air quotes and forwards.
	It's a tennis match of totalitarian reform.
	Right.
	All right, everyone, chill.
	The new ice age has begun.
	The age where ice is actually doing its job.
	This is precisely what people voted for.
	This is Trump's mandate ever since he won the elections of November 2024.
	And a lot of people are not having it.
	They can't stomach it, especially the left, which is protesting it and tries to disrupt the country, the US, and basically the entire world, or the entire West, I should say.
	So we have a long chain of events that spiraled out of control and have reached a sort of generalized chaos.
	This has led to several physical fighting as well as political fighting.
	And we are going to talk about these events right now.
	So on the 7th of June, LAPD issued a statement and said that today demonstrations across the city of LA remain peaceful.
	We commend all those who exercise their First Amendment rights responsibly.
	And while today's events concluded without incident, the Los Angeles Police Department remains fully prepared to respond swiftly.
	Now, that didn't happen.
	Why did these riots take place?
	Well, ICE was doing its job.
	Its job led to the detention of 12 people who were illegal migrants and they were held into custody.
	And then several people protested outside several buildings associated to the federal government, but also to the state, LAPD headquarters, for instance.
	And at some point, they turned violent.
	Let's see here.
	We have footage from it.
	We have here people taking, hiding...
	There are many Mexican flags.
	I thought we were in Mexico.
	I was just looking at the graffiti.
	This is definitely fiery.
	It doesn't seem to be peaceful.
	Just saying.
	Now let's see more of what happened.
	There are several cries and calls to spread this chaos throughout the country.
	And I think that when people echo such sentiments...
	There's no other consideration that is relevant there.
	These kinds of sentiments are incredibly disruptive, and they should be addressed.
	Right, so it seems like Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass, the mayor of LA, have lost control.
	And they are trying to protest against Trump, who is deploying the National Guard.
	They're saying that this is an abuse of authority, and we can handle the situation.
	Now, it don't seem they are able to do so.
	They don't seem to be under control of the situation.
	You see here lots of people being on top of a bridge.
	I'm throwing bricks.
	Is that bricks and rocks and stuff like that?
	So that doesn't look like peaceful, according to the chief of police of L.A. County.
	I mean, that seems to me like...
	Are they having a cup of coffee with them?
	Are they throwing them down a bagel?
	More fiery than peaceful.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	You see them also throwing rocks to the police?
	Yeah.
	So it seems like this has spiraled out of control.
	And I don't understand why NISOM would be against the deployment of the national Control just means that you allow anyone who disagrees with a Republican president and ICE who are doing their jobs, but because it's opposed to our view, this is the form of control that's acceptable, throwing bricks, attacking police officers.
	But of course, if they didn't do it, I think there's a clear distinction between peaceful protest and violent riots.
	Democrats are paying lip service to it, but essentially they are trying to sugarcoat what is...
	There's a political logic to it there, which is that if they make every attempt at enforcing immigration laws very expensive for the authorities, then they hope that that deters the authorities and that forces them into a political settlement.
	The dimension you want to keep in mind is that a lot of resources and at least house seats are allocated based on the size of the population.
	So if you shrink the size of the illegal immigrant population...
	That's an interesting point.
	I mean, I hadn't really put that into the kind of political dimension for them.
	But it is kind of like throwing it out from their perspective.
	Oh, look, and I've seen the videos.
	We're allowed to have demonstrations and I think we're in agreement with that.
	But it's the idea that they're taking peaceable people away from their jobs.
	Yes.
	And they're closing down roads.
	And so they're attacking the police and they're communists and you see Palestinian flags and you see Mexican flags and you see all kinds of other foreign flags.
	The logic behind it is we will not tolerate this loss of power.
	And you have to think about it in the longer term because when illegal movements...
	migrants have children under American law, these children are automatically citizens.
	Yes.
	And if they tend to vote Democrat, that means that over time you're changing the nature of politics in the United States to favor one party.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, and we should add on the political dimension that some states are resisting voter ID laws.
	And last time I checked, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, also protested these voter ID laws as racist.
	Suddenly, if we throw this into the mix, we get a better idea as to why Gavin Newsom and the Democrats are protesting against ISIS operation.
	There's one more point to make here.
	California makes it illegal to check the ID of a voter.
	So if you as a voter try to show a California elections official your ID, he or she cannot examine it by law.
	And they have the nerve to talk about political legitimacy.
	Now, we see also here anti-deportation rioters smashing the LAPD headquarters.
	That's calm, isn't it?
	I can see the calmness in that way that the army's thrusting there very calmly into the window.
	This reminds me of Escape from Los Angeles, the sequel to Escape from New York.
	We're going to have the Duke coming here now.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And people have been talking about generalized chaos and the Mad Max universe.
	Now, speaking of flags, as we said, and as you said for us, you see lots of Palestinian flags, lots of Mexican flags, some people wrapped around in flags of the USSR, but you don't see American flags in support.
	You see American flags being burned and spit at.
	So we see here a video by Andy Ngo.
	He says, far left and Mexican nationalist writers are breaking into cars in Los Angeles.
	And setting them on fire using American flags as Tinder.
	And you see this, we have lots of footage of this is happening.
	And lots of people saying, here we have this from leftism.
	Leftist writer burns American flag in LA and says, my Mexican flag, green, white and red, that's my flag, not this flag.
	F this flag.
	I pledge allegiance to Mexico.
	Why are you there?
	Why don't you just simply get up and go to Mexico?
	Because that's where the flag is flown.
	That's where your cultural heritage clearly is.
	That's where your desire to be is.
	It means no sense to me for you to burn an American flag in a country you don't want to be in that's not Mexican.
	And there's also another dimension that the flag represents the nation, not the government.
	When you're burning a flag, you are committing a symbolic act against a nation, not necessarily against a government.
	Lots of people don't want to put forward this argument because they think that the government is necessarily organically connected to the nation.
	And sometimes we have governments that aren't particularly in favor of the interests of their nation and of promoting them.
	Seems pretty much most of Western governments, to be honest.
	Exactly.
	So we have here several footage.
	We have here footage.
	Pardon me for the spelling.
	Everyone saw this.
	A burning vehicle here.
	And someone with the Mexican flag driving around, making circles.
	This definitely seems like Mad Max stuff.
	Law has broken down.
	We also hear people saying, again, being on top of burning cars, they've graffitied Wasn't I looking at pictures like this in Paris only a couple of weeks ago, where instead of using a Mexican flag, they had the flag of Palestine on it, which seems to have pretty similar colours on this.
	And they were burning French flags.
	Burning French flags to set fire to police vehicles and stopping people.
	And hang on, what's the connectivity between them?
	I'm trying to really work this one out.
	Is it the fact they weren't born in that country and they just illegally came to that country or just settled in that country?
	And now they're being caught, they're being deported?
	I don't know.
	I mean, call me old-fashioned.
	There's something there.
	There is this belief that nations are interchangeable and identity is fundamentally interchangeable.
	As someone from Lebanon, I just know how false that is and what a ridiculous claim it is to make.
	But this is the official stated position of pretty much every Western government.
	And if you disagree with it, as you're going to tell us in a couple of moments, you're a terrorist.
	So there is this dynamic that's happening where reality is hitting ideology.
	Reality and ideology are clashing.
	And you're seeing reality assert itself in images like this.
	And we need to also bear in mind the fact that the left is constantly carving up the population into several groups.
	And they're playing power politics with those groups.
	And they almost invariably support movements they consider to be revolutionary within quotation marks.
	And they constantly Just saying.
	But leftists don't learn from their mistakes.
	They're ideologues.
	And when we're talking about ideologues, any clash between ideology and facts results to a situation that is so worse for the facts.
	Now let's move forward.
	We see yet again Mexican flags, people, and they've graffitied and vandalized the vehicle.
	And they say F ICE.
	Here we also have more flags.
	And we have a march here.
	Again, almost all of them are Mexican flags.
	You have lots of Mexican flags here.
	Almost all of the people are Mexican, by the way.
	Yes.
	So, looks like it's taking an ethnic dimension.
	Right, so several people are circulating this video with the Mexican president, Claudia Sheinbaum-Pardo, allegedly urging Mexicans to protest in the United States, saying, if necessary, we will mobilize.
	We don't want taxes on remittances from our fellow countrymen from the U.S. to Mexico.
	This is an act of war.
	But bear this in mind.
	This may be quasi-misleading.
	Grok says here, the claim that President Scheinbaum urged Mexicans to protest in the U.S. against a remittance tax is partially accurate but misleading.
	She called for mobilization against attacks, but this refers to political actions like lobbying and social media campaign, not physical protests.
	No evidence of protests in the U.S. exists as of June 8, 2025.
	So, yeah, but take that with a pinch of salt when you see people talking about the president of Mexico here.
	I think the important point to make about the president of Mexico is that when she was mayor of Mexico City, What happened was that the cartels began disappearing bodies rather than killing people and leaving their bodies, which led to a drop in the murder rate and a spike in the disappearance rate.
	So the cartels essentially were doing her a favor to help her spin a political narrative.
	The Americans have long suspected that her and her predecessor were connected to the cartels in some ways.
	And from my looking at what's been happening in Mexican politics, it seems to be pretty obvious that all kinds of senior politicians are in bed with the cartels.
	And so what Trump is doing is shutting down the money flows for the cartels, both in terms of people smuggling and drug smuggling.
	And she is taking their sides.
	The tax on remittances is 3.5%, which is not a huge amount.
	And is intended to basically levy more money from people who are benefiting from being in the United States who are often working illegally and untaxed.
	So her response that we will mobilize is interesting.
	They've also been saying that all Mexican consulates, and pretty much most major American cities have a Mexican consulate, will be used to help stop deportations.
	So they're using the power of the Mexican state for Support of the Mexican people.
	But what this is confirming is that there is A conflict between the two sides.
	I think there clearly is a conflict between Mexico and the United States.
	I mean, I think 3.5% personally as a fee is minuscule in a way that they...
	If they really wanted to do it, they did it into double figures, which has a real big impact when you're looking at currency transfer rates as well.
	You're suddenly moving up to regions of 20%.
	And then the second point of that, that is no doubt someone would have said, well, if we do put the tariff on so high, it won't get paid.
	People then start trying to do it in a kind of money laundering way, which I think is fine in a way.
	I mean, I'm not one for money laundering, but I think once you start putting it underground, it gives you the opportunity then to bring in more federal laws, to hit them harder, and then you find out and identify the roots of these monies much more quickly and be able to find out who the bigwigs, because it's the money that matters.
	I've always said in law, follow the money, always in politics.
	And if Trump is following the money, then maybe we'll follow the money to those people in Mexico who are actually benefiting from all this crisis.
	Apart from following the money, he seems to be doing the sensible thing here.
	He deployed the National Guard, much to the dismay of Gavin Newsom and...
	So Kamala Harris made a statement here on what's happening in Los Angeles.
	She says, L.A. is my home and like so many Americans, I'm appalled at what we're witnessing on the streets of our city.
	Deploying the National Guard is a dangerous escalation meant to provoke chaos.
	Excuse me.
	Deploying the National Guard is a reaction to chaos.
	It's the chaos and the very lukewarm reaction to that chaos on behalf of Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass, the mayor of LA.
	So Kamala Harris says this is a dangerous escalation.
	I think that this, in a way, that's true.
	It is an escalation, but it should be an escalation to end the chaos.
	Yes.
	But also, I really dislike the attempt to somehow portray this issue as a confrontation among equals, among equal parties.
	And we say we have two equal parties here.
	It seems like Trump is escalating.
	No, no.
	He should do what he did.
	He's absolutely correct in deploying the National Guard.
	It's obviously out of control.
	Everyone who's trying to claim that it isn't out of control seems to be lying.
	And whenever I see anything from Kamala Harris, I always get that feeling in the stomach, just as you've got when you've got food poisoning.
	It's just that sense.
	And sometimes food poisoning lasts for a long time.
	She says also there, this administration's actions are not about public safety.
	They're about stoking fear.
	Again, this manifestly falls.
	This kind of anarcho-tyranny in L.A. is stoking fear.
	Yeah.
	Bear the mind stoking fear.
	To what I'm going to be talking about later.
	Also, Gavin Newsom said the Secretary of Defense is now threatening to deploy active duty Marines on American soil against its own citizens.
	This is deranged behavior.
	Sorry, first of all, not all of them are citizens.
	And also what's deranged about it?
	If you were, if you were This is the fundamental point.
	What's sacred to the left is sentimentalism, not the written letter of the law.
	Western culture, Western civilization, is built on the idea that the sacred word is holy.
	Everything that traces back from Greek philosophy, Roman law, the Bible, this all rests on the idea of the importance of the written word and of the written law.
	For them, it's all about sentiment and feeling and wordplay.
	So what Kamala Harris said essentially is, this feels wrong.
	I don't like it.
	What Newsom is saying here is, this feels wrong.
	I don't like it.
	There's no nuance.
	There's no respect for the actual facts.
	This is the party that disregards reality as a matter of principle and elevates sentimentalism above law.
	Exactly.
	They constantly ask for mercy.
	But I'm afraid my condition has completely left me cold to the pleas of mercy.
	We have here Gavin Newsom.
	Yeah, I was going to say, you've got here, Gavin Newsom talked about the National Guard has been taken out of California's hand.
	On the one hand, Gavin, you turned around and said that there was nothing going on, nothing to see here, no demonstrations.
	Now you're saying don't give them an excuse to use violence against you.
	So the throwing of bricks, the burnings of cars, there was nothing to see.
	Well, if people don't want the military, or in this case, the National Guard, to push them, stop them from doing...
	Like, don't give one.
	I mean, are you on the side of law enforcement or are you on the...
	They're not supposed to be your side.
	No.
	It says here the federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in LA, not because there's a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle.
	Don't give them one.
	Never use violence.
	Speak out peacefully.
	Well, there are people using violence.
	There are people who don't speak out peacefully.
	Why haven't you done your job?
	Just a basic question.
	Remember when Xi Jinping was visiting San Francisco, and then all of a sudden, Newsom made it spotlessly clean, and got rid of the homeless, and got rid of the drug addicts, and sort of restored order for Xi's visit, and then he allowed the chaos back.
	So this is who they are.
	They are lying through their teeth constantly about what's actually happening.
	It's impossible to assume that this isn't conscious and deliberate and that this isn't part of the strategy.
	Legally, Trump has the right to declare an emergency and summon the National Guard.
	In normal situations, the National Guard obeys the governor, but the president has the right under the law to take command of the National Guard for domestic and foreign purposes.
	What Newsom is trying to do is to create a constitutional crisis on the back of this to justify further escalation while lying about the narrative.
	So this isn't accidental.
	None of it is accidental.
	And even when you look at the riots themselves, you can see the social media pages of these rioters teaching how to set up barricades, how to identify police officers and find their identities so that they can be targeted at home and so that their families can be attacked.
	You see them organizing in a very effective way.
	And there is this pretense that this is all organic and that it isn't organized.
	What they are doing is being the shenfen to the IRA.
	They're spinning the political narrative for the people who are using the violence.
	Right, so do you know Karen Bass?
	Yes.
	Who Karen Bass is?
	They are in LA.
	Well, allow me to break the ice.
	Well done.
	So Karen Bass says here is the mayor of L.A., and she says this is a difficult time for a city.
	We had unprecedented natural disasters, reports of unrest outside the city.
	That's not exactly unrest.
	That's chaos, including in Paramount, are deeply concerning.
	We have been in direct contact with officials in Washington, D.C., and are working closely with law enforcement to find the best path forward.
	I mean, it's not exactly a debate what the best path forward is.
	You either tolerate this and encourage it to grow?
	Yes, but she has a problem.
	She won't stand for the National Guard being deployed.
	He says: If you decry every kind of law enforcement as fascism,
	at some point people will stop listening to you because They won't be able to discern between what fascism is and what fascism is not.
	They will think invariably it's what you don't like.
	And that's just complete nonsense.
	And you know her...
	Go on, go on.
	No, no, you know some stuff about her Because I think we should...
	She was part of the Venturemos Brigade.
	There was an international socialist revolution group aimed at challenging US policies towards Cuba.
	Have made their way back to the spotlights after they were revealed just months back during the city's disastrous wildfires.
	She previously praised Fidel Castro and had close associations with the Caribbean country in her youth, traveling there in 1973 with Venturema's brigade and seeing the communist leader speak, and when Castro died, she referred to him as "comandante en jefe".
	commander-in-chief, saying his passing was a great loss to the people of Cuba.
	She also reportedly gave a eulogy for a senior member of the Communist Party, Right, so one thing, communism has led invariably to poverty.
	When you have poverty, you have huge migration flows.
	Look at Cuba, look at Venezuela, and that's actually making the problem worse.
	So if you care about migrants, you presumably have to care about the conditions.
	At their home and not support communists who are making people poor and who make them actually try to migrate.
	Right, so Gavin Newsom also requested the Trump administration to rescind the unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return them to his command.
	He says we didn't have a problem until Trump got involved.
	It looks like you did have a major problem.
	If any law enforcement action results in riots, then you clearly have a problem.
	He says this is a serious breach of state sovereignty, inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed.
	Rescind the order, return control to California.
	Control has been lost in California, but not because of Trump and the deployment of the National Guard.
	Control has been lost because the state hasn't done its job.
	And not because the people who are involved in law enforcement are bad.
	They're not.
	Because they have orders from Democrats and Nazis.
	So he has 2,000 National Guard, which he didn't use.
	So that was a resource that was not being used anywhere.
	So why did he say those resources were needed somewhere else?
	So where was he going to put them?
	He wasn't going to put them anywhere.
	So he's making a lie even that last sentence.
	It's just blatant lies.
	And he's blaming Trump for it.
	He says he manufactured a crisis and is inflaming.
	Well, the crisis was the border crisis.
	He didn't manufacture that.
	He's trying to solve the border crisis.
	And within the border crisis is now that others are trying to prevent that border crisis problem being solved by those who have the authority to do that, which is the police in terms of ICE.
	So I don't see how they can be creating the problem.
	The left is constantly disrupting.
	Civilization and then everyone who tries to address these issues is denounced as an evil person who is actually responsible from the problem in the first place.
	It is a complete inversion of reality.
	I hope there aren't going to be any victims there.
	It looks like it's incredibly violent and it looks like there are lots of fanatical people who are interested in continuing their violence.
	I really hope the order is restored.
	And there is as little damage as possible.
	And as few casualties as possible.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And let us go to the comments.
	Right.
	So Sigil...
	Yeah.
	We should thank President Scheinbaum for one thing, confirming that integration is a myth.
	There will never be America...
	They are a foreign militia that invaded our soil.
	Okay, Alex Adamson 55 says, Let me rephrase my last rant.
	Burning the flag of the country you want to stay in in protest of being sent back to the country you're flying the flag of.
	Okay, let's scroll down a bit.
	OPH UK, Trump should tie a tacho to a rope, drag it around LA behind his limo, and then drive to the border.
	They will follow.
	Sigilstone17 says, Mexican nationalists lay claim to like a third of the US.
	That's why they're there.
	It's the rotten remains of the Aztecs and it's high time that the legacy of Cortez is upholding.
	Alex Adamson55, burning the flag of the country you chose to live in while flying the flag of the country you fled from, leftist logic at its finest.
	Let's scroll down a bit.
	Samson, could you please help?
	Right, okay.
	Accru, the insurrectionists should be put in jail and held indefinitely for their threats to our democracy.
	See what I did there?
	I see what you did there.
	NeonRealist says, Governor Newsom and Democrat politicians keep saying LAPD has situation under control.
	Don't need National Guard.
	Meanwhile, LAPD chief at press briefing says, we're overwhelmed and it's out of control.
	And NeonRealist, I showed a video of people attacking the headquarters of LAPD.
	Logan17pine says, also everyone outside of the cities hate the cities.
	It's just this time the news got out of the local.
	The Engaged Few says the National Guard should use those Mexican flags as aimpoints.
	Logan17pine, if you didn't know, LA has been having riots for almost a year now.
	Well, we've covered lots of the violence in LA.
	Yep.
	Alright, let's go to the second segment.
	Part of what you're seeing in LA was enabled by the fact that high levels of government were infiltrated by communist sympathizers and by people who want to unduly influence politics to suit their own agendas.
	And we're going to talk about something similar happening in the United Kingdom.
	And we want to talk about the various Muslim networks that exist in the civil service and in the home office and in the unions and in the various political parties that are trying to essentially gain sectarian influence and have the ability to control and affect policy regardless of democratic norms.
	If you look, you will see that, for example, the Conservatives have their own Muslim forum.
	In the Greens, there is a Muslim forum that is very focused on the interests of their own community.
	And in the Greens, they are running Muadhan Ali.
	I suppose they want to say Muadhan Ali, but the Pakistanis have a problem with Arabic.
	They want to present themselves as the future of the Green Party, but they are not the most influential Muslim network.
	That honour is reserved for the Labour Muslim Network, which has been quite honest.
	In terms of describing the relationship between them and the Labour Party.
	And I'm going to read a couple of excerpts from reports that they themselves have published in order to highlight a couple of points, especially about how the leftist-Islamist alliance ends up operating in practice and the outcomes and influence that it has on policy.
	Quoting directly from the Labour Muslim Representatives report, these guys basically surveyed a couple of hundred elected officials who are both Muslim and belong to the Labour Party.
	They followed decent methodology, statistically speaking, and they came out with a series of views.
	In their introduction, they say, the historic relationship between the Labour Party and the British Muslim communities is well-established and long-standing.
	So we're not accusing anybody of a conspiracy here.
	This is a confession.
	There is a long-standing relationship between the Muslim community and the Labour Party.
	For generations, they continue, Muslim voters across the country have loyally supported Labour candidates locally and nationally, and many Muslim members have served the party within the local CLPs.
	As councillors, mayors and members of parliament, this relationship, forged through shared commitments to social equality and civil rights, has been one of the strongest electoral alignments in British modern political history.
	Make it very clear there, don't they?
	Political alignments.
	Are we debating this?
	Is this us casting aspersions or coming up with conspiracies?
	Or this is what they're actually saying?
	They continue.
	Muslims are estimated to form around 7% of the population in England and Wales that are Notice the threat here.
	If you don't do what we're saying, nice Mr. Keir Starmer, the level of support that you have, which delivers maybe 20, 30 safe seats to Labour, will be halved.
	You'd better listen to us.
	Already there was a 34% decrease in support for Labour from the previous election.
	And this came as a result of independent candidates running on pro-Palestinian and anti-Islamophobia platforms, including Lester South, Dewsbury, Baitley.
	They continue with their names.
	Two-thirds of councillors and mayors say that they are not treated equally to other representatives in the Labour Party.
	Now, our perception is that the white majority is treated as lesser, but their perception is that it's the other way around.
	One in three Muslim labor representatives describe the party as institutionally Islamophobic.
	So nearly 40% say that the labor party...
	It's like the word racist.
	It's like the word racist.
	It's exactly the right word.
	It's like turning around and saying the Labour Party is institutionally Islamophobic is like saying the Labour Party is a supporter of mass open-door corporate capitalism.
	It's absurd on so many levels.
	It just doesn't exist.
	Over half do not believe that the Labour Party takes Islamophobia seriously.
	This is coming at a time when new legislation around Islamophobia could permanently curtail the freedom to discuss Islam and the errors of Islam.
	We wouldn't even be here.
	We're not even allowed.
	yeah so for us tell me if you disagree with this i think that the speech the use of speech in this case It's not an issue of portraying truth or falsity.
	They will constantly say this in the same way that the left will constantly say anyone not as left as Mao is far right.
	Exactly.
	It's a means of exerting pressure.
	Absolutely.
	If we just completely abstract truth or falsity from it, it's just a naked power play.
	Yep.
	Nearly 40% have experienced Islamophobia in their time as representatives.
	This is Islamophobia from other.
	Labour members.
	83% believe that the Labour government should end its boycott of the Muslim Council of Britain.
	Now, the reason for the boycott of the Muslim Council of Britain came about initially because of their position on Gaza, which seems to be a theme here.
	They don't object to what they do here.
	They do object to their position on Israel, which is a problem.
	But the Deputy Secretary General had signed a declaration that has been interpreted as calling for violence against Israel and condoning attacks on British troops.
	This is what initially led to the break between the Muslim Council of Britain and the government.
	So you had maximalists who claimed preposterous things?
	Yep.
	There was a reaction, and others say, okay, let's just lay under the radar.
	Yep, yep, yep.
	So, the meeting where he signed this document was a meeting that called for the Muslim Ummah to act against Israel back in 2009.
	So, he's in Britain.
	He views himself as part of the Muslim Ummah, first and foremost.
	And the vast majority of Muslims in the Labour Party want to continue association with this organization.
	Now this man ended up having to resign, and the Muslim Council of Britain ended up saying that no, they don't condone the statement, they don't condone his actions.
	But we tend to see this dynamic where one of the members says something that is extremely embarrassing, and then the institution says, no, no, no, this doesn't represent our official position.
	But at the end of the day, personnel is policy.
	If your organization constantly attracts these kinds of people, then you have a problem.
	And they use this issue against the right all the time.
	Whenever somebody on the right pops up and says something racist, they say that this is fully representative of the conservatives or of reform or of whatever it is.
	But they refuse to have the same standards that they use applied to them.
	I wonder whether they are accused of being transphobic, ever?
	Or being anti-feminist?
	So on their conservative social views, they've had a problem with some of Labour.
	They've had a problem with some of Labour on their conservative social views.
	And I do share some of their conservative social views.
	But they, I think, them or one of the other Muslim organizations was demanding the right to withdraw children from things like music lessons as part of their social conservatism.
	You see also the establishment saying that non-Muslims are constantly transphobic or anti-LGBTQ if they say their opinion.
	But you don't see these criticisms addressed by Muslims.
	Very, very rarely does this issue ever come up.
	They deploy these issues in a very selective manner.
	They condemn social conservatism when it comes from Christians.
	They never condemn it, or they very lightly condemn it, when it comes from Muslims.
	And you can see a certain level of selective outrage at play here.
	Basically, Muslim labor, saying we are staunch allies of the Labour Party and we want to continue with the Labour Party.
	And this is the whole gist in which this report is written.
	Let me sort of show you a couple of more things that these people are involved in.
	One of the candidates for the leadership of the Muslim Council of Britain said that choosing faith as a primary identity for your children, and of course yourself, allows a solid foundation upon which to approach the world.
	Note that I say primary as opposed to And 83% of Muslim representatives who are in the Labour Party Want the government to have a fully functional relationship with this organization.
	So, I don't know where they stand on this statement, but as somebody who is a religious convert, I will tell you that it's natural to view religion as your primary identity, but that Christianity doesn't clash with being British.
	Britain is a fundamentally Christian country, whereas Islam does.
	And I think we need to be a little bit more open about that, and I think we need to be a little more honest about this.
	I just don't think they want to be honest about it.
	No.
	And they will totally ignore this.
	Yep.
	And they do so in a way that is very ignorant of the future and very ignorant of the clashes to come.
	Because at the end of the day, as they build and grow groups within a political party, which they think is we're trying to link coalitions, that's what sits in there.
	We need coalitions to be able to get rid of this, and social justice is our coalition champion.
	But in the end, those coalitions will come up against each other, because one of them has to be in power.
	One has to run the show.
	That person wants, or that group, once they're in power, they will stand upon you and destroy you in this very way that you destroyed the organizations that were in opposition to you in the first place.
	Yes, yes.
	And this is clearly the objective.
	So you see labor Muslims extremely focus on the issue of Islamophobia.
	In the Fatiha, in the verse that sort of opens the Quran, which begins practically as every Muslim prayer, the last verse in that...
	So the very essence of Islam is an attack on Christianity and Judaism.
	This is how it came to be.
	It's part of a debate between Christians and Jews over the correct way of worshipping God, and Muslims took a position in that.
	Antagonistic to both the preceding faiths.
	This kind of restriction of discussion of Islam because of Islamophobia means that you can't have a religious discussion.
	It means that you just have to sort of never ever criticize Islam.
	But you'd be perfectly able to criticize Judaism or Christianity or Sikhism.
	You will not see a Monty Python skit about Islam.
	Of course not.
	When you do, you end up with a Charlie Hebdo massacre.
	And there is also the other element of subjectivizing legislation, because when we're talking about blasphemy and about being offended, we know that wokeness has thrived on subjectivizing legislation, which makes it very easy for someone to just project Islamophobia on anyone.
	Yeah, I think wokeism is strengthening just behind the scenes.
	I think it's changing the law and the legislation to be able to do one final push to crush us.
	Yep, yep.
	Now, this is even more worrying because within the civil service of the British government, there are Muslim networks that are explicitly named as such.
	The core aims of the Civil Service Muslim Network, and this is the website of the Cabinet Office.
	This isn't a conspiracy that these guys are trying to infiltrate.
	No, no, no.
	This is public knowledge.
	It's on the Cabinet Office's website.
	This is endorsed by the government and permitted by the government.
	Their aim, they say, is to help create a truly inclusive workplace where civil servants of all backgrounds fulfill their potential and thrive.
	Where every voice is heard.
	Okay.
	What are the core aims?
	Represent, support, connect, and champion Muslim civil servants across government.
	You're not going to see a Christian network or a Jewish network in Pakistan or in Egypt or in Iraq.
	This is not going to be tolerated.
	But there is a whole set of civil servants in the British government Who are dedicated to the core aim of connecting and championing Muslim civil servants, generating a better understanding of Islam, not by discussing the tenets of Islam, mind you, because that's Islamophobic, within the civil service, and challenge discrimination misconceptions.
	Create a network of senior allies who recognize the lived experience of Muslim colleagues.
	Yeah, it's just wokeness.
	And also there's the suppressed premise that you can't understand something better by criticizing it.
	Exactly.
	And how do they do it?
	They collaborate with wider diversity and inclusion networks on projects, events, etc.
	Recognize the contributions of Muslims and civil service.
	So fast-track to promotions, essentially.
	Promote development opportunities for civil service Muslim network members.
	Now, by definition, if you're doing this and promoting them just for Muslims, you're not doing it based on merit, and you're excluding the non-Muslims, just by the definitions of words.
	But this is permitted.
	I think we see this not just in the civil service.
	I think anyone who's worked in the large corporations, when they're working in big businesses and in banks.
	We see all of this.
	The BBC certainly has one.
	And I've never really liked these networks.
	They began with women's networks.
	We've got LGBT networks.
	You've got disability networks.
	Look, at the end of the day, you should just be going in and doing your job and being promoted because you're good.
	Simple as that.
	It's simply to promote the ideology of that particular group and work within it and exclude those who might come from a different group of yours who is better than you.
	Yes, exactly.
	And that we now see, obviously, employment cases and people being removed from jobs.
	There's the issue of the tyranny of the minority because parties across the political spectrum...
	And that means that some small groups, some cases that are a bit bigger, may have disproportionate amount of power just because they can help you win an election.
	This is literally what the threat that they're making is.
	This is literally what the threat that they're making is.
	They're saying in this report that Labour has been losing seats to independent Muslim parties or independent Muslim candidates.
	And hint, hint, the way to regain those votes is to align with us on questions around Gaza, Islamophobia, free speech, blasphemy laws, etc., etc.
	So they're wielding that threat that we are an organized minority who will vote in bloc.
	And unless you deliver the goods to our community, we will find other candidates and this can cost you elections.
	And I think, you know, in a way...
	And if the Catholics and the Christian Church was able to motivate all its people to vote in a block, then they might be able to transform it themselves if it wasn't for the fact that many of them are so weak at the top that they don't even consider this as a danger or the capability of doing so.
	And they suggest that most Catholics will vote for the Labour Party, and that's the way that the priests have done so.
	Yeah, tolerance is not a virtue.
	No.
	Well-judged, well-aimed intolerance is the virtue.
	When you see a problem, try to nip it in the bud.
	And this is exactly what's been happening.
	Now, the government did shut down the Civil Service Muslim Network.
	I wasn't aware of that.
	I didn't know that.
	They did shut it down briefly.
	Oh, it was only brief.
	It was an alarming continuation of anti-Muslim rhetoric spouted by top members of the British government in recent days.
	On 15 March, the Civil Service Muslim Network was suspended by Oliver Dowden.
	This was under the Conservatives.
	My gosh, something suspended by Oliver Dowden.
	I mean, you couldn't get more left-wing than Oliver Dowden in the Labour Party.
	It was suspended for being anti-Muslim.
	Well, the standard for being anti-Muslim is a very good question.
	The reason for this break, however, was again to do with issues relating to Israel.
	So the establishment acts in one way only, but it doesn't act to defend the public.
	The union that defended the Muslim network, the Public and Commercial Services Union, this is the key union for the civil service.
	It also has an affiliation with Friends of Cuba.
	So, essentially, it's communist, more or less.
	It's happy to affiliate itself with Cuba.
	It's a problem if you have the civil service championing the interests of Cuba or the well-being of communism, but their equal opportunity...
	I'm looking down on that and I find that particular image or rather the language of the image, the guardians for the truth, for the truth.
	I mean, that sounds to me that something comes straight out of the Star Wars movies.
	Yes.
	Or indeed George.
	Yes.
	You know, for the truth.
	For the truth.
	We're the ones with the truth.
	Anyone else doesn't have the truth.
	You know, as if there is one truth.
	So look at the truth.
	Palestine truth.
	Yeah.
	Power of a Muslim woman.
	Truth.
	These are the top truths that they have.
	Guarding innocence.
	I'm in favor of guarding the innocence of children.
	Yeah.
	Fully agreed here.
	Hold on.
	I'm not sure what we're holding on to.
	Maybe it's a song at the end.
	I don't know.
	I mean, I don't see any of them as truths at all.
	So, essentially, these guys are, you know, championing an ideology that is at odds with the British state while being supported by the civil service.
	No one has the truth.
	No one has the real truth.
	I mean, one plus one might be a truth.
	Okay, that's fine.
	But in terms of the way that we interpret and interpret questions, how can they dare suggest that they have the truth?
	This is why the Christian God is expressed in a mystery of a triune God, to suggest to us that we as human beings don't fully access the truth.
	There is a reason for this.
	But then, after Labour took power, they were cleared.
	Well, it would be.
	It confirms that the issue was over Gaza and over their position on Gaza, not over the fact that they're championing sectarianism and that they are championing the well-being of one group versus the others.
	But the issue was Gaza for the government.
	That's what upset the government.
	And then now they've since reconciled and made up.
	Why?
	Because Keir Starmer really, really, really is worried.
	About losing the Muslim vote in the next election.
	He's going to anyway.
	I mean, this is like kowtowing to somebody who's beating you on a regular basis and saying, I'm sorry that you're beating me.
	Can you beat me a little bit more?
	And I'll be abused a little bit more from you, but I know you're still going to leave me for the next person you're going to beat.
	More or less.
	Yes, that's what it is.
	It's an abusive relationship.
	And because What has happened is that a new and different body has been set up by, I would assume, somewhat like-minded people.
	Same people.
	With the intention of being an organ that can work with the British government.
	So when one organization gets burnt, it's okay.
	Discard it.
	Set up a new one.
	And then everybody will endorse it.
	Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are saying, yes, we want to have sectarian politics.
	We want to talk to different ethnic groups and identity groups as a bloc.
	The only people who aren't allowed to organize as an ethnic group or as an interest group are, you know who, the extremists.
	Right.
	So, Samson, could you scroll up a bit?
	Great.
	Thank you.
	Let me read a bit quick because, you know, there's sometimes issues with Fed posting.
	Right, so Johannes Hugenboom.
	Firas is like Peter Zeehan, except he's not...
	So I guess that's a compliment.
	I think so.
	I don't know who that guy is.
	He's a geopolitical analyst who has had some...
	We all make mistakes.
	Right.
	So the Habsification says people like David Wood, apostate prophet, and Hatun Tash have been on the front lines debunking what these Islamic loons say.
	See the Islamic dilemma.
	I'll check it out.
	And, yeah, scroll up.
	Thank you.
	Sigilstone17 says, The leftist Islam alliance reminds me of a comic from years ago.
	A feminist dates a Muslim to own the Chads, and he viciously smacks her for speaking without his permission.
	Instant regret ensues.
	That's exactly what happened to the leftists under the Islamic revolution in Iran, as Talios was pointing out.
	So, Stephen has a really good segment for us now.
	Well, praise indeed before we've even got there, but I just want to say that, ladies and gentlemen, it looks like many of us will be terrorists, certainly after next week's and the way that they prevent UK.
	So the big concern over the weekend came when The Telegraph reported on Prevent UK's new online guidance.
	To the extent I will say new online guidance, but actually the guidance came out refreshed, I should say, rather than new online guidance, which says, Amongst other things, that talking about, or even believing in, cultural nationalism will be a reason, they say could be a reason, for referring someone for de-radicalisation.
	Get ready to be de-radicalised, ladies and gentlemen.
	Find yourself a little room, be prepared to be removed, and you'll be on a de-radicalisation course.
	In no time at all.
	And it goes on to say that Prevent UK says we define extreme right-wing terrorism, the active or vocal support of ideologies that advocate discrimination and violence against minority groups.
	And the three most common would be, and we'll deal with them.
	In a few moments.
	And so what we've got there is the idea that Prevent UK, an organisation that is funded by the government to look after terrorism, and as I say in one of my videos, the sort of people that blow up children in gigs and shoot police officers, now thinks that anyone who believes in their country and as a form of support for their nation state and also immigration controls is now a terrorist.
	But here we go.
	Arthur Wong picks this up very clearly.
	The UK anti-terrorism program labels cultural concerns about mass migration as extreme, not just right-wing, now extreme right-wing.
	So we're extreme right-wings and that we are terrorists as well.
	So bear that badge that we should all make at the moment be having T-shirts, I'm a terrorist, because you say that you...
	Does this include Keir Starmer?
	Well, I just wondered that.
	The Island of Strangers, obviously, he should have reported himself.
	Yes.
	To prevent UK.
	And certainly most of the Conservative Party are currently at the moment in charge.
	But of course that means 50 odd million of us who believe that, according to all polling, 60-70% of the population believe that we've got too much immigration into this country, that there is a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups.
	I love the fact that they put Western culture in scare quotes.
	Yeah.
	So the implication here is that, no, no, there isn't a real Western culture.
	That's just non-existent.
	It's in your imagination as opposed to, this is the bedrock of the modern world and of everything good that we have in life, Western culture.
	Yep.
	The sort of, No, no, there's no such thing as Western culture.
	We're going to put it in Western culture.
	It's not a real thing.
	Lack of integration is not in square quotes.
	If they wanted to say Islamic culture, they wouldn't put it in scare quotes.
	If they wanted to say Chinese, Indian, whatever.
	They wouldn't use that.
	Because they have cultures.
	Because they have cultures.
	They have cultures, but Westerners.
	Western culture.
	The only culture we have is racism.
	And extreme racism.
	And extreme right-wing racism.
	That's our culture, isn't it?
	And they do the same thing.
	Non-white world.
	Yeah.
	Okay, you guys...
	Okay.
	They all get scare quotes.
	Well, that's the next one.
	I come in with white ethnic nationalism.
	Mass migration from the non-white world and demographic change.
	Poses an existential threat to the white race and Western culture, which they haven't defined because they've said Western culture effectively doesn't exist.
	So how can an existential threat to something that doesn't exist make you an ethnic nationalist?
	I'm sorry, that logic doesn't seem to work for me, but of course it does to prevent the UK.
	Didn't we just see Mexican ethnic nationalists with their flag protesting?
	That's right.
	But, of course, they must be.
	And then we've got the white races, biologically, culturally and spiritually superior to all other races, often calling for the replacement of Western parliamentary democracy, an alternative form of government from fascist regimes to ethno-tribalism, which is what we're seeing from the left.
	They're the ones who want to have a fascist regime and an ethnic tribalism.
	We're the ones who actually believe in parliamentary democracy.
	And we're just looking at the way that the leftists don't want it.
	So, oddly enough, it's the white race that only wants that.
	So I find these three definitions deeply concerning.
	I mean, obviously, there's lots of people that talked about there.
	Are you a cultural nationalist?
	What I saw this, because I saw this during the weekend, and initially I was completely...
	I thought they essentially said all these narratives are, in a sense, extreme terrorist ideologies.
	I think if we go on the previous link, what they're doing is they start by saying that And you can subscribe to these views underneath without advocating violence.
	But what they're doing is they're saying these are really highly correlated to terrorism.
	So if you don't want to be associated with terrorism and don't want to be treated as a terrorist, stop any kind of discourse about Western culture being under threat from mass migration and talking about the importance of the ethnic and talking about sometimes racial lines.
	And when they are doing this, there is nothing remotely correct methodologically about it.
	If you read the literature about fascism, for instance, there are several definitions.
	Everyone says, for instance, with ultraviolet, They have Nazi Germany, for instance.
	They have extreme and very aggressive ultranationalism.
	Don't just say any form of ethnic nationalism.
	But they are escalating here.
	They're trying to say, don't think of any form of nation, don't think of any notion of ethnos, or even having a Western culture.
	You're not allowed to do this.
	You're going to be associated with terrorism.
	There's a little more to it because once you're on the sort of prevent list of forbidden belief systems, they can then use that to apply the terrorism laws and to apply the terrorism act.
	And decide, therefore, that they're going to confiscate your electronics, they're going to shut you down, they're going to detain you for a much longer period of time than they would be allowed under other legislation.
	And not only that, you can't get lawyers.
	When you are prosecuted, you're prosecuted by single judges without juries, and they can imprison you without really anyone ever knowing that you've been imprisoned as well because you're under the Terrorism Act.
	So this is a way of shutting down conversation, yes, defining it in a much more narrow view so that they are enabling to put extreme pieces of legislation on more and more narrow individuals about this, but actually then expand it to a greater degree of people to create more fear about the conversation.
	And it has legislation in place to target them.
	They've just expanded the list to literally include civic nationalists.
	Because under cultural nationalism, you can say, well, I'm very proud of British culture.
	And you could be Indian or Middle Eastern or whatever you are.
	And then you would fit under this definition.
	Absolutely.
	For the civic nationalists out there, guys, congratulations, you're on the terrorism list now.
	Well, that's the whole point.
	If you just believe in your flag, your culture, you automatically fall within the definition of this.
	And there is no way that any lawyer for the government could suggest otherwise.
	There is no way any philosopher or professor from Cambridge or Oxford who is behind the individuals who go on and do these jobs can argue otherwise.
	There's no one in the secret services.
	MI5, MI6 can't argue about this.
	They know exactly what they're doing.
	They're not stupid enough to not make us understand that they're trying to trap 50 or more million people into a definition which they can use arbitrarily at any time they want then to suppress any voices when it gets a little bit too difficult for them.
	And this works cumulatively.
	So if you are a white person who believes in the importance of the ethnos, not all forms of it, and also have the rhetoric of cultural nationalism, for instance, that works extra negative.
	Against you.
	It's the same way as the reversal of the oppression narrative, the intersectional calculus, according to which a black trans lesbian is the most oppressed person in the universe.
	Yeah.
	They're trying to do the reverse here.
	But the question is not just white.
	In terms of cultural nationalism, it's going to capture people from different racial backgrounds.
	Black people who believe there's a Western culture that's being destroyed here.
	Those who are supporters of the idea of mass immigration.
	And that mass immigration is causing a problem.
	And they too are going to fall within it.
	It's Western culture.
	They haven't defined what Western culture is.
	Because it doesn't exist.
	It's a quotation mark.
	And that's going to be a difficulty if they have to define it.
	In legislation, when you go to court, you've got to work out what Western culture is.
	They've literally just defined the civic nationalists as terrorists.
	That's right.
	Anyone who wants to stand every year at the Cenotaph now is a cultural nationalist under their definition.
	And they've got here, I thought everyone needs to go and have a look at this if you haven't had a look at it, what they regard as all the glossary of terms by the organizations that are looking after terrorism.
	Extreme right-wing terrorism, there you've got, describes those involved, violence to further their ideology.
	The question is, are we committing violence, furthering our ideology, by even talking about it?
	Well, remember, words are violence, and silence is violence.
	Yeah, and so, even thinking about it.
	Don't forget that.
	Words are violence, silence is violence, and prayer can be a crime.
	Yeah, even if you're standing outside Parliament thinking about how you would like to see a change in Parliament, you may now be a cultural nerd.
	Because the way they define extreme right-wing terrorism, I don't see any relation to Islam there, because if we had to place Islamic terrorism somewhere, I don't think we would place it under the left-wing category.
	Well, it's honorary progressive.
	Yeah, they don't see Islam as an extreme right-wing terrorist act, although some of us might want to define it within the same category.
	When somebody says that your primary identity should always be Muslim, and when somebody goes through, say, Wahhabi beliefs, I don't know if they discuss Wahhabism here.
	I'm left-wing anarchist single issue.
	I don't see Wahhabism.
	I don't see Salafism.
	I don't see these as detailed categories that are worthy of explanation.
	They just have this wide Islamist terrorism, not Islamic terrorism, implied within the terminology is that they're using Islam incorrectly.
	But they don't dive into it in the same depth, do they?
	I mean, I love the idea of the ideology aspects.
	Individual or groups purport to adhere and attempt to instill others to radicalise them towards becoming terrorists.
	Okay, you know, if you're going to turn around and try and radicalise someone to put a bomb somewhere, then you are a terrorist.
	If you want to kill people, then you are a terrorist.
	But to saying you want to use parliamentary issues to control mass migration, or to bring your culture back into the way that...
	I don't see what is wrong with that.
	I mean, you've got Islamist terrorism, but I think people ought to see what they're actually defining us in there as.
	So hold on a second, hold on a second.
	Under the Islamic thing, for some this is a political ideology which envisions the creation of a global Islamic caliphate based on strict implementation of Sharia law.
	There's no strict or unstrict.
	You're either implementing it or you're not, firstly.
	Secondly, when you have a guy going to a conference and saying this is for the Muslim Ummah and that the Muslim Ummah should be acting in concert, which is a very mainstream belief, that should fall under it, but they don't prosecute it in the same way.
	They'll go after Tommy Robinson.
	Now, essentially, they just made Nigel Farage into a terrorist.
	But, you know, we're going to use a lot of nuance and flowery language here and try to exonerate Islam itself from suspicion of terrorism.
	And I think this is a big danger, not only that, because they're talking to government.
	I'm going to say that, look, how many have ever really heard of Kirklees?
	So, Kirkley, it's just a small council somewhere.
	Right.
	You know, here is their prevent strategy.
	So the government then goes out to take exactly the same and pushes it into local governments as well.
	That we're going to work with you to have a prevent strategy.
	Your threats and risks, the Counterterrorism and Security Act.
	It's already in local authorities.
	I mean, this is the sort of thing that, you know, if there really was a doge on the...
	If you go back...
	Yeah, if you go back up on this thing.
	Yeah.
	So there, the base of the prevent delivery model is tackle causes of radicalization.
	How about doing what the voters want?
	Well, no, that's...
	And that is the radicalism.
	You know, the very fact that they're actually concerned about it and want MPs to do as their job, that's a cause of radicalism we must stop.
	Don't ask politicians to do what we want them to do.
	I'm reminded of the Danish politician who humiliated the BBC journalist because he said, well, we did what the voters wanted us to do.
	Okay, thank you.
	So, we have that.
	It's the government.
	There's the definition.
	Our security service is an organisation.
	It's now into our councils.
	But this was from 2024 November, Nick Timothy.
	And he wrote a question and how it was answered.
	He said, what criteria does the PREVENT programme use to identify and define categories of extreme right-wing terrorism?
	Dan Jarvis, who was in the military.
	Generally, when I first met him, a nice guy, but I was transformed into just someone who's traditionally Labour now, like some sort of robot.
	It describes those involved who use violence in furtherance of their ideology.
	That, again, anyone who wants to use violence.
	Probably assessed as cultural nationalism again, white nationalism.
	Individuals or groups who may subscribe to ideological trends.
	And ideas from more than one category.
	So bringing out the Home Office statistics on immigration, the ONS ideas of population of where we're going, identifying the fact that white British will be gone in a majority by 2050 to 2060, that is a trend and idea from one category, actually shown by facts and stats.
	So promoting facts or stats, talking about facts and stats, now makes you a cultural nationalist and white nationalist under the definition of the MP for Barnsley North and a minister, Dan Jarvis.
	I have to say, this is pretty extreme.
	It is extreme.
	This is literally extreme.
	This is a level of extremeness in there.
	And I'm just going to whip through a couple of these because I can see time coming on.
	The channel duty guidance, protecting people susceptible to radicalization.
	So we ought to ban GB News and any other channels on there, because this gives the guidance to all the different organizations of how we are now to try and stop people from being radicalized.
	You prevent them to reduce the threats of the UK from terrorism by stopping people becoming terrorists.
	Again, nice language.
	Delivery.
	You prevent How we are supposed to prevent it, prevent bodies working from radicalizing people, no single pathway.
	But if you read through this, and I don't want to go into it, the general point is to try and create a system where we can actually funnel people in so that we can actually then say they've been radicalized and we can take them out.
	Right.
	We are now determining all the angles that these people go in.
	And you can refer them, you can make an assessment, you can have case managements of these individuals.
	So if you're picked up and stopped for this, you're going to go through all these processes where you can be assessed and you will lose your jobs, you will not be able to be employed, and you'll be on the streets effectively.
	So what about Prevent itself?
	Well, a proper terrorist act...
	With Southport.
	So the Prevent boss there, this is what we would regard as terrorism.
	Knifing children whilst they're dancing.
	Killing them.
	Murdering them.
	Yeah, but if you express that view in such a negative way, like Lucy Connolly, you're not getting out of prison any time soon.
	But Michael, and take a look at this, this is Michael Stewart.
	He was their head of Prevent.
	And I look at him and I listen to that prevent guidance.
	He said he resigned because basically they didn't do the job.
	This was someone that was spotted.
	At the same time, they knew about, as it says early down there, Ali Habi Ali, who murdered David Amos, another terrorist.
	They let him go.
	They didn't do anything.
	Because the guidelines are, don't look back in anger.
	So, essentially, the terrorist definition is looking back in anger.
	Yep.
	About anything.
	But I like the way that they call it, you know, the prevent handling of Ali was sub-optimal.
	Sub-optimal.
	He was nice to death.
	It was sub-optimal about Ruda Pekani.
	You know, he's just sub-optimal.
	That kind of real phraseology.
	So then let's have a look now.
	So, this is Chloe Squires and Matt Dukes.
	Squires is the Director General for Homeland Security at the Home Office, and Dukes heads the UK Counterterrorism.
	Together with Event Cooper, they oversee Prevent.
	And I'm just going to look at both of these individuals here, both white, both her on the left.
	There's another Oxbridge graduate with a PhD or something like that in terms of politics and an assistant commissioner fast-tracked along the route and didn't really necessarily come up the route that most police officers would do.
	And so in their videos to councils about extremism will only show examples of young white men as a Hampshire Council employee observed.
	There we go.
	So in their PREVENTS programme, No one who's black, Asian, or Chinese could have cultural issues here about Britain.
	No.
	No, couldn't possibly.
	You have to read this sentence, please.
	Curiously, despite Islamic extremism making up 75% of the UK's capitalism caseload, figures showed that just 23% of Prevent's adopted caseload are tied to Islamic ideology.
	Yeah, so 77% is adopted to 25%.
	That's how you would read that?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Again, that shows you everything that you need to know about them.
	I gave a quick one here about what they say prevent.
	It's a long history of working to prevent vulnerable people from being drawn into criminal behaviour.
	And you've failed.
	You failed miserably because people died.
	So quickly running through here, we've seen that...
	Well, I thought that was...
	or maybe not, what is it people think about I'm told it's possible for the British people to take legal action against Prevent for breaching our right to freedom of expression.
	The state is now claiming people who oppose mass immigration are terrorists.
	Well, this is the obvious reaction to it.
	Yes.
	I mean, it can't be read any other way.
	No.
	I mean, maybe I'll be naive.
	You two are both bright individuals.
	Can you put it in perspective, if you're on Prevent now, You know, indoctrinated failures, I should say.
	If you were them, please explain to me how cultural nationalism is a terrorist act.
	They saw the debate on the right between the ethnic nationalists and the civic nationalists.
	And they decided we are going to declare them both extremist.
	Because any kind of opposition to us is extremism.
	But on their own, neither of these positions have to be extremists.
	No.
	But also, I think, basically, the only way to prevent is to know.
	And if you have a very skewed view of reality, and if you refuse to see reality for what it is, you can't prevent anything.
	No.
	And I think these are pretty strong answers to what we have with them, because then I turned down to one of the first feelings to me, is what Red Lips says straight underneath that, and I think these two link to that, it's about control.
	Yes.
	They're frightened.
	They're terrified that their narrative is being seen for what it exactly is, you know, a failure in society because their policies and procedures It's going too quickly, as we expected it would be, and can't work.
	What we're seeing in the United States is a more extreme scenario of what's happening there.
	What we're seeing in Paris is an extreme scenario.
	It's beginning to happen here, and they're totally, totally frightened about it.
	Also in South Africa.
	Yeah, we've got that all over.
	And once again, I like Sam Ashworth Hayes' view on this.
	It's descended into farce.
	Yes.
	You know, it's desperately to avoid case numbers reflecting the simple fact that you just pointed out, that 75% of all of them are here in case, 80% of the counter-terrorism police network in 23 involves Islamism.
	They don't want to talk about it.
	They want to hide it and they want to blame the white man.
	Yes.
	You know, I'm mixed race.
	I don't want to blame anyone.
	I just want to blame the terrorist.
	I want to blame the person who wants to kill us and murder us and blow us up.
	That's equality.
	That's being fair.
	And picking out the group, the smallest number out of that, that might have a few loons, and we know everyone's got a loon or two here in loony tunes around.
	To pick out the whole of the white community and say, you're the majority cultural nationalist terrorists, is something deeply wrong in these individuals.
	Sorry, I'm beginning to have a rant there, and I shouldn't really do it, to be honest.
	Ofcom Watch is saying that freedom of speech and freedom of thought itself is being dismantled law by law.
	But it's not just law by law, as we're seeing here.
	We're also seeing at the back end of that.
	Selective application of the law.
	Absolutely.
	And the selective application of principles.
	It's very transparent.
	And I'm beginning to get worried about it.
	I just had to pull this one up as a sense of fun.
	The UN is not really on our side.
	No, the UN is never one who's going to actually turn around and say, look, you know, the right, the concern about immigration.
	But they talk about human rights via relations in controversial prevent strategy.
	Now, we know what this is about.
	It's about, you know, the issues in relation to Gaza, Muslims and Islams.
	But they have a damning assessment of racism in the UK.
	Of course, their view of racism in the UK, of course, is about white racism.
	But I love the fact that Amnesty calls for the government to scrap prevent in there.
	Because even the left recognise that it is a danger for their side of the argument, too.
	I left and giggled at that because I just thought to myself there's slightly something mad about it.
	And so I got another from Alison Pearson.
	Is it possible for...
	Are you looking at the reply maybe?
	Yeah.
	Oh yes, it's the reply.
	I had prevent training.
	The trainers made it sound like the threat from right-wing terrorism and you know the other kind was equal.
	They knew and we knew it wasn't true and they knew that we knew but we went along so we could get it over and on with and get back to work.
	That's fundamentally the problem.
	The problem is people trying to not object to obvious lies that are being told in front of them.
	Every time you listen to a lie and you don't object, you are degraded as a human being.
	Bit by bit, it wears down your integrity.
	Bit by bit, it destroys your soul.
	It does.
	And that is the sensibility about it.
	We're accepting what they're doing.
	We're feeling diminished by it.
	We just want to get out of there because fundamentally most people are decent.
	Fundamentally most people just want to live their lives, get on with work, understand where bad people are and what bad people do.
	and they don't want to be indoctrinated, and they just want to keep away from it whilst they're constantly being indoctrinated.
	And so I think...
	I think...
	Oh, I...
	I'm going the opposite direction, aren't I?
	There you go.
	So I'm not going to play it because we all thought it was a little bit funny in terms of that.
	I'm not known for being funny, so generally I'm going to forgive myself for this.
	You should also put a like on your post.
	I can't do that.
	That's a bit narcissistic.
	I'm not Nigel Farage.
	You can't do a like.
	Give him a like.
	Of course I will.
	You can't hit a like on that.
	But basically, I was out there, and a lot of people had commented on this and said it was a bit funny because it's that I'm a terrorist.
	And if you're out there and you want to be Spartacus along with us, recognise that it is not wrong to talk about immigration.
	It's not wrong to be concerned about your culture.
	And it's also perfectly right to be angry at people like Prevent and people like that, who are trying to destroy who you are, what we are, and what we believe in, and our history too.
	So that's my little rant on that.
	Right.
	God, I've got wrinkles, haven't I?
	Crikey.
	Okay, let's go to the comments before we go to the videos.
	Sigilstone17 says, Imagine being someone that mails bombs to cops in Belfast, but what gets you arrested for terrorism is wondering why there's a curry shop across the street.
	I love the comments that people just pick up.
	Logan17pine says, if every act is terrorism, then some people will do real terrorism as the punishment is the same.
	That's the real danger.
	They are radicalizing people with this kind of stuff.
	They are radicalizing it.
	OPHEK says that he was a hyper, turbo, mega, extreme, right-wing, anti-immigrant, hard western, cultural, chauvinist, terrorist, racist, bigot before it was cool.
	Before it became mainstream.
	Okay.
	Oh, if that's not a sticky finger up at Prevent UK.
	Can we scroll down a bit, Samson, please?
	Yeah, sorry.
	Thank you.
	The engaged few says, grease up the cattle prod, Tommy.
	The lotus eaters are here for deradicalization.
	Well, I hear there's a space available in a prison.
	Do we have a video, Samson?
	No.
	Okay, great.
	So let's go to the comments.
	We can take a few extra minutes to say the comments, yeah?
	Yeah.
	Samson.
	Thank you, sir.
	Right, so Tiny Kraken says, Stelios, a beautiful Greek, olive-skinned friend encased in a freezing cold suit.
	His cool mind-bringing has news about what killed the dinosaurs.
	The Ice Age.
	Yeah, okay.
	Let's go.
	Sophie Liv says, if I was an American, I honestly would be all for just giving California back to Mexico in exchange for all illegal migrants now having to go there to California and build a wall around so they can't escape.
	What would America lose?
	Hollywood?
	Oh no.
	Anyway.
	Lord Inquisitor Hector X says, Richard Johnson says,
	If this was the American people smashing up the country because the government was not removing illegal migrants, the police would have smashed them so much faster.
	Arizona Desert Rat says technically migrants, legal or illegals, aren't supposed to be counted for the population for congressional seats.
	But hey, California is known for its willingness to follow federal laws.
	And Omar Awad says, I get the feeling that Democrats have no idea how bad the optics of foreign flags being flown by violent rioters appears to the average voter.
	I agree with you completely.
	Remember, they had Tim Walz as the candidate for vice president, who thought that the way to address the male population was to campaign for tampons in boys' bathrooms.
	And George Happ says Trump has two options.
	Go full Bukele and remove the criminals or simply let California burn.
	Both seem fine to me.
	Russ, do you want to read some comments?
	Sure.
	Sophie Liv, I wish these people were smart enough to know that they are going to lose the Muslim vote anyway.
	Correct.
	Eventually, as Muslims just form their own parties and vote for themselves.
	And the leftists will be the first with their heads up against the wall.
	I'm sure Firaz can talk about all that.
	Yeah, I can, but not now.
	Jethro Evans says, I get the feeling that accusations of Islamophobia won't stop until everyone either converts or submits to Islamic norms.
	You have to understand, Islam is a religion of government.
	It's never been separated from state power.
	And the word literally means submit.
	Islam is about submission, theoretically to Allah, practically to Islamic rule.
	It's less about tolerance and more about dominance at this point.
	Correct.
	Always has been.
	Derek Power, master of chippies.
	When one writes the satanic verses, you have a fatwa on you.
	When one writes the last temptation of Christ, apart from condemnations and excommunications, you get called stunning, beautiful, and brave.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	There's a very obvious double standard enforced by illegal violence.
	It's true.
	AZ Desert Rat, Arizona Desert Rat, it sounds like the Labour Party is getting eaten by the monsters it created.
	It always is that way, hence the legend of the Gollum.
	But also it's the Tories who were governing for 14 years, so maybe they said, let's open the borders so they make their own party so we get on Labour.
	They decided not to do anything.
	I don't think they were, they're not smart enough to even take that line.
	No, no, they allowed this kind of network to grow.
	No, that requires intellectual thought.
	Lancelot says Islamophobia literally translates into the irrational fear of submission.
	Makes sense.
	Yeah.
	All right, let's go on to some of these then.
	So this is Sophie Liv.
	Oh yes, whites have no culture, that's why the only way...
	Whites have no culture.
	The only way non-whites can feel represented is by race-swapping characters from white authors who are part of the white country.
	I've got too much reflection on this, so you might have to be able to see.
	I'm not seeing it very well.
	I can read them if you want.
	Sophie, yeah, if you read it, because the reflection of this light is too much.
	So Sophie, whose comments are always devious.
	Oh, yes.
	Whites have no culture.
	Okay, sure.
	No, I'm not calling them minorities anymore.
	I refuse.
	It is a loaded word to make them sound oppressed when they are a majority of the global population.
	Non-ethnic English, if you must.
	General Hai Ping says, I, for one, welcome out inevitable Chinese overlords.
	They probably do more to preserve our culture than we ever did, most likely in the form of a theme park of something, but at least it will still exist somehow.
	Alex Ptolemy says, Everybody who has made a pro-immigration argument rooted in culture, example given, they bring over food, music, new perspectives, etc., is making the argument that foreigners change our culture.
	They think for the better.
	This is now extremism, because the idea that foreigners change British culture is terrorism.
	It's another one.
	Eric Power, master of Chibi, says, again, every nation on Earth can act like a nation, except for the West ones.
	Lornerva says, guess we're a terrorist organization now, friends.
	And honorable mentions, Anon Imi, I'm listening to Frost's section in a cafe in Leicester, surrounded by Muslims and leftists.
	Am I screwed?
	No comment.
	I mean, there is such a thing as headphones.
	Generally speaking, headphones are a good thing.
	Is it good coffee?
	Okay, and on that note, we have run out of time.
	Thank you very much for bearing with us.
	We have the roundtable at 3 p.m.
	We're talking about the Vizier of Reform, Vizier Yusef, and his encore, him coming back.
	I don't know who asked for it.
	Apparently some people did.

▲