All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 6, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:32:22
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1267
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So it's become apparent that there's something wrong with modern morality.
There is something wrong with what we think in which the good life consists.
And that's why I asked Stelios to write me a course on how to be moral.
Because thankfully, we happen to have a long history, written history of morality that we can actually call upon here.
And we can actually reconstruct it ourselves.
And so I asked him to write me a course on ancient Greek virtue ethics because he happens to be an Athenian philosopher with a PhD in philosophy.
So who better to do it?
Well, thank you very much for this.
The course and the preparation for it and recording it was an incredible experience.
And I'm very grateful for this.
Really think, I really mean this.
Like, I think that actually it's our job in this time and this place to start putting all of this back together.
And that's why I asked Stelios to do this course.
And that's the purpose of this course.
But we are also going to do a webinar where we answer questions.
It'll be a Zoom call that you can get a link to.
It'll be free.
You just can, you know, we'll put it up on the website.
Just follow the link in the description.
And I really think this is a part of the reconstruction of the West more broadly.
And I think that without someone undergoing a project like this, then the job will never be done.
I just think we fall into the modern immoral rules-based order.
And that's the future unless we do something about it.
Come and join us.
Like I said, it's going to be free.
So we're just going to hang out and talk and explain exactly why this is so important.
And if you want the course, the link is in the description or go to courses.lotices.com and pick it up there.
And thanks for watching, folks.
Hello, everyone.
Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Citas.
This is episode 1267.
And this is Monday, the 6th of October, 2025.
I'm joined today by Brother Firas and Brother Luca.
Ah, thank you, Brother Stelios.
Thank you.
And we are going to discuss the war on our civilization, the permissiveness of Islam, and Japan's new leader.
Now, before we start with the first segment, we have two announcements to make.
Number one, it's Monday.
Monday is Thiras's Day.
It's Brother Firas's Day.
It's Real Politik Day.
3 p.m.
Join.
Join Brother Firas to talk about, is that Ukraine from Maidan to war?
Yep.
So the story how we ended up with the Ukraine war, the various from the uprising in 2014 that overthrew Yanukovych through the progress of the early stages of the Donbass War up to the full Russian invasion.
Right.
And announcement number two, we are releasing this course in ancient Greek virtue ethics.
I have been working on it for about a year and also the team in general has done a tremendous job and they have worked a lot on it.
And I want to say thank you to everyone.
And I hope you definitely enjoy this course and take it and also join our webinar if you want to engage in Q ⁇ A. Let me just give you a small summary about what it is.
It's about how our modern world is sabotaging us in terms of our worldview and how antiquity can present us with something that can function like an antidote.
The course is about timeless wisdom about the good life.
It has nine lectures.
It's basically a mega course.
It's around 14 and a half hours of video.
So it's a huge course.
It's not a course that is three or four hours.
It's a mega course.
And I'm talking about ancient Greek ethics from Homer and Hesiod in the pre-philosophical world down to Plotinus in the third century AD.
So definitely check this out.
This is something that I've been working for about a year, as I said before.
And it's something that, as Carl says, it works.
It's time-tested wisdom.
It's only lately that people are turning their back to it for some reason.
Basically, with no other reason, it's political and ideological and civilizational subversion.
So definitely check this course out and join the webinar, which is going to be this Thursday at 6 p.m.
And there will be webinars that are going to follow.
So the webinar is free.
Do join.
Very happy to answer your questions.
Right.
Let us talk about the war on our civilization.
I think that the more we look upon things, the more we discover patterns, the more we begin noticing patterns.
And these patterns aren't just isolated patterns.
Sometimes they link with other patterns as well.
You could say that this is what understanding is.
Understanding means discerning patterns.
And one of the patterns that I think we are noticing throughout the Western world has to do with blame allocation.
Right, so let's take the following example.
A crime takes place, and then there is discourse about who did it.
There is discourse about who gets the blame.
And very frequently, the crime is being committed by groups that are allies with the left or the so-called progressives.
They're members of groups that the left is considering oppressed.
And for some reason, people throughout culture, from academics to Gary Neville, and they are blaming white men.
Yes.
Right?
So this is a pattern.
Now, let me just tell you the seven stages of the pattern I think that remains undefeated.
One is a crime is committed by members of groups the left considers oppressed.
Number two, mainstream media casts aspersions about oppressor groups that imply that the far right is to blame.
Sometimes they overtly say it's the far right that is to blame.
Think of the non-cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel.
Number three, stage number three, when the identity of the perpetrator cannot be denied, mainstream media treats it as an isolated incident that was caused by mental illness and which does not suggest any deeper pattern.
When people criticize the agenda or the establishment, this is an indication of a larger pattern of a far-right extremist epidemic behind it, behind that very criticism.
But when we're talking about crime, no, let's bracket it, let's treat it as an isolated incident, and let's treat it as something that doesn't indicate any pattern behind it.
That's stage number three.
There are lots of knives with mental illness in Germany, let's say, and lots of cars, mental illness as well.
Right.
Stage number four, politicians and establishmentarian voices make performative expressions of sympathy to the victims and the families.
Sometimes they can paint the country's parliament in particular colors, maybe of a different country or maybe of the community's flag, whatever community that may be.
They all read like chat GPT posts and they're all entirely the same, whichever European country you go to.
Exactly.
Stage number five, after the empty virtue signaling session, they will scaremonger about the far right and make irrelevant remarks about fascism and Nazism, whose purpose is to frame every person who doesn't buy into the progressive narrative as an enemy of society and progress and obviously a diversion of attention away from the actual issue to something that is irrelevant.
Stage number six, those who challenge the dominant paradigm are met with content-wise irrelevant screeching about racism and extremism, whose only person is to divert attention away from the dead ends of the progressive paradigm.
And stage number seven, business as usual.
It's a cycle.
They think that we are going to forget, but we are not going to forget.
And people have started noticing, and sometimes the problem gets so big that it can't be hidden anymore.
And let me give you just a very small example.
I'm using public transportation on a regular basis.
The amount of people who talk about this in public transportation is exponentially rising.
About two or three years ago, not many people were talking about this.
Now the people who are talking about this are rising in number.
And this pattern isn't an isolated pattern.
It really merges with yet another pattern, a pattern that ultimately attacks our civilization.
And this pattern is woke identity politics.
And woke identity politics sprang out from neo-Marxism in the following sense, that we are talking about people who view history in terms of the clash of different groups and that alone and reduce everything, absolutely everything, to relationships between these groups.
And they have no account of other factors that aren't part of, that can't be explained by that framework.
So what they're doing is they are dividing the population into several groups, and they're ranking these groups according to the intersectional oppressor versus oppressed hierarchy.
And lo and behold, every time the blame gets the blame is directed towards straight white men.
That's the majority of the blame allocation for the establishment.
Why?
Because they think that from the prison of their ideology, straight white men are the enemy.
And they aren't the only enemy.
There are other groups that are enemy groups.
But according to the intersectional calculus, this is the most oppressive group of them all.
And when it comes to the other groups, the groups of the oppressed, they're very frequently radically incompatible with each other.
So the problem that the left is addressed with is how do they divert attention away from the conflicts of the various groups that they have.
For instance, I don't think that the Islam lobby is particularly happy with the trans lobby and vice versa.
Something tells me this.
Maybe it's bigotry.
But something tells me that this happens.
So every time these incompatibilities become visible, they're trying to divert attention away from these incompatibilities to the common enemy.
Because by talking about a common enemy, they are trying to hold together this really destructive and incompatible coalition that they have.
So when they are talking about far-right extremism, the more they are talking about the far-right extremism, this actually means that they understand that their groups are visibly incompatible.
So this is a position of weakness.
This is a position of weakness.
What's more, on some occasions as well, it's not even enmity that's created through political issues, right?
You can just get the Indians and the Pakistanis in Leicester going at one another because one side won the cricket match.
Right.
It's not even a political case in that, but it still brings discord, disunity and trouble to the streets.
Because exactly as Stellaris identified it, I think G.K. Chesterton said that you can have two ways of idolatry.
One of them is to make false gods and another one is to make false devils.
And in the thinking of the left, Satan is simply white men in general.
And therefore it is always their fault.
And so the coalition must revolve around hostility to white heterosexuals.
That's the fundamental driving force behind it.
And so you see this kind of endless nonsense about, you know, the BBC after the Manchester attack saying, oh, it's clearly the far right.
It's obviously the far right's fault.
The guy's name is Jihad, but they're still saying it's the far right.
Exactly.
So we had this horrific terrorist assassination and terrorist incident last week in Manchester where a man called Jihad killed Jews.
And Gary Neville has some very insightful takes on the matter.
Let us just hear what he has to say.
But before we play this video, the reason I'm showing this to you is because I want to show you that this ideology is permeating everything.
And it actually conceals an agenda that is war against Western civilization.
Now, let us listen to the towering intellect of and towering political insight of Gary Neville.
And walking into the office, waking up, obviously.
Seeing the news last night and the news this morning dominated by the horrific attacks within the Jewish community just about a mile from here.
And I was driving home from Salford City last night.
I was driving out to Salford City, going down Hillton Road, seeing 60, probably 50 or 60 Union Jack flags.
And on the way back, I went down the parallel road, which is Berry New Road, which has got the Jewish community right at its heart.
And they're out on the streets, defiant, not hiding or in fear.
And I just kept thinking as I was driving home last night that we're all being turned on each other.
And the division that's being created is absolutely disgusting.
Mainly created by angry, middle-aged white men who know exactly what they're doing.
Funnily enough, on one of my development sites last week, there was a Union Jack flag put up and I took it down instantly.
Stunning and brave.
Right.
So what are your thoughts about this?
It's Christianity without Christ.
He has decided that he is guilty of enormous original sin and that it's people like him, middle-aged white men, who are to blame for everything.
And these middle-aged white men are broken into two types.
Those who profess allyship and therefore are on the side of, I don't know, transgender Muslim women.
and those who aren't, who are baddies because they embrace their national flag.
It's a very clear ideological dichotomy here.
He views himself as inherently virtuous, which is a fundamentally un-Christian idea.
You're not virtuous yourself.
It's through the grace of God that you have any virtues.
And he views everybody who doesn't embrace this view of virtue as irredeemable, evil sinners who are there to divide the world.
I seem to recall there was a book that came out a few years back, which was regarded as one of the great social tomes of our age, which was white fragility, of course, right?
This idea that, you know, it's the fragility of the white man that allows all this to happen.
If you just roll over, if you just accept that we are taking your civilization, that we're in the driver's seat now, that we're in charge, and you just, for all of your past sins, need to just give it up, right?
But the thing is, right, well, how fragile are the minorities then, given that they feel such worry and anguish at seeing the union flag in Britain?
Well, the narrative says maximum responsibility for my enemies, minimum responsibility for my friends.
And that is interesting because for us, you're absolutely correct.
He says he is himself as a sort of morally anointed.
Yes.
Like Thomas Sowell would say about bureaucrats.
By taking the union flag down, he's atoning.
Yes.
Yes.
So he doesn't seem to me to be particularly humble.
But also, what is interesting is that he doesn't criticize himself.
Nope.
Which is, I'd say, a fundamental aspect of being a good person.
At some point, you have to ask yourself, right, what's my share of responsibility?
And the question here is, how are you talking about division and calling for an end to division when your immediate next sentence is it's straight, it's basically middle-aged white men.
How do you square the circle?
Also, as regards to what you were saying, Stelios, about responsibility, it's also a case of, well, who are you responsible for?
Exactly.
Right.
As well.
Because you can't be responsible for everyone.
And obviously, the smaller the group, the more responsible you become, of course.
But like, say, for example, if you go abroad, right, in some way, and you go to, I don't know, Kazakhstan.
Let's just puck one out.
Right.
And you as a Greek man know that in some way your actions, your level of sociability there is a reflection of the Greek people, right?
You know that in some way you are a representative for a particular people.
Yeah.
And more so when you're abroad, even, than when you're at home, right?
But you don't, if I go somewhere else, I don't think I'm responsible.
I'm a reflection of the British black ghettos of London, right?
For the British.
You're pointing attention to another double standard over the left, that we are talking about individualism for my friends, collectivism for my enemies.
So for instance, they'll say that a particular criminal isn't someone who is indicative about what happens in that community, if it's an oppressed community.
But if you're not greeting one of your colleagues in another job, not this one, they'll say, well, that's indicative of the white man's gaze.
Look, I see you're looking at me with that white man's gaze.
You're a perceptive man.
Right.
Okay.
Now, let's move forward.
Let's listen to what he has to say.
Some people might be watching this and thinking, well, Gary, you're not very patriotic.
I've played my country 85 times.
I love my country.
I love Manchester and I love England.
But I've been building in this city for 15, 20 years, and there's no one put a union jack flag up in the last 15 to 20 years.
So why do you need to put one up now?
So they didn't do it so far, but suddenly it's a problem if you do it now.
Great question, Gary.
I mean, it's just the complete, it's just like, it's anti-Christian in every way.
It's complete lack of compassion.
It's complete lack of empathy.
It's putting yourself in the place of a morally anointed, zero humility, and this insane willingness to constantly accuse others without for a moment saying, you know, like this guy would have no problem saying that Hamas's October 7 attack was bad, but really the Israelis are to blame.
He would say something like that, wrong as it is, whatever, different discussion.
But he would never say that maybe the minorities in Britain did something to provoke people into raising flags.
So he's incapable of compassion for his own side.
It's just the suicidal empathy for everybody that hates him.
And what's more, to go further with the question of atonement, it's this idea that, so, as we saw with the example of the terrible attack last week, when you have like Emily Maitlis on the news agents, right?
And she's saying about the fact that, well, we have to separate Jews living in Britain from the actions of the Israeli state, right, and foreign policy.
It's like, yes, okay, but at the same time, you are the reason that we are being swamped with foreigners and alienated in their own lands and colonized is because, according to your logic, we are somehow responsible for what everyone from the prime minister to the lowest Cornish tin miner did in bringing about the empire hundreds of years ago.
Yes.
There are several indications that this is basically war against Western civilization in general.
And we are in the business of defending Western civilization.
When I mean this, I'm not talking about every particular institution.
Some of them are really bad.
Yeah, we want to change them.
But generally speaking, there is this idea of a out-group preference that comes at a late stage of civilization and when a civilization begins to implode and lots of people particularly think that their biggest enemy is within their civilization and they're trying to find who to team up with in order to bring their enemies down.
And the outcome of this is essentially civilization imploding unless they're being stopped.
And we are in the business of trying to defend Western civilization and that's why we did a course about its pillars, one of its pillars, which is ancient Greek philosophy.
We have released it today.
It's ancient Greek virtue ethics, timeless wisdom about the good life.
Definitely join us for a webinar on this Thursday with Carl with a Q ⁇ A. We're going to answer all your questions.
And we are basically talking about ancient Greek philosophy and ethical insights from thinkers like Homer, Hesiod, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, the Sophists, Epicurus.
We're talking about the Stoics, Marcus Aurelius.
We're talking about Plotinus.
We're basically covering a huge period because we try to understand the civilization we want to defend.
And that's how we can do it better.
Right.
Let's move forward.
It's not just a game of rhetoric.
It's not just rhetoric that says, for my friends, everything, for my enemies, the law.
It has actually real-life consequences.
And let us talk about this division.
This division is something that the left is constantly doing.
And they are blaming, they're not taking responsibility for it, left as such as they are.
And they are blaming white people and Westerners for it.
Here we have Shabana Mahmoud having no issue, blame right-wingers as divisive, and again playing this card.
And there's literally zero surprises about the fact that they are doing it, because this is what wokeness is.
This is how it started.
It started by people who said equality before the law is not enough.
We need to go to more substantive equality.
We need to go to more substantive freedom, they said.
And in order for freedom and equality to become more substantive, give me money and become a second-class citizen.
This is equal, but some are more equal than others.
Exactly.
Right.
And here we're talking also about differences with respect to treating people.
Here we had Lucy Connolly, who posted a mean tweet.
She had no bail.
She was quickly sentenced.
And the man on the right, Jihad al-Shahi, who assassinated Jews in a synagogue in Manchester last week, was a rapist.
He was granted bail and released, and he went on to commit terrorism.
So prevent didn't actually prevent.
Right.
We have also this toxic empathy for criminals and for people who are not a poor doing their bit to hold society together.
In fact, they're doing all they can to destroy it.
We have here Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell saying, when a man does six or seven crimes, we do not know his life history.
Maybe he was hungry.
Therefore, I have zero desire jailing him.
This is exactly what led to this down over here, to the Carlos Brown Jr. killing Irina Zarutska.
And yet, yet another double standard in reporting.
We had 74,000 associated press articles about George Floyd, zero articles about Irina Zarutska.
And every martyr they've ever chosen has been the scum of the earth.
Yes.
Every single one of them.
Yes.
And here we have this post by N Wokeness detailing what happened from the period between August 22nd to the mid to the early September, where this was completely memory-holed by the establishment.
Zero Associated Press stories about Irina Zarutska, zero PBS stories, zero New York Times stories, zero NPR, zero Wall Street Journal, zero BBC, zero CNN, zero WAPO, zero rotors, zero MSNBC stories after the attack.
Right.
And then when people talk about it, it's just a MAGA talking point.
It's a no-biggie.
It was just a white woman who was slayed by the Carlos Brown Jr. who was basically let out 14 times.
He was given 15 chances to re-enter society because of people like this mayor.
Let them own it.
Let them just say, no, only MAGA voters actually care about these murders.
If you want justice, that's a direction of travel that politics needs to go in.
And it is a war against Western civilization because we regularly have politicians who come out and explicitly say that they want to side with illegal migrants, especially people who break the law.
And here we have Mamdani, who looks like he's going to become mayor of New York City.
He wants to increase the budget by $100 million in order to provide legal aid to illegal aliens.
And I want to end with this because it shows absolutely what is going on.
This is Ilhan Omer who says the idea that America is a white nation that must be preserved is disgusting.
Question.
What would happen to someone going to Somalia saying the same thing about Somalia?
What was your objection to Italian colonization?
I don't understand.
I don't get it.
What's the problem with Italian colonization of Somalia by that standard?
Right.
It's just racism.
Many a man with the surname Omar signing the Declaration of Independence.
Yes, I'm sure.
Right.
let's go to the comments um samson do we right okay Okay.
Okay.
So, Austid E, UK Census Maps made me wonder.
For $20, thank you very much.
If you're a religious Jew and don't want to live England, where can you safely move to?
The answer is nowhere.
There's no synagogue in England that is more than two miles away from a mosque.
Khaibar's barbecue for $20.
Thank you very much.
There will come a day when the mutilated children ask their woke parents and the police that stood by, why did they let this happen?
What will their excuse be?
Was it worth sacrificing my future for your hollow comforts?
Good question.
That's going to be a very important question.
Right.
We have here convincing reality for £20.
Gary Neville is a cultural cackle claiming playing under the flag is proof of patriotism.
Reducing the English and British flags to mere sporting emblems while conflating personal glory, money, and fame with love of country.
Also, there's yet another really big misunderstanding that Gar Neville made, and it's routinely made by people in universities.
The fact that you can sort of get along with people from almost everywhere within a very structured environment like a Western university.
I mean, that's a bit of an overstretch, but it was.
It's disintegrated.
Okay, hands up.
But the very fact that people from all walks of life can sort of coexist in very structured environments doesn't mean that this will always be the politics of the country and that the country will always function that way.
Sometimes it's the exact opposite.
Could I just say something on that as well?
Because, you know, as to my own university experience, it's that thing of, okay, there are a lot of foreign people there and everything, but you're there.
You're there to get a degree, right?
And then, presumably, use that degree, maybe go off, you know, back to your own country and help elevate it.
Oh, no, no, you're just gonna stay here, are you?
You're just gonna stay here, and now we're stuck with your globalist nomadic opinions, just again diluting our politics.
Right, cheers.
We have Sigilson 17 saying here, someone will get Luca a prop beard until his mustache grows back.
His naturally pasty British complexion makes him look like and looks like a vampire in a movie like Lucaferatu.
I've told that was a bleep tweed.
Logan, 17 Pine, the rug they keep sweeping these things under is getting to the size of a couch.
Yeah, at some point you'll see.
And maybe there's an elephant under the rug sometimes.
Talk about that.
Right.
Habsification says, Guys, have you seen Obama AI Sorati?
The videos are becoming indistinguishable from reality.
People have made police body cam videos, SpongeBob and Family Guy videos, and anime videos and crossovers.
And Harry Onago.
Let me read that.
The Normis need a national conversation on the contents of the Quran and the character of Muhammad.
Why is it being ignored?
Why I am so happy that you ask.
I'm very glad that you asked.
So we saw the terrorist attack in Manchester, and then Hamza Yusuf comes up and says, This evil terrorist may claim to have been a Muslim, but his actions have nothing to do with Islam.
He means the Quran, says that to kill one innocent person is like killing the whole of humanity.
I'm going to get to that.
I'm going to get to that.
They will try to divide us, do not let them prevail.
And the Center for Media Monitoring, I understand it's a front for the MCB.
Yes, it is a front for the MCB.
They actually say it.
A disgraceful front page because they mentioned that he was an Islamic terrorist.
Yeah, let's get into that a little bit.
So when you look at what Muslims would have you believe, there's a hadith.
Hadith means a saying of the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, that he said, Do not cut down a tree, do not kill a woman or a boy or a child or a sick person, do not mutilate corpses, do not do this and do not do that.
And it all sounds very nice in terms of humane rules of war.
Sounds like a human rights lawyer.
Sounds like a human rights lawyer.
Did he actually do it?
What do you think?
No, I think he was a warlord who spread his religion through conquest, which I will just say is perfectly understandable for a man living in the seventh century.
But not from a Christian perspective.
He was a Christian heretic.
And that's the thing to remember about the guy.
So in terms of these kinds of commands that we often hear Muslims repeating and insisting that Muhammad said these things, well, in terms of not cutting trees, for the Jews of the Barunadir, he did cut their trees and destroy them as part of his warfare against them.
So he allowed himself to do this.
He did, as a matter of fact, sell children into slavery.
The Islamic tradition has a huge debate over whether or not he had a woman assassinated.
And I want to focus on this a little bit.
The woman was called Asma bint Maruan.
Asma bint Maruan, if you can't pronounce it properly.
Her crime for which she was killed was that she said poetry that mocked Muhammad and mocked his new religion.
And so the traditional mainstream view of Islam is that he had somebody go and assassinate her.
And when this happened, her sons assembled to bury her, or her relatives assembled to bury her, and they asked the assassin, Were you the one who did it?
And he said, Yes, I did.
And if you all gather around me and fight me, I will fight all of you with my sword until I die or you die.
And that was when Islam spread among her tribe.
Now, some Muslim sources insist that this is completely fabricated.
Others insist that it's absolutely true.
Both the ones denying it and the ones saying that it's true have a pretty decent leg to stand on.
But that's a fundamental problem with Islam.
For whatever it says, for whatever Muhammad supposedly did in his life, you could find some people saying that it isn't true and some people saying that it is.
And the net result, essentially, is this huge amount of selectivity and permissiveness.
When you are in a situation where you want to justify something, you can say Muhammad did it.
When you want to tell Westerners that this is not acceptable, you can say that Muhammad forbade it.
And you end up with this miasma.
So when you think about Christianity, it rests on a rock that is Peter.
And on that rock, among other things, are built the church and natural law.
And you might not be a Catholic, but still agree with natural law and the premises of natural law, which gives you a framework for thinking about the world.
With Islam, their relationship with philosophy died because of a gentleman called Al-Ghazali.
And I was just talking to Stalius, saying to him that we need to do an episode about that, where basically he declared that most philosophy is silly apostasy and that Muslims should only rely on the revelation in the Quran, which is highly contradictory, as I'll show you in a second, and should rely on what Muhammad did, which leads us to this exact same problem.
Did he have people assassinated women assassinated for saying poetry or didn't he?
But we do know, and it is accepted widely without denial, that he had old men assassinated for saying things he didn't like.
I have a question because when we're approaching texts and Wism literature, we frequently have the question of whether injunctions like do this or don't do that are categorical, like under all circumstances, do this, don't do that, or whether they're conditional.
Yes.
So when, for instance, we're talking about these injunctions, are they categorical or are they conditional?
Or is that just a big question that there is scholarship?
Because I don't know about it.
I think the specifics of the so-called five pillars of Islam, the Shahada, the fasting, the prayers, etc.
I think these are givens, non-negotiable.
Whereas everything else, as far as I can tell, seems to be contingent.
So for Islamic State, everything that they did, if you remember, they burnt that Jordanian pilot, I think it's in 2015 or 2016.
And people said, well, no, Muhammad said that you are not allowed to burn people because this is the punishment that is reserved for God in the hellfire that God allocates to people in the hellfire and you're not allowed to do it.
And then Islamic State, lo and behold, they find a bunch of hadith where it's permissible.
And so you end up with this miasma.
And it means that everything is conditional.
All of the injunctions to do with warfare are conditional.
And you see the same thing, sorry, you see the same thing, for example, with the new president of Syria, Abu Muhammad al-Jolani or Ahmad al-Shara, whatever you want to call him.
For a very long time, the view of Sunni Syrian Muslims was that you can't have relations with Israel.
The Israelis are conquerors.
We should have no tolerance for them.
We're at a state of war, etc.
Then he goes and he starts having meetings with them in Azerbaijan and in DC and so on and so forth.
And he's clearly trying to build some kind of relationship with Israel.
And you see the same people who were saying, no relations with Israel saying, no, no, now it's permissible because there's an interest involved.
And it is permissible for us to pursue the interest.
So it's all in fact contingent on what the ruler judges to be in the interest of the community, of the ummah.
Is it like in politics where we're talking about people who say, right, these are the laws that need to hold when in peace, but when we're in a situation of emergency, all laws don't count.
And lo and behold, we're always in a situation of emergency.
Well, here we're talking about conditions in war, where supposedly he's not allowed to kill women or the elderly.
And yet we see Muhammad ordering assassinations.
It was also a law of war that it's not allowed to chop trees and to sort of the implications being you're not allowed to destroy productive things.
You should simply conquer them and take them over.
That's the implication.
But then you see in the hadith and in the Quran that no, when there is an interest involved, it's justified.
You see the same, for example, with Islam saying you're only allowed to marry four women.
Well, Muhammad had either nine or eleven at the same time.
And then Muslims say, but the limitation of four came after he had married more than four.
Yes, but then he continued to marry more women afterwards.
So he sort of doubled down.
And then the answer becomes, well, but that is permitted only to him.
So with everything with Islam, you get the sense that there is this miasma, that you're not, in fact, standing on solid ground, that everything is permissible and forbidden at the same time, and it's left to your discretion to decide on it.
And part of the reason for that is because it doesn't have a real philosophical foundation.
We were talking earlier about how a lot of Greek philosophy sort of leads into Christianity, but Islam rejects that and rejects thinking about theology in a philosophical way.
So I have a question because I don't know about this.
Right.
And to a very large extent, this is an alien culture to me.
Yes.
I don't know about it.
And one of the things that we try to do very frequently when we try to understand something is we try to boil down the less familiar in terms of the more familiar.
Yes.
So if I'm going to think about religious warfare and conflict and interpretation of texts, I'll think, for instance, of different interpretations of the Bible and the wars of the Reformation, which resulted from it to a degree.
That's a separate conversation.
But it seems to me that this kind of language that we find in a text, be it scripture or not, it can be interpreted in several ways.
Yes.
And could it be the case that this is something that happens more or less everywhere when we have relative peace and then something this disrupts it?
Or does it magnify when we have more war and then you have all the politicians and pragmatists and tacticians who come in and say, right, how do I try to interpret the text so as to help my tactic right now?
That's a really great point.
There is a difference between layering and permissiveness.
So if you read just the story of Adam and Eve or of the Tower of Babel or of Noah's Ark, there are enormous layers to the story.
So the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, it's not just sodomy.
It's the over-sexualization of everything.
It's the lack of respect for honor tradition.
It's the inability to treat guests with respect.
It's the idolatry of Eros.
And all of these are layered in that story.
The story of Adam and Eve, Peterson's lectures on it are brilliant, no matter what you think about Peterson now.
His lectures on the Bible are fantastic, absolutely phenomenal, no matter what you think about him.
You have to admit that.
And so there is this layering here.
With Islam, it's slightly different because the operating principle is more along the lines of quote mining to justify what I want today.
So Hamza Yusuf now would be saying he doesn't represent all Muslims, he doesn't represent Islam.
And it's true, he doesn't represent all Muslims.
Absolutely.
But he'll represent some.
But he represents some, including the 50,000 who are terrorism watchlists.
And he represents a tradition within Islam that goes back to Muhammad, that has always found some violence against civilians to be justified.
And I think the key point is here.
When you have a religious framework of any kind, the objective reality is that maybe 1% of the followers of the religion will be that committed.
So if you looked at the global Catholic population, I can't imagine that more than 1% of Catholics are saints.
And I obviously do not include myself in them.
But what does being a saint mean in a Catholic context?
It means giving away your own life, not to kill others for the sake of others.
It means renouncing yourself and your own desires so that you might be less and less and Christ might be more and more within you, as St. Paul says.
It means giving to charity and to the poor and so on and so forth.
It means you placing yourself on the cross and praying that you yourself would crucify what is within you and the desires that you have within you so that you may live a more Christian life.
But the 1% in the context of Islam is fundamentally different.
So accepting that 99% of Muslims are peaceful, the 1% that genuinely seeks to commit itself to mimicking Muhammad and his companions in the same way that a Christian would commit himself to mimicking Christ and his saints are going to be by definition warriors because that is how Islam came into being.
For 10 years, for 13 years, sorry, Muhammad was a prophet in Mecca and he got pretty much nowhere except for a couple of hundred people, maybe.
A lot of them blood relatives.
And a lot of them of the lower strata of society, according to mainstream Islamic thinking.
It was only in the last 10 years of him acting as a prophet that he gained any success.
And in those 10 years, he engaged in at least 28 military campaigns, in addition to ordering others to go on campaigns and to conduct assassinations and to raid caravans and to sort of steal from caravans, supposedly as a way of bringing about justice against his enemies in his hometown.
So, what does it mean to be devout has a fundamentally different answer because the question isn't what does it mean to be devout?
It means devout according to which tradition.
That's what is entailed.
It's the call to action.
And what strategy and goal of action is.
Exactly.
So when these guys try to tell us, like Hamza Yusuf, that it's a horrific title to say that he was Islamic, you should say Islamist.
Well, the word Islamist doesn't mean anything.
I, as a Christian, want to live in a Christian society under Christian rules.
That's what I want.
In the same way.
No one says you're a Christianist.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
They might call me a Christian nationalist, although that's a different story.
A Hindu wants to live in accordance with Hindu teachings.
Fair enough.
A communist wants to live a communist life.
Well, mostly.
Until they do.
Mostly.
Until poverty hits them, until they start starving too.
But it's fine for people to want to live in accordance with their values.
What Islamists is, are the Muslims who are willing to make some sacrifices in order to have the society in which they exist and nearby societies operate in accordance with Islamic values.
And these Islamic values are extremely permissive when it comes to violence.
And the data shows this.
I think we've had 108 terrorist deaths in Britain in the last two and a half decades.
And I think 98 of them are due to Islam when Muslims are 6% of the country's population.
Yeah, meanwhile, you've got Prevent putting lists together saying you should be aware of those symptoms of terrorism might include reading Kipling, liking the Lord of the Rings, these British terrorists just to enjoy their own culture.
Exactly.
They've defined cultural nationalism as being on the extreme right-wing terrorism spectrum.
So they keep telling us after each one of these attacks, Islam has nothing to do with it.
My answer is it's not all Muslims who are guilty, but Islam certainly has something to do with it.
And it's down to how committed people are to this faith and how they practice this commitment.
Is it also, as we said before, how they interpret their texts?
Well, the interpretation is absolutely wonderful.
I'm sorry, I'm going to sort of bring this back to Arabic if I could.
I don't know how to do it.
I'm not going to understand what you're going to say.
Yes, I know, but I'm going to read it in English.
So, for example, when Hamza Yusuf was saying that Islam forbids, Islam says that killing one soul is like killing all of humanity.
Let's go through the verse.
For that we have decreed for the people of Israel that whomsoever kills a soul except for a soul or corruption in the earth, hang on to corruption in the earth, it is as though they have killed all of humanity.
And who has revived it, it is as though he has revived, he has revived all humanity.
And our prophets came to them, the people of Israel, with proofs.
And then afterwards, many of them rejected them or sort of deviated, whatever.
So corruption in the earth, that's a pretty big deal.
What should we do with people who cause corruption in the earth?
Ah, wonderful question.
But the reward of those who wage war against God and his prophet, I'm not clear how you can wage war against God.
Like, I don't know operationally, how do we do it?
It's about presumably not abiding by the morality of that is being.
And how do you define that?
Which is a different question.
And who seek corruption in the earth is that they be killed or crucified or have their arms and legs amputated from opposite sides or be banished that they may have shame in this world and in the afterlife enormous suffering.
So he uses this previous verse to say, no, no, no, Islam forbids the killing of the innocent.
But it says, except for those who call corruption in the earth, cause corruption in the earth.
And saying something negative about Islam is causing corruption in the earth.
Let's just be clear about that.
And so, according to the verse that Hamza Yusuf was quoting, the following verse says that I deserve the death penalty, including enormous torments.
Oh, and by the way, the hadith, the saying of Muhammad that I opened with, it also says don't mutilate bodies.
One of the things that he did, in accordance with this particular verse, was to chop up some nasty thieves' arms and legs and leave them in a pit to die of thirst.
I'm not sure if they died of the bleeding first, but that was the intention.
That to me sounds like mutilating bodies, which is why I keep saying there is this permissiveness in Islam and there is this contradictions within the texts that leads to, quote, mining based purely on what people in positions of power believe is in their interest right now.
So the debate isn't over philosophy and principles as it would be in a Greek setting or in a Christian setting.
The debate is over interest and what is good for us now and what is good for us later.
And the wider faith, what strengthens a hand of the faith?
Yes, based on the ruler's own worldview.
So this is the like this is what must be understood.
So going back to the murderer in the Manchester synagogue, the verse that he's operating on is this one.
Samson, could we get it back in Arabic?
I can't read the Quran in English.
I'm sorry.
sorry about that.
So he goes on earlier about, oh yes, let's start here.
It says, call onto your God with wisdom and good words and argue them with what is best.
God knows best who has been led astray and who is rightly guided.
And if you punish, punish in the same way that you have been punished.
But your patience is better and patience will be rewarded by God.
So in the mind of Jihad Shami, the Manchester murderer, he was punishing Jews for killing civilians in Gaza in the same way that they did it.
That's the philosophy behind what he did.
And in his mind, he is a martyr.
And in the minds of many Muslims, he is a martyr.
And some of these Muslims will quote the verse we were discussing earlier and say this isn't permitted.
And some will quote this one and say this was pure and simple retaliation and it was legitimate and justified.
This is what I mean about the permissiveness.
This is what I mean about miasma and mental chaos.
You can't find firm ground.
And if I can't find firm ground with you, I can't agree with you on anything.
Peace is brought by predictability, right?
Precisely.
It's brought by knowing your neighbor's temperament, their philosophy, and whether or not you should expect violence from them, right?
Being able to read the neighbor.
And when you have so many Muslims and many other people of different faiths and foreigners in the country as well, they're less predictable.
You don't share a moral framework with them.
Right.
This is alien to me.
Yes.
And nor should I have to become a scholar in it just to understand what the men of Bradford are thinking these days, right?
Exactly.
And so when the labor government does stupid things, like bring in students from Gaza to live in Britain on full scholarship, when Brits are saying, look, I can't afford to give my own kids a university education, the risk that they're taking is that they will adopt the same interpretation, which is a legitimate one.
I'm not saying it's the only correct one.
That's the whole point of my segment, is that we don't know what the correct one is, and even Muslims disagree.
But we do know that this risk is being imported, and we do know that this is completely and absolutely unnecessary.
And we do know that this level of suicidal empathy isn't really going to help anybody.
And here we are.
We have the labor government trying to virtue signal by importing this risk.
It was studying Islamic State that convinced me to become a Catholic, but that's a conversation for another time.
Right.
Maybe read them first and then.
Yes.
Tread carefully, Firas.
I will, I will.
Reverend Norris for 50 kroner, I believe.
Love your insights, Viras.
Are you familiar with Raymond Ibrahim?
I want to get him on the show at some point.
I want to get him on realpolitic at some point.
Based ape, the prophet of Islam, the Quran is the final and unalterable word of God.
Ten minutes later, hold on, God changes his mind again, forgot what I just said.
So, this is referred to as Masik al-Mansuch, the verses that have been superseded by other verses.
Yes, you're exactly right.
Russian garbage human, God of the gaps theory, but yes, for other people.
Well, please.
Well, please.
Thank you.
Jootube.
Wow.
If you haven't, you might really enjoy watching David Wood, Apostate Prophet, Inspiring Philosophy, and God Logic on here.
And worthwhile, Sam Shamaroun.
Yeah, he's also Lebanese.
I'll see about that.
Yes, there is one that I'm skipping.
All right.
And then Ofok says, Muhammad forbade it, but did it anyway, so it's allowed.
Yes.
O P H U K Shea Muhammad's other book, The Keeping of Women, is less popular.
Sigil Stone, if Muhammad.
Yeah, moving on.
Sorry.
The Hepsification, of course, everything is conditional, beneficial to Islam and Muslims.
Just look at him and the men of Zoot, Islam.
Yeah.
No.
That's a random name.
Guys, we're trying to not get demonetized online.
Live on YouTube, folks.
Yeah.
That's a random name.
Everything someone says and does is a direct reflection of their character.
Not fully.
We're all guilty of some sins.
Similarly, every culture or philosophy is a representation of its people.
Gonna have a difficult time arguing with that, and I'm gonna skip the last line of that.
Well, very well handled.
You can wipe the sweat away now.
Cigarette time.
Yeah, live on air.
All right, then, ladies and gentlemen.
So it seems that Japan may have a new prime minister.
Now, I have to use the word may, because actually what has happened just so far is that the ruling party of Japan, the Liberal Democrat Party, have elected the new leader, this Sane Takaichi, which I've definitely mispronounced, but there we are.
And she has followed on from the previous prime minister, Shigeru Oshiba, who obviously just resigned a few weeks back.
And his resignation, when he came to give his resignation speech, one of the things that he was talking about was the fact that, well, we've just managed to finalize this great trade agreement with America, but there are many problems within the party.
And so, for the good of my party, the stability of the party and the stability of Japan, it's time for me to step down and we'll find someone else who can unite it, right?
And we can go forward because Japan obviously has a lot of problems ahead of it.
You know, beyond the demographic crisis, the economy has become sluggish, is the adjective that I see in many a news article.
What's more, and also the inflation prices on rice is not really something that you want to be happening in a country like Japan.
And so there may well be in the next two weeks a vote in the diet, the Japanese diet, their parliament, and this may be finalized.
I have reasons to think that she will get the votes required, but it may well require her to rebuild a new coalition in the government.
And the reasons for that is because, well, let's just say she is, despite being in the same party as Shigeru, these are not the same, right?
To put it bluntly, one of these is not like the other.
And so let's just talk about some of this.
So Japan's ruling Conservative Party has, apologies, are out of whack.
Japan's ruling Conservative Party has elected Takaichi as its new leader.
And she's 64.
And this does mean that she is the first female prime minister of Japan, which I don't give a damn about, but everyone else seems to do in the media.
And Takai Chi is among the more conservative candidates, leaning to the ruling party's right, a former government minister, TV host, and avid heavy metal drummer when she was younger, which is pretty cool.
And she is one of the best-known figures in Japanese politics, right?
So she has renown.
She's a familiar face for the Japanese electorate, and she has been in the game for a long time.
She will have to navigate the US-Japan relationship and see through a tariff deal with the Trump administration, which was agreed by the previous government.
And it's confirmed that as prime minister, one of her challenges will be uniting the party after a turbulent few years.
So what we have here as well is as we go through, she was a protege of Shinzo Abe, right?
Now, Abe was something of a titan in Japanese politics, right?
And was a very, very renowned.
He had his enemies, of course.
And you can tell that.
I don't mean to be glib about it by the fact that he was assassinated.
Yes.
He was a divisive figure, but something of a rock at the same time.
And he knew his mind.
And so you end up where you have to now put this new leader under the microscope and scrutinize her a little bit.
And so we have here people started rushing to the fact.
Well, Japan's ruling party has elected Takaichi as its new leader.
And in 1994, she wrote a blurb recommending a book called Hitler's Election Strategy.
The book was reportedly pulled from circulation after just two months due to complaints, and I do have to read some of this just because it is.
Wait, so the way you describe it, I don't see much of a...
I don't see what the issue is, because you want to see how everyone got into power.
Yes.
What's the issue with?
I don't disagree with you, Stelius.
Yes.
Just based on what you said.
Well, what it is, is it's a game that we here in the West are very familiar with by now, aren't we?
Which is just simple word association.
Yes.
And you want to stitch Takachi and Hitler together as much as you possibly can so that basically everyone runs away terrified.
But as you can see here, this was from the blurb that she'd wrote.
She just says, we believe that Hitler, who in a short time unified public opinion, seized power and established the Third Reich, offers very important lessons for thinking about modern electioneering, right?
It's not talking about policies, not talking about the National Socialist Programme.
It's just looking at a particular time in history and how certain democratic, the machinery of democracy managed to create how X thing created Y result, right?
It's as simple as that.
It's a value-free analysis.
But as I say, they want to trip her up.
So you can see here as well, she gave a speech, a very short speech, might I add, which was, God, if only our politicians could do that and just get on with the job a bit more rather than constantly word-salading.
But we have here, she says, she talks about how foreigners who stay illegally just must be sent back.
But, you know, bare minimum.
I saw a speech from Thatcher back in the day arguing the exact same point and saying that the consequences of not doing so are international chaos and that anybody who doesn't advocate for sending back illegal migrants is nuts.
So Fire Ash claims that Thatcher is his hero.
So, you know, quick nudge nudge.
We'll see how much he's willing to put that to the test, won't we?
Well, actually, as well, one of the things that I was seeing was that she is a bit of a Maggie Than fan herself as well.
And she also talks about rejecting people with fake refugee claims who are taking advantage of Japan's generosity.
Now, we've chronicled many times on here the particular problem that they have with the Kurds in Tokyo, particularly bad group who are causing abnormal levels of crime in that district or the city.
But of course, because of the demographic problems that Japan are going through, and let's be frank about it, because of a lot of globalist money that has been flooding into Japan as well in order to make Japan become more authentically a part of the globo homo empire of gay race communism.
It's trying to basically wedge the Japanese away from their own heritage, their own sense of stealth, and their own sense of destiny, right?
Not what does the world want us to be.
Who do we as a Japanese people want to be?
Yes.
Which is all really any nation should ever really have to ask of itself.
Of course, global considerations are important, but you have to be authentic with yourself.
You can't sacrifice the soul of your nation in order to appease others.
So there's also the matter of her stance on China as well.
Now, she seems to be apologizing for this setting.
It's like she's on a video game.
Something like that.
Yes, Japanese television is one of the wildest things you've ever imagined.
It's gorgeous.
I've seen some gorgeous Arnie ads where he's screaming revenge at the end.
Well, I know you've spent a lot of time watching Arnie ads.
So your favorite pastime.
Sorry, I will just backtrack slightly as well and just recap a point I meant to make, which is that one of her chief backers has been Taro Aso, who was a prime minister of Japan back from 2008 to 9.
Didn't end particularly well for him.
You could probably tell that if he was only prime minister for a year, it wasn't a particularly successful PM ship.
However, again, he's a man of great influence in that party.
And what's more as well, she was backed by 40% of the total membership of the party.
And this is really important in the analysis as well, because you can tell here that when you look at the way that Shigeru was going about it compared to the perhaps recalibration of the party now to a more conservative, traditional framework, you can see very much here how this party, in a way, kind of mirrors our own, right?
Our own conservative party, where it's such a broad church that actually it doesn't stand for anything anymore.
But the membership were always more conservative than the actual MPs who were put into parliament.
And so you can see here the membership of the party crying out for a recalibration.
And it seems like they've got their woman forward because she seemed to be the best means that they had at their disposal for bringing this about.
So she's very, very hawkish on China.
And why wouldn't you be?
Just comment on that tweet, please.
Chinese people in Japan have a duty to help Chinese state espionage.
Yes.
We keep seeing that in the United States.
We keep seeing that, I would argue, all over the West, but it's not being investigated enough.
And naturally, you would side with your own country over your historic enemy, which is Japan.
So that's not a surprise.
And the second point, Chinese acquiring land in Japan would be duty bound to turn their land to military bases.
Two points.
We saw the Israelis using territory in Iran as a base to manufacture and launch attack drones.
We saw the Ukrainians using infrastructure in Russia as a base from which to launch drones against Russia's strategic bombers, like their nuclear-capable bombers.
And in the United States, you see all the time that there is a suspicious amount of Chinese land purchases that are close to American military bases.
And you think about modern drone warfare, and yes, she has a point.
She has a very good point.
So people might see this and say, oh, no, she's absolutely bonkers for saying any of this stuff.
No, this is just elementary common sense.
Indeed, I couldn't agree more.
But more than this, more than the question of China or the question of immigration, I think the most incisive point I could make about her politics and the flavor that we might get from her is that back in the day, she was quite attractive.
And this is important, and I'll tell you why it's important, because actually, here in the West, in England, our parliament is stuffed by women who look like prunes, right?
And this is important because in being unattractive, growing up unattractive, they have become envious and bitter of other people, and it's jaded their entire worldview.
And so the fact that she grew up and she went motorbiking and she was popular and she was attractive, this matters.
I'm sorry, I agree.
It actually does an action.
The same way that some of the greatest politicians were themselves great adventurers and lived a full life before going into politics, it matters in a different way for women.
All right, Samson, Turnitin.
Go on.
I'd impress a thing.
This is our.
I mean, she knows how to seduce an audience.
Yes.
As opposed to simply berate them into submission.
Yes.
Which is what Western politicians do.
Right, there we are.
So as I say, this is an important political point.
I agree.
She's unleashing the power of suggestion.
Yes.
Not everyone's happy about it.
I found this absolutely remarkable substack from Jake Adelstein, who is very, very put out.
What is Jake Adelstein supporting?
Well, I can tell you what he's not supporting, if that will help, which is her.
I must read some of this just because of how...
Takechi endorsed Hitler's election strategy.
Imagine she tried to be a good orator.
You know that?
Hitler.
You know, who else liked dogs?
Hitler.
Well, we'll get to other comparisons in just a minute.
But for now, Japan just made history, though not the kind anyone wants to frame.
Japan finally broke the glass ceiling, only to find it was a lid of a coffin.
Progress, but only if you think puppy shooting, ICE-leading Nazi Christy Noam would be a step forward as president because she's a woman, right?
Takaichi endorsed, as you said, the Hitler thing.
We won't retread it.
Threatened TV Networks as communications minister and claims foreign foreigners abused Nara's deer without evidence.
Now, Nara.
In what way are they abusing the deer?
So I've been to Nara.
Nara was the greatest place I went to in the whole of Japan.
It was an old capital when the emperor moved there because the capital used to move with the emperor.
And so it was set up in Nara for a while.
But the deer are basically messengers, right?
They're the sacred messengers for the spirits.
And so the deer simply roam about Nara and allow to go from place to place.
And they're not bothered.
Unless you happen to be Chinese and you basically think it's funny to.
Hello.
Samson, can you click that, please?
My mouse seems to have.
Thank you.
Why is he hearing that deer?
It's a great question.
Yeah, thanks.
Pause it for me, Samson.
So when he says, oh, this is baseless, that there aren't any videos of the deer being attacked.
Honestly.
They aren't giving them the sheep treatment.
It took me less time to find the video than his sentence saying it wasn't happening.
Right?
So, sorry, can I just have that mouse fierce seeing as for whatever reason this one stopped?
Thank you.
It's a particularly insubordinate mouse.
Yes.
And this is my favorite line, though.
Adelstein goes on to say, where she really shines, if you can call it that, is in weaponizing xenophobia.
Straight into the veins.
More of that, please.
I don't know how to react to this, because on the one hand, I just can't be exposed to such rhetoric.
No.
It's disgusting.
But on the other hand, I'm thinking that he isn't particularly happy writing this.
So that actually makes it funny for me.
Yeah, it's very funny.
You know how it is.
You love a meltdown as much as anyone, Stelliosa.
So being on the panel, I have to give you.
Two words.
So yeah, here she is when she was a young kid in Nara with her father.
And I think another important point to make as well is that during her speech, she talked about the fact that from now on, there will be no work-life balance for her and her ministers.
It will be work, work, work, work.
Now, there is a certain Japanese character to that as well.
People have already been taking it out of context, implying that she's basically just going to send every single Japanese person to the workhouses, right?
like some sort of twisted Japanese Dickens novel.
However, the fact of the matter is as well that in terms of the demographic question, even though she is more traditional, she has actually, she has a husband.
She's had three children.
This isn't someone liking we've got the motherless hag.
You have to hag all the children of the world.
Right.
Yeah, and just see the cat mums.
No, she actually has her own family.
She's had that part of her life now.
And she clearly now feels that sense of service.
Now, obviously, I don't, I'm not a deep expert on Japanese politics, you know, but I would say that if they had a chance to course correct on some of the errors of the previous administration, then this is at least a sign that things are moving in the right direction.
Now, if there are Japanese people watching this, and I know there's sometimes often are because our videos here get translated into Japanese, and we're glad that you like them, but I would just encourage you to remain vigilant, right?
You don't want to end up with another Milani.
No, you don't want to end up with another Miloney.
She promises one thing, she does the exact opposite.
She continues with the same old policies, but she's just there to block somebody who is actually more conservative.
Exactly.
You really want to be vigilant against that.
Absolutely.
Yes.
Because that's the point as well.
There is a rising more conservative power.
And that is, of course, the San Saito party.
And their leader, Kamiya, basically gave this speech where I won't play it, because no point.
Can't understand it.
But he basically goes on to say that because of the pressure and gains that San Cito have been putting on, it's obviously signalled to the LDP on which direction the winds are blowing in.
And in this sense, this is another reason why I would encourage vigilance is because we had a similar sort of thing happen in this country back in 2014, which was a huge boom of about 4 million votes for UKIP.
And though that didn't translate into a huge number of seats in Parliament, it forced the Conservative Party's hand to give us a Brexit referendum.
Now, we got totally betrayed on all of that, but that's why I'm just saying, keep an eye, watch what they're doing, focus on what's being done in particular with immigration and on the demographic question.
However, there are, of course, many in the Japanese establishment who will not like this change.
And the thing is as well that you, under normal circumstances, you might have the Diet try and prolong the vote, confirming her to be PM, obfuscate, you know, and basically just whittle down the will of the Conservatives to actually bolster their own power.
However, there is an extenuating circumstance here, which is that Trump himself is going to be making a state visit to Japan on October the 27th.
And so they can't really do that.
Japan needs a prime minister before Trump arrives, right?
And so it may just be that in making a new coalition, who knows?
She might achieve something.
But I would, as I say, just urge the Japanese people to be watchful.
And if you're not happy, keep tacking to the right.
I mean, the lesson has been consistently keep chimping out, right?
Keep chimping out.
Keep chimping out.
Keep going crazy.
Don't give them any breathing space.
Yes.
Keep their feet to the fire.
And save the deer.
And save the deer absolutely.
At all costs.
All right.
I'll just go through the comments.
Logan Pine says, beware of a former beautiful woman becoming a politician because they know how to get things they want and make you happy to give it to her.
Well, yes, but so long as you get what you want.
and what if she wants is good and i don't think there's oh uh Timothy Reaper for $5.
Thank you says, you haven't asked the real question.
Will she hope Musk make Nekomimi a reality?
I've probably just read, I've probably just read something totally ridiculous.
Samson can educate me afterwards.
I'm sure he'll know.
Anyway, video comments.
Thank you.
I feel like I might have been a little bit too abstract with this one the first time around.
What is the pendulum doing?
That's twice I've had to watch that pendulum do absolutely nothing.
It was strange the first time.
It's strange the second.
Right.
Let's go to the next one.
Zesta King.
Hi, Red Citizen, me again.
Here it is.
This is the largest Roman wall in Britain.
It was part of a basilica/slash bathhouse, and it is seven meters high.
This isn't McKelvin.
It's the only one that remains in Britain.
There's essentially a marketplace to get food.
These are where the stalls are going to be.
Okay.
I didn't know about this.
I've been on a bit of a trip around Roman engineering and Roman design when it comes to things like aqueducts and water purification.
The sheer extent of the genius is unbelievable.
You see, unlike the Africans and Indians who have a chip on their shoulder about British colonialism, I thank Rome for what they gave us.
And I'm grateful for it.
Is that why you constantly send me the return memes?
You do that rather than pawn me.
Send each other return memes that accusers.
We do.
One of the leading law universities in the Roman world was in Beirut, actually.
Really?
Yes.
Let's go.
Maybe it should return.
Let's go to the next one.
Do I have some volume?
That was in Manchester.
Manchester.
Wasn't there supposed to have been a Palestine protest going through Manchester this weekend as well?
Was that banned?
They went ahead and did that.
Oh, right.
They went ahead and did all of their protests and all of that.
And then after somebody tried to set fire to a mosque, you saw the Muslim side saying, well, how can the pro-Israel side start protesting now that a mosque has been attacked?
My only reaction is, isn't diversity wonderful?
So Tim Wittam says, my three favorite Lao to Cetos today.
So good morning, gentlemen.
Hello, Tim.
Hello.
Oh, thank you.
Just woken up, so we'll watch later during breakfast here.
I'm continuing to hope that Firas and Stellios can have a great discussion and even debate with the courageous Natasha Hausdorff on the Middle East.
You'll think alike and think differently is my expectation.
I think somebody has reached out to her from here to try to get her on the show.
So yes.
Right.
So Jim Boji says, I'll tell you what's divisive, Miss Neville, importing a foreign heresy and must to the point where the English are being cleansed from the major towns and cities.
Priority housing, priority healthcare, priority benefits, two-tier law, no integration, and open hatred for those who took you in.
Every day getting further radicalized by events in the Middle East.
Oh.
And if you disagree with any of the above, you're an Islamophobe, which you could become a crime soon.
But the real problem is English people putting up flags to assert themselves.
Absolute cretin.
You sound like a, I have to say it.
You sound like a white middle-aged man who might be putting up flags.
I will just say as well, there was a part of that Gary Neville video that you didn't play where he just, he kind of appeals to, oh, can't we just go back to that Britain of neutrality where we could just, it's like, no, neutrality, Gary, was a homogeneity.
Because when we were homogenous, we were able to just debate the issues as the issues.
We don't have that now.
What we have is just sectarianism and ethnic strife and everyone vying for their own individual little communities of power.
I mean, the Cornish, for goodness sake.
It's like, you know, you go right back into the ancient history of the British Isles and like the Cornish still see themselves as something separate and particular.
So if they're doing that after over 1,500 years, there's no hope of anyone else doing it in two, three generations.
Right.
So Sophie Lis says, don't forget media and entertainment being very explicit in their anti-white propaganda.
Yes, the latest one being in the DC Comics show where the cast is an alternative universe, is in an alternative universe, where the Nazis won and a black lesbian main character comments that this Nazi universe is not that different from our universe.
And propaganda shit like this is just normal in Western entertainment.
Fazy Toasta says, we haven't put up a flag in 15 to 20 years.
Why now?
What's the reason?
What is the reason you call us of Berlin?
And Jordi Swordsman says, I'd rather hear from Gaza than Neville.
Probably get more sense out of him too.
Right.
So, I want to get this, but please read the.
Yes, yes, yes.
Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex, I'm just here for the Fidaz bombs.
I hope you got a few, mate.
Michael Dribablis.
I'll never pronounce your name right.
I'm so sorry, mate.
And you'll never have to because he'll never correct you.
Sorry about that.
He will.
He sends videos every now and then.
Oh, well, I've just missed you.
Michael, you're a legend.
Thanks, Michael.
I can say your name.
I can say your name.
I can say Michael.
Yes, that's tribal bis.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Okay.
Thank you, Firaz.
The biggest problem with Islam is the fact that Westerners refuse to understand that this isn't an Abrahamic religion.
It is.
It is a Muhammadan religion.
It also is.
Islam cannot claim the lineage of Abraham.
That's the whole debate, mate.
Because it comes only from the warlord.
Thanks for that.
Zesty King.
After the recent synagogue attack in Manchester, I saw a lot of people replying to posts by Muslims announcing the attack with the word taqiyya.
Very interesting stuff.
It's not so much that they're consciously trying to deceive you.
It's that there's this mental and moral chaos that sort of permeates everything.
And that means that you can't stand anywhere.
That's the word for the onion of deception, basically.
Yes.
Yes.
Which weirdly enough, if, like me, you have happened to read a lot of messages within Hayyat Tahrir Sham, like the guys whose leader is now the president of Syria, they were constantly boasting about doing taqiyya against each other.
So the different groups had spies amongst each other.
And they would like, it's just mental and moral chaos, mate.
And you don't get it.
That's why you need to stand on a rock.
Omar Awad says, I can only imagine Gary genuinely believing they're just as British as you.
So it's not a thousand-year-old conflict playing out.
It's his British in-groups fighting other British nations.
History didn't begin before.
It's all just Gary Neville's life and what he happened to be experienced by him.
Year zero is 1997, and that's when we got morality and Tony Blair is the new Messiah.
But also World War II.
But also World War II.
Yes, exactly.
The only inter-British conflict you can think of.
Russia.
Yes.
Yes, exactly.
The only inter-British conflict that you can think of is the inter-flag campaign is the flag campaign.
This is people putting up the flags causing the conflict.
Yeah.
It's just completely ahistorical, deresinated BS.
Can you scroll down for me, if you please?
And tell me when to skip.
Oh, okay.
Thanks, Samson.
So, Sophie, Liv, I'm skipping the first part.
It's very deceptive.
Sophie knows what I'm talking about.
Right.
Extra caution.
You remember the Lord of the Rings hang out.
There is no way these people will say it's not all Nazis.
Good point.
Baron von Warhawk, favorite name now.
If you want to really rustle somebody's feathers when they try telling you that it is a religion of peace, ask them one question.
How did Muhammad meet Sophia?
Yes.
I pointed that out to Tommy Robinson recently.
Yes.
He knew about it, obviously, but I just nudged him.
Omar Awad.
Japan elects their own.
Thank you for that.
And then from my segment, Lord Inquisitor Hector X says, I, for one, welcome the rise of the third rise.
That's a great pun.
And it's definitely getting clipped out of context.
So cheers for that one, Rex.
To kick out all the illegals from Japan.
Japan definitely needs their own Margaret Thatcher.
And this lady looks like an Iron Lady.
Yeah, she even wore the blue Michael.
And then he again says, and the deer of Nara are awesome.
They'll even bow for snacks.
They did that.
It was an incredible thing.
They gave you the opportunity to feed them.
Yes.
I've got a video.
I'll put it up actually on my Twitter after this where they're just like pecking it like, you know, just like it was wonderful.
They worked there.
All right.
Honorable mentions.
David Ward says, can Ferras do a follow-up to the virtue course with a reflection of Aquinas's synthesis with Christian ethics?
My whole purpose in life now is to make him do it.
But yeah, I'll help.
I'll help.
Right.
So you know I'm like Aquinas.
Yes.
And Augustine.
I'm a good reader.
You have to read it.
You know that I'm not a good reader.
Right.
Okay.
So let's Samson, could you just pull up the first segment, the links for the first segment, please?
Right.
So.
Sure.
Check us at 3 p.m.
Real Politik with Faras.
He's going to talk about Ukraine from Ida to war.
And again, do join our webinar for our ancient Greek virtue ethics course.
Timeless Westerns.
Yeah, Thursday, 6 p.m.
Carl and I are going to just chat some things.
We're going to chat about a perennially great subject.
It's how democracies turn into tyrannies, according to Plato.
And we're also going to have a big QA.
We're just going to have a small discussion just to introduce you to the topic.
And we're going to have a QA for this.
Check it out.
We are talking here about 14 and a half hours of content.
I will say that I had a tremendously good time doing this.
And I'm talking about, I'll just say a bit.
I think I can get a minute to describe you what this is.
We have nine lectures.
We have the introduction, which is fairly simple and easy for you to enter ethical theorizing.
We have lecture number two.
It's on myth, mythology.
We're talking about all the cool stuff.
The myth of Theseus, Iliad, the Odyssey, Sophocles, Antigone.
We're talking about a very interesting subject with the conflict between Ajax and Odysseus after the Iliad, which most many people don't know.
And it has to do with philosophy of warfare and how it changed from the 1v1 combat of Achilles versus Hector to more like drone strike, precision strike with Odysseus.
Then we're talking about the Sophists and Socrates.
Lecture number four is about virtue in Plato's Republic.
I'm talking about the entire Republic except for some books.
So it's two and a half hours where you can just enter just an amazingly pithy text.
Then lecture number five is about Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics, the philosopher.
Speaking of St. Thomas Aquinas before, he did have a soft spot for Aristotle.
Everybody should.
Right?
Lecture number six is about the big Lebowski of philosophy, Epicurus.
Lecture number seven, it's about the Stoics.
It's about the Stoics and the Stoic sages.
It's about Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius, but also how Stoicism was a generally big movement.
By the time Seneca walks into the picture, Stoicism was 300 years old already.
But it was talking about a different life.
Then lecture number eight is about love.
L-O-V-E.
No, wrong.
Sorry, that's lecture number nine.
Lecture number eight is about Plotinus and Neoplatonism.
It's an incredibly influential movement, very unknown to people who don't study philosophy, but it's incredibly influential.
And we're talking about virtue in Plotinus.
And then because Plotinus was a bit otherworldly, I said, right, we need to talk about love because I want to know what love is.
I want to end with a more wholesome text.
That's why lecture number nine is about Plato's Symposium.
And definitely, I really want you to get this course and also enroll for the course and also come with Carl for the webinar.
There will be future webinars on other topics as well.
And there will be QA.
I'll be really happy to see you there.
And as far as the podcast is concerned, 3 p.m., Brother Feras is going to talk about Ukraine.
Tomorrow, 1 p.m., other brothers are going to talk about different things.
Right.
Thank you very much.
▲
Export Selection