The Lotus Eaters dissects Britain’s wavering stance in the U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict, where Keir Starmer’s refusal to grant U.S. airbase access risks regional destabilization amid Trump’s prolonged military push and Iran’s retaliatory threats. Meanwhile, Scotland’s migrant-related crises—knife attacks, robberies, and viral confrontations—expose Labour’s multiculturalist failures, with critics arguing asylum policies prioritize optics over security. The EU’s €5M counter-terrorism plan, targeting "hate" ideologies while ignoring jihadist threats, is mocked as bureaucratic overreach, with accusations it weaponizes definitions to silence dissent while ignoring systemic radicalization tied to mass migration. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters, episode 1366 for Tuesday, the 3rd of March 2026.
Tuesday, mate.
Yeah, there we go.
Sorry.
For the Americans.
We've passed the first part of the podcast.
We've got the day right.
Excellent.
Well, I'm joined today by Josh and Stelios.
Hello, everyone.
Hi.
And today we're going to be talking all about what the British position on Iran and the conflict that's now in the region should be.
We're then going to be talking about Scotland's migrant problem.
And then we're going to be talking about the EU's insane plan to tackle terrorism, which I know nothing about.
I don't think anyone knows anything about it, and that's the plan.
EU plans, yeah.
There's a bit of a thread running through all these segments so far, isn't there?
Deliberately muddy the waters.
Yeah, the world's in a messy, messy place.
And I suppose we ought to start there then, hadn't we, ladies and gentlemen?
So obviously, over the weekend, all of these months and even years of escalations between America, Israel and Iran have come to a head.
And we've seen an exchange of missiles and explosions and casualties from both sides.
Of course, the Ayatollah of Iran is now dead.
And I know that Firas did a Real Politique segment yesterday talking all about the actual geopolitical situation between all of the nations engaged in it.
But what I want to go through today is what should Britain's position be?
What should our role be?
How engaged in this conflict should we get?
And I think that in order to come to a definitive point on this question, we have to begin by looking at where do things seem to stand right now.
What is the objectives of the American administration and the Israeli position?
What is the position of Iran?
And how long do we expect this conflict to go on for?
So shall we begin by looking at Trump making this recent statement on how long sorry, the mouse is out there, how long this conflict is expected to go on for.
A threat indeed it is.
We have the strongest and most powerful by far military in the world and we will easily prevail.
We're already substantially ahead of our time projections, but whatever the time is, it's okay.
Whatever it takes, we will always and we have right from the beginning we projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that.
We'll do it.
Whatever somebody said today, they said, oh, well, if the president wants to do it really quickly, after that, he'll get bored.
I don't get bored.
There's nothing boring about this.
Do you agree with?
So we get the point.
There is every chance that this conflict could go on to last for a very, very long time.
And this comes from a man as well who said that he would manage to round up the conflicting Ukraine and Russia within the first day of becoming president.
And it doesn't really seem like America is done with that war yet either.
And so all of a sudden there seems to be a lot of plates spinning.
I want to say one thing because we're talking about Donald Trump and he is the president at the moment.
And he is fighting right now.
It's not just the Zelensky Putin dynamic.
It's the dynamic in which he's much more principally involved.
And right now, he isn't talking to the voters.
Right now, he's talking to the Iranians.
And what he says, and I think that this is, from a U.S. perspective, it's a good statement.
Because when you fight a war, you don't tell the other side, well, I'm going to do this.
But if some people start protesting, I'm going to stop.
No, you say I'm going to win.
And you're going to be getting into a war and not.
You express resolution.
Yeah.
So it makes sense.
And we need to draw a distinction between the radical statements and statements of resolution.
Here, he's on the negotiating side.
This is the let's make a deal, Trump.
It's not the Trump who is making a value-free analysis on the matter.
I think the thing that most people are concerned in terms of U.S. intervention is more what the state Iran is going to be after the fact.
And the inevitable instability you get when you bomb Middle Eastern country is that lots of Islamists just spawn out of the sand and start causing problems around the rest of the world.
Yeah, and I agree with you to that very quickly.
I think that this is something that is interesting is that you hear both sides, several sides.
One side says that Iran isn't like Iraq.
It's much more homogeneous.
And there is a sense of allegiance to an Iranian identity.
The other bit is very pessimistic.
And they say that, for instance, you can, it's not exactly clear what the objective is.
Definitely it's to hurt China.
I think Trump has been clear about this from the very beginning.
But if we look at the geography of Iran, it's very rocky and mountainous.
It's like Greece in some respects.
And if you can understand, if the regime gets toppled, there's always the possibility of multiple groups hiding in the mountains and waging guerrilla warfare afterwards.
So I think that's one of the key worries about this.
I think you're on the money with the notion that it's to be against China, but I think it's part of a broader effort to expand the US's spheres of influence and to deny Russia and China a sort of other parallel sphere of influence.
And the multipolarity thing.
But based on many decades of conflict now in the Middle East, we do have a precedent for, as we're saying here, massive destabilization of the region, refugee crises, and many, many people flooding into Europe, which is not something that America has to consider being wedged between two vast oceans.
But also, we have to guard the borders.
We do have to guard the borders, but as well, we seem to be governed by people who give no heed to such sensible notions.
And so there is the concern as well, the pragmatic concern, as to whether or not the EU would actually defend the borders of Europe, should all of these refugees come in, or are we going to have another Anglo-Merkel situation?
And so I was quite surprised in many ways to see how torn many of Britain's political parties turned out to be when it came to what should be done on the question of Iran.
Let's just listen to Farage speaking here.
Look, a British sovereign base is under attack.
Are people nervous about getting involved in foreign wars given the extent of 20 years in Afghanistan and then giving it all back to the Taliban?
Of course they are, and I understand that.
But as I say, this is very different to the Iraq decision.
Very, very different.
Because, yes, they do pose a threat to the whole of the Middle East, to the world, and indeed to us as well.
And it's a cause that I've personally felt very strongly, you know, for many, many, many, many years.
The world would be a better place without these ghastly people.
I mean, I only wish that Farage felt quite as strongly about demographic replacement in Britain, but seeing as that seems to be off the table to him, and there is, of course, something to be said, and we'll get into it later about the airbase in Cyprus and all of that.
But for now, the point is that Keir Starmer, who is actually the Prime Minister and not Nigel Farage, has really been dragging his feet on this issue.
Of course, it took a long time for him to grant access to the Americans to use the air bases.
And this has certainly frayed the diplomacy between the United Kingdom and between the United States as well.
And as we see here, as Stalma said, it was my duty to judge what is in Britain's national interest.
And that is what I have done.
And I stand by it.
And so Britain, for the time being, is not going to involve itself more heavily in the conflict.
And I just want to make it absolutely clear, that is also my position on the matter.
Don't want to see Britain getting dragged further into the Middle East because ultimately, as well, though Trump can get very, very angry about the fact, and it goes on to say in this conversation that he had with Harry Cole, Donald Trump has suggested that Kiyos Stamer is pandering to Muslim voters by refusing to back his war against Iran, warning that Britain is no longer such a recognizable country anymore.
In a withering assessment of Sakir's recent performance, the president also said Britain is repeated that twice, sorry, and one that to stop people from coming in from foreign lands who hate you.
And he declared that he never thought he would see the once most solid of all special relationship in such peril amid the biggest rupture in UK-US relations in decades.
And sorry, were you going to say something, Josh?
No, no, you go ahead.
I was just going to point out as well that it feels in many ways like we've just kind of looked our way into Starmer making a very pragmatic foreign policy decision and actually coming to the right decision for the wrong reasons.
Because I do think that there is undoubtedly, and obviously we're not privy to British intelligence and what exactly informed their decisions in all of this.
But I would be very surprised if the high Muslim presence in the United Kingdom and particularly in the last constituencies that are actually voting Labour haven't had something to do with this moral equation.
This exists.
Well, I mean, it also doesn't make sense because the Muslim population of the country isn't that high.
I mean, you look at somewhere like Russia that has a higher percentage of its population than a Muslim and also a larger population, so more Muslims generally.
And they were able to wage campaigns in Syria and the like, and it was no problem for them.
One thing that is interesting is that there is a very different approach towards Russia and towards Iran right now.
And several people think that this has to do with more and wider infiltration of Muslims in the UK.
Because if you listen to Kiyostama and other European leaders, when it comes to Russia, that's when they become war hawks.
But when you listen to them about, let's say, regimes like the IRGC, they aren't that war hawkish.
But I think it's more coming from enthusiasm for being close to Europe, from the sort of British left, isn't it?
In that continental Europe is very concerned about Russia, particularly Eastern Europe, and they take it very seriously because they think, oh, well, we could be next.
So I think it makes more sense to interpret it through that lens than, you know, we're secretly being run by Islamists.
Even though there is a bit of a problem with them in the Home Office, but it's not to the extent yet.
You also don't see that many Islamists in Eastern Europe.
No, of course not.
That's another issue there.
You can also see in Spain and, you know, the Mediterranean and stuff.
But one thing to say here is I haven't understood yet what form this backing the war means.
Does it mean, well, don't go to the UN and say that I'm a war criminal?
Or does it mean get British troops on the ground?
I haven't heard the latter.
So when Trump says Stalma refuses to back the war against Iran, what sort of thing does he have in mind?
Conflict Escalation Risks00:15:39
Using bases and things for bombing, because I don't think the vocalized intention yet has been to get boots on the ground because it will come down.
You think?
Well, I think there's a possibility of it.
But the point is that there is a lot to consider with this.
This is clearly a war that is going to go on for quite a while.
It's going to probably redo, as it already is doing in less than a week of it, redefining long-term political alliances and has the potential to obviously have far-flung ramifications in ways that we just can't anticipate.
So we have here Marco Rubio giving some sort of an explanation as to why this all happened so suddenly in the blink of a weekend.
The second question that's been asked is, why now?
Well, there's two reasons why now.
The first is it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States.
The orders had been delegated down to the field commanders.
It was automatic, and in fact, it bear to be true, because in fact, within an hour of the initial attack on the leadership compound, the missile forces in the south and in the north, for that matter, had already been activated to launch.
In fact, those had already been pre-positioned.
The third is the assessment that was made that if we stood and waited for that attack to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties.
And so the president made the very wise decision.
We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action.
We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces.
And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed.
And then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn't going back.
Terrible place to hold a press conference at Halway.
It has the dramatic lighting that I see.
But one thing I want to note is because Some people play this video and there is also a previous response to another question where he was saying, and it's important for context, that within a year and a half, the Iranian regime would have access to more missiles and longer range.
And we've heard that one before, haven't we?
We have.
And obviously there were raids in Iran not too long ago either.
And we were told that a lot of Iran's capacity to fight back against Israel in America had been mitigated then.
And then actually most of the threat had been neutralized.
And so based from previous statements we've had from Americans, you know, the American administration in previous months, this does all of a sudden seem like a contradiction in the narratives, I will say.
We've gone from Iran being a neutralized state that isn't going to present any threat to suddenly, once again, in a mere matter of months, they posed a threat to the entire Middle East and American interests.
I think one way of interpreting that is that their initial bombing might have hit their targets, but it didn't do enough damage or it was easy enough to rebuild that they were able to have capability again.
That would be one way in which those statements could be consistent.
But at the same time, I think that they had their minds set and any excuse.
But also that was eight months ago.
And in eight months, you can take steps to develop nukes.
Sure.
Especially if you have already done so before.
I'm a bit of a slacker.
It takes me a bit longer.
Just you alone in your workshop.
I've not even got started.
I'm terrible.
No.
But the other point as well that I just want to add is the fact that if we go down this route of being involved in first in Iran, it will not stop there.
We've obviously already seen Israeli forces going into Lebanon.
Other countries all across the Gulf states are going to get embroiled in it as well.
And though I've just taken this tweet here where it talks about the fact that Israeli officials say that after Iran, Turkey is going to be the next major threat to its existence.
How do you feel about that, Stelios?
Depends.
As I said, when it comes to Turkey, I may need a hair transplant in the future.
Well, I was going to say anything short of reclaiming Constantinople for the Greeks.
I don't really see it.
But this is really the point.
Do we see, sure, we're in the year 2026 now, but when we get to the year 2036, could we see ourselves at war with Turkey as well to fulfil Israel's geopolitical interests in the region to shore up its own?
And sure, I appreciate the fact that they have their own sense of self-preservation, but my point is that so should we in all of this as well.
So should we.
And it's not necessarily the case that what is always good for Israel is always good for us.
And in fact, as bizarrely, Kia Starmer himself has shown as well in this recent turn of events, what is good for America is not necessarily also good for us as well.
Right.
So I want to say about this here.
I think that this is much more targeted to, in general, the Muslim Brotherhood.
And this rivalry now, the rising rivalry between Israel and Turkey, has to do with the extent to which Erdogan and the current Turkish regime wants to develop nuclear weapons, but also wants to position themselves as the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Yes, and if Iran falls, and that will fill that, Turkey will fill that vacuum.
But it is also painting a target on their own backs to a certain extent, because not even the Islamic world is necessarily a fan of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Yeah, yeah, and you did see a few months ago Trump started declaring certain parts of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist, then some and people started following.
And then, so obviously we get to things from the British perspective.
Now, the Telegraph are already putting out articles basically invoking World War II nostalgia, saying that Starmer's response to the United States and Israeli strikes on Iran was more Chamberlain than Churchill.
And it goes on to point out in this article, you know, this writer here, Jake Wallace-Simons, goes on to say, well, Kemi Bajanock was very clear, saying, I stand with our allies in the US and Israel as they take on the threat of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Nigel Farage has demanded damn the evil regime and called on the Prime Minister to back the Americans in this vital fight.
But what did Kiyos Starmer have to say about this?
After several hours, we found out, and it says that Prime Minister's statement highlighted that Britain had played no role in these strikes, and he talked about de-escalation.
And true, he condemned the Iranian regime as utterly abhorrent, but he's used far stronger language before about Elon Musk's Grok or the Southport riots.
And yeah, go on, Stelius.
No, no, I appreciate this.
And I think, again, this comes back to what we said before about what does Trump want from Starmer and what does it mean to back his war?
What form does this take?
But this is just declarations.
And although I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Starmer here, I'm very much critical of him.
But it's a bit different for a PM to say this than for a leader of an opposition party to say it.
When you're a leader of the opposition party, you can be a bit more liberal with your rhetoric.
Which I understand in this case, Starmer may have an extra reason to be to be concerned about this because he's the PM.
Another thing that he could be concerned about, which I think is a valid concern, is that when we see escalation in the Middle East, there do follow, sadly, there do follow terrorist attacks around the world.
And frequently it's Muslims and Jews.
I'll give you two examples.
In Manchester, there was someone who went and killed people in the synagogue.
Was that in October?
Something like that.
And in Australia, there was the Bondi Beach massacre during Hanukkah in December.
So Starmer could have this in mind.
He may be saying, I want to take some distance in order to prevent a terrorist incident happening in the UK.
This is a charitable interpretation for why he may be doing it.
And truly, we don't actually know Starmer's motives in all of this.
But towards the end of the article, he points out, compare all this with the cousins of our culture.
In Israel, 20,000 reservists were called up while missiles rained down on Jerusalem.
In the bomb shelters, crowds were filmed dancing and singing out for the love of their people and the dream of a free Persia.
On the streets of Tehran, meanwhile, amid the carnage and trepidation, people cheered on American and Israeli jets and danced defiantly in the streets.
They know the price of liberty and are prepared to pay for it.
What courage!
Imagine if Britain had not lost its way.
So there are a lot of things I want to say about this.
The first of which is that this entire article is very much centered in its language around defending Jews, defending Israel, and all of these sorts of things.
Very little concern or consideration seems to be put into it as to actually protecting British members of the public.
There is no real consideration here.
The framing of it coaches this.
Like it's one grand crusade and oars against them.
And even in the way that he argues it here, I'm not suggesting that there aren't obviously good Iranians who don't want to be free from the regime, but there's no admission of the fact that actually there is the regime does still have some power in Iran and they will fight tooth and nail.
And as I say, this is going to be a very, very long war.
And if this is going to be a very, very long war, the British military is in a really, really sorry state.
We can see here, as Callum puts up, the current state of the Royal Navy, which currently consists of two aircraft carriers, six destroyers, and about seven frigates, as well as 10 submarines, which you can't see on that graph because they're underwater.
I knew you were going to say that, but I'm happy you did.
Oh, there you go.
But also, of course, there are areas where perhaps we should intervene as well.
And that, of course, is in the recent attacks on Cyprus.
Now, obviously, the base RAF Akratori in Cyprus was subjected to a missile barrage this past weekend.
That was a British.
An RAF base.
British RAF base in Cyprus, which is, of course, deeply humiliating.
And fortunately, it seems that no personnel were actually killed.
Wasn't it just two drones?
So it's like a very token thing of just send two drones.
Yeah, but it also speaks to the actual British establishment being asleep at the wheel.
There's some complacency in there.
And the fact that now we have the French sending air defense systems to the island to protect it.
So also Greeks.
And also HMS Duncan is being sent to Cyprus now, or should be.
And of course, as you say, Stelios, the Greeks are also deploying multiple warships to protect Cyprus as well.
I want to say one thing very it's a bit funny, but I say yesterday that Greece should stand by Cyprus, which is one of the least controversial statements ever made by a Greek.
And I still have people accusing me of getting 7K to write this.
So that's mental illness.
For sending the Greek navy to Cyprus.
Yeah, that's just mental retardation idea.
I mean, isn't it Greek kind of thing?
Imagine I got 7K to say the least controversial thing I could say.
It's like saying, yeah, I hate Turks.
I've been paid off.
Yeah, I literally had someone say, Greeks shouldn't die to give Turkey to Bibi.
Do you know what you're talking about?
There was a conflict over Cyprus between Greece and Turkey for those in the audience who knows.
It's just, you know, the way that leftists take the white versus black dynamic in the US, especially in the early 19th century, and they apply this everywhere.
There are people here who do this with the Jews and the anti-Jews.
It's just the only way they've used it.
Matter and anti-matter.
It's like the only lens they can view things with.
It's a bit annoying.
So yes, I am all in favor of intervention insofar as it means defending our own RAF bases on the island of Cyprus.
But it is very obvious that even though Kiostama is currently prime minister, of course, he is not ahead in the polls.
And the Starma government is very, very frail.
And so all of this can change very, very quickly.
And with reform at present being the incumbent party that seems to be the one that will have the majority and probably form the next government, we could see a much more full-throated committal to Britain's part in the conflict in the coming years or months, however long Stalin's government lasts.
We've no way of knowing.
And the problem with all of this is that Richard Tice was, as Reform's deputy leader, was straight away saying that, well, our position should, of course, be that we're taking in all of the Iranian refugees and obviously we'll vet these refugees for anti-Semitism as soon as they arrive here.
It's like, Richard, there seems to be a real poverty of consideration.
Okay, right.
I have some...
I'm not going to speak in defense of Richard Tyson.
I'm trying to say another thing.
Right.
So let's say that you're concerned that the English government doesn't put the English, doesn't care about the English enough, or that the British government doesn't care about Britain enough.
One argument would be that perhaps they should take a stronger stance, because especially one of the main reasons why, if they're afraid like now to do something about the grooming gangs, because they're afraid of retaliation.
And there are powerful lobbies, and obviously not all people from these groups are the same.
I'm not putting all eggs into one basket, but especially when we're talking about regimes that are incredibly destabilizing of that region, but also are funding terrorism, their pernicious influence could be one of the reasons why, let's say, governments that are a bit cocked, can we say this?
On YouTube, that are a bit cocked, are afraid to do things about things like the grooming gangs.
Pernicious Influence and Government Fear00:08:10
So that could be an extra argument that, for instance, some Americans could give.
Because on the one hand, every time Ruby Ovance comes here and they talk about to the EU, we're usually clapping in with good reason.
But there could also be another side of it, that it's not that lots of European leaders may be afraid.
They could be afraid of the very pernicious influence of particular groups, let's say, or regimes.
I suspect that they are.
That's the question, is that Trump, Rubio, and other people could have the argument that, listen, you say You criticize your governments for not doing enough on that front, but we're actually doing something to topple the regimes that are actually causing the problem to an extent.
But if all of these regimes just, again, I'm just very cautious and well, I'm mostly cautious of time, but I'm also cautious of the fact that we're going to end up in the position of great destabilization.
And Farage had to basically come out and say, no, we won't be taking any more refugees from the conflicts and basically just covering over Tice's previous comments.
But ultimately, and I agree with Rupert Lowe on this one, Britain has enough problems and we should not be bombing Iran.
Because I know, I know.
Because really, and this is my key point.
In the United Kingdom, in Britain, we probably have about two decades, three decades left at the most generous time given to actually have sovereignty in our own country.
The demographic situation right now is absolutely on the precipice.
And rather than going around the world fulfilling the political objectives of Israel or America, we have to deal with our own domestic problems now.
And that means, as Rupert says here, basically, for the time being, just doing away with foreign regime change around the world.
And what's more as well, we've seen time and time again that even when these foreign regimes fall and some Western power comes in to try and remold them in a more Western, liberal, enlightened framework, it doesn't work because they're not from the same inheritance and they don't want it.
Ultimately, it comes down to the point that we shouldn't be entangled in permanent alliances with any nation on earth.
We should always try to put our own particular interests first.
And this war, frankly, I don't believe meets that criteria.
It seems that the Israelis have acted very, very hastily in their own defense, banking on the fact that the Americans would naturally be drawn into the conflict to support them.
And that really, off the back of that, it was kind of taken as a bit of a given that the rest of the nations of Europe would start dancing to America's tune as well and giving them any backing and just saying, yes, Donald, how high, Donald, in all of these particular ways.
And I don't think that that's moral.
And it certainly doesn't center the consideration and safety of our people.
It doesn't put that as a priority.
And so Rupert Lowe's position here is far more sensible.
And though people will try and say, ah, yes, well, but that position of non-intervention and you know not getting involved and not allowing not using the air bases to also strike Iran because at the moment our RAF are only being used for defensive purposes and not actually engaging in offensive maneuvers on Iran.
But if we start doing all of these things as well How long before more commitment is demanded from us and more commitment until you find that we're all so at war in Lebanon and then Turkey and on and on it goes and frankly we're not in the state for it and we don't owe it to the rest of the world to do this either, right?
We are more, we should be looking after our own interests.
That means building back up our defense and ensuring that our nation, our people survive here in our own homeland.
That's my position on the subject.
And anyway, we are running over on time.
So I'll draw it to a close there.
But I think that we should stay out of this.
All right.
I'll just go through some of the rumble rants.
And there's a lot of them.
So thank you.
For $2 says, Luke Saint 91 says, G'day, to be honest, we wouldn't have the Islamic problem if we're being a bit more selective about who we let in instead of just being like, oh yeah, come on in.
Yeah, absolutely.
And this is not just true for the Middle East, but this is true for every country around the world.
That all of a sudden, our ability to express a sovereign will as a people, as a British people, has been diluted and obscured by the fact that we now have to give moral consideration to many, many ghettos and diasporas that have taken residence here in Britain and that care absolutely nothing for us, but demand that we care about all of their conflicts around the world.
And he also says, I've heard this theory, this is also to hurt Russia with Iran sending supplies to Russia for the war.
Also, half of our problems would be solved if the government actually punished everyone equally.
Well, it'd be a start.
Wesley for $5, thank you, says, why are the British bases under attack?
Are they being used as a staging ground for the United States attacks on Iran?
Well, I believe, if I have my chronology right, these were actually attacked before Stamer gave license to America to use our bases.
So I think so, yes.
Yeah, so I'm not sure.
It was Greek bases that were used to help the Americans.
Luke also says, I think I remember watching China on top of others.
Yes, sir.
China run censored one of those channels talking about Iran getting a ton of missiles or something from China or just weapons.
It was a while ago.
Okay.
Yukia Wartoo says, apparently in the recent talks, the US offered to fund Iran's nuclear power ventures indefinitely if Iran didn't pursue the bomb, but Iran refused.
Well, then that was a folly, wasn't it?
Okogdor says, Josh, look up the nuclear Boy Scout.
I am just doing that now.
Thank you.
And for the sake of time, Baystape for $5 says, Starmer's, We Had Nothing to Do With His speech was entirely him just begging the imports not to launch attacks on the British people.
That's all it was, on his knees begging his master.
Yet the framing of his speech did certainly point to that being one of his considerations.
And by the way, I do know about this guy, David Han, isn't it?
I've heard of him before, the nuclear Boy Scout guy.
Just one thing to say to this comment, because it shows the tragedy of where we are.
And when I say we, I mean, generally speaking, in several senses of identity, because it's what I said before about the charitable interpretation, that Starmer doesn't want any kind of incident to happen in Britain.
On the other hand, it is a form of admission of being blackmailed.
But on the other hand, if that is the case, and this is the world that we have inherited, and in a sense, the situation he has inherited as a PM, why accelerate all these crazy multiculturalist policies?
Well, this is a contradiction, isn't it?
If Starmer was motivated by trying to keep peace on the streets of Britain, then there are quite a few other things he could do as well to ensure that that actually happens.
But as we know, Labour consider those to be entirely off the table.
Biggest Strength Lies Here00:08:40
Anyway, Josh, tell us about Scotland.
So, as many people know, Scotland is still rather ethnically homogenous.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not without their problems from migration.
And in fact, I want to use this segment not only to highlight the issues of Scotland, which we don't do enough because there are many egregious problems closer to home, but also to highlight the argument that, you know, a community grows to a certain size and then there are problems that eventually manifest if they're not, you know, spread around the community or whatever.
All of these arguments that say that there's a way of sneaking multiculturalism in, it's just very difficult.
No, Any of these people anywhere in a country is enough to cause problems.
And this is going to be probably the best demonstration of that because as we can see here, most of Scotland is white.
In fact, the vast majority, I think it's something like 92 to 96, depending on which numbers.
Well, if it's white Scottish or white British.
Did try to escalate things a little bit when he was a Mr. Master.
So as we can see here, the number of asylum seekers in Scotland has recently reached a new high.
This was the end of last month, so only a week or so ago.
And obviously there are going to be consequences to this.
And we're going to be looking at some of those consequences because, of course, this is a preventable problem.
I know Scots can be a little bit stabby, but normally it's their gangs and not necessarily just random people on the street that get caught up with this sort of thing.
And the one I want to draw attention to is something that was actually ongoing yesterday.
So here's a picture of a knife man, as you can see.
He is not a native Scot.
You know, Scots might sometimes be swarthy.
I mean, I've got my Scottish father's appearance and I've got some olive skin, but we don't get to that level.
And so it resulted in things like a school lockdown because apparently the police and the authorities haven't said anything.
But a couple of people on the ground who know the area said that he was going in the direction of a school.
The police have also asserted that it was apparently not terror-related.
It was a mental health related thing.
It's like clockwork, isn't it?
If you do stab someone at random in the street, one would presume that's a prerequisite.
But also I want to know how did they internalize what they were doing.
I want to know exactly why they're doing it, what part of the world they're from, and also how I can send them home, ideally.
But I know we don't live in that world.
So two people have been taken to hospital.
Apparently, as he was heading towards the school, a native Scot gave him a beating with a spirit level, but apparently that wasn't enough to dissuade him, but spirit level, you know, because it was to hand more than anything.
And the police were present while a lot of this was going on, while he was wandering the streets, but they were not allowed to get out of their cars because they had to wait for the armed response units to turn up because they're the ones that are supposed to deal with it.
And so you had this bizarre situation where members of the public were trying to dissuade him more than the police because the police weren't allowed to do anything until the people with the guns turned up, which, you know, I know there's a lesson there, I'm sure.
And then eventually he barricaded himself in his flat and had a long standoff with police before he was eventually captured and arrested.
But one thing I did want to point out is the fact that members of the public intervened.
First of all, well done for putting yourself at risk.
But it reminds me of this wonderful story of a man who kicked a flaming terrorist so hard in the balls that he injured his own foot.
Which, by the way, to the people of Scotland, you must be doing something right if you're producing people like this.
Sadly though, that the guy who did this, I think he's died of cancer since then.
Oh, that's terrible.
But yes, we can see a video of the guy here walking around with knives.
I'm going to mute it because you just don't hear very much.
It's just people shouting, really.
But you can see he's just milling around with some knives in his hands.
It looks grim there as well.
No wonder people don't want to migrate to Scotland blindly.
And he also trashed a shop for some reason.
So I don't know what was going on here.
And the most infuriating thing about all of this is that you know from the Scottish government, there'll be no reflecting on this.
There'll be no tinkering with the asylum policy.
There'll be no reflections on how to actually save more Scottish lives in the future.
Things will simply carry on as they always have done.
It won't make them watch adolescents.
Yeah, no one can deserve that.
But it does seem to be the case that the more Scotland is exposed to this sort of thing, the more people are radicalising.
Join the club.
Yeah, I know.
And it's good to see people not walking blindly into the destruction of their own civilization.
And of course, the Scots don't deserve that.
But one thing that did annoy me is here he is after he'd barricaded himself in, I believe, someone else's flat, it's not even his own.
After stabbing three people, and he's there in the window, just sort of smiling at the police down below.
It's something that's just so infuriating that you invite these people in, give them a better quality of life than they'll ever possibly get, and they return the favour by stabbing some people, you know, destroying a shop, and then having armed police, like all of the police in the local area, having to converge on him.
This is the what are you gonna do to me fake?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, it's it's the look of someone who knows that he absolutely has the power in this situation.
It is, and it would be nice to live in a world where he didn't have that power.
No.
Where he wouldn't be leaving that building except in the form of a body bag.
That would be my ideal society.
But alas, we're too soft at the minute because people like to live in their comfortable delusions.
So here is Edinburgh City Council because it happened around their sort of area.
Said, moments like this remind us of the need to stand together and of the importance of community spirit and tolerance.
Everyone has the right to feel safe in their home, at work, on the streets and in their neighbourhood.
Edinburgh is a proud, welcoming and diverse city.
Our biggest strength lies in those who live here.
People from all walks of life, cultures and backgrounds, and we all have a part to play in making sure it stays that way.
Well, where were you where were statements like this when there were South Pots riots going on?
Be like saying, you know, you know, they're only standing up for their country.
They're only resisting, you know, people who do harm to their community.
Well, you know, put the shoe on the other foot.
You're basically apologizing for a foreign man who randomly stabbed people by saying this.
That's what I take from this: is that you don't care about the native Scots and you care more about virtue signalling to foreign violent men than you do about the welfare of presumably your own people, judging from her name.
Which in Year of Our Lord 2026, you should know a bit better than that.
It's not some sort of new phenomenon.
The framing of that, though, our biggest strength lies in those who live here.
And it's like people from all walks of life, cultures, and backgrounds.
Like, okay, but what about that guy?
What about the guy who caused the incident that you're actually responding to?
And if he's not one of those people, and actually your biggest strength doesn't lie with having that man in the city of Edinburgh, then does it not perhaps stand to reason that there might be some other people in the city of Edinburgh, and indeed cities up and down Scotland who are also incompatible with the peace and community?
Because this entire thing of the idea of the importance of community spirit, I'm quite sure that if there's one thing Scotland has not lacked throughout its history, it's some sense of community spirit.
Yeah, and I don't remember what my grandfather was telling me about living in rural Scotland.
He wasn't saying, oh, yeah, you know, we had to hike across the highlands and then we had to dodge some Africans with some knives.
Other New Problems00:05:42
There were no stories of this.
It didn't happen.
It's a new problem.
And you can dress it up all you like in some wishy-washy, liberal, flowery language.
Suicidal levels of tolerance.
Sorry, Stelios.
I mean, you know, social liberal, lefty language.
I saw you growing there.
And then there are also other things.
Okay.
There are also other things going on like this.
Oh, I really want to mute this because it's going to be loud.
Samson, if you could turn it down a little bit.
Maybe we need to listen so we can understand the.
samson um basically a group of men uh just in a just men Quite a nice looking car.
I don't know whether it's stolen.
Robbed a safe from a house in Dunbar in Scotland.
And then a woman went to fight them off.
This looks like quite a nice area of Scotland as well.
It does.
And then they're just breaking into houses, stealing entire safes in the backs of cars.
I don't know.
Maybe you shouldn't be making apologies.
They fell out as well.
Worst criminals I've ever seen.
You've got to strap it down, otherwise it falls out.
That's how physics works.
I mean, anyway, why am I telling robbers how to do it?
They're not engineers and physicians.
I was told the doctors and engineers tell you, they should know this by now.
It's also things like this, just petty things, where you have claiming here they're a Pakistani migrant.
I can believe it.
I don't know where they're from in the world.
But they're just dumping, apparently it was like bones and old meat and stuff into a river.
Apparently they stopped a car and dropped it off at this specific spot, which, you know, I know my Scottish grandparents weren't the cleanest people in the world, but they didn't do stuff like this.
You know, they believed in basic sanitation.
And someone like that is only going to harm the environment around them by bringing their third world behaviors into the country.
And there's no pressure to make them stop.
And nor will they, even if there was.
There's also things like this.
This is pretty horrifying.
Where a lady went out for her 21st birthday and then a Syrian refugee followed her to a house and for the sake of YouTube sexually assaulted her, leaving her understandably traumatized.
This guy, you know, Syrian refugee, Syria is a safe country again now, presumably.
He could go back.
He should have gone back, never should have been here in the first place.
We've got no obligation to the country of Syria and nor their people.
And yet this is allowed to happen for the sake of this diversity and this is apparently our strength.
People getting stabbed, the denigration of your living conditions and rampant sexual assault.
Well, great.
Great.
Well done.
And then you have the grooming gangs as well in Scotland because since there's been spotlight on there, there's also been realizations that this is going on in Scotland as well.
And at least the Scottish Government has ordered an inquiry into them, unlike, say, Labour, who are unwilling to have an inquiry into them.
So that's something, I suppose, if I'm being particularly charitable, but they've allowed the problem to exist in the first place.
So cleaning up your own mess, so to speak, although it's a bit of a vulgar way of putting it, is not good enough, in my opinion.
You should expect your government to protect you, not to endanger you, and then you give them credit for sweeping up their own mess.
I think that's far too charitable for my mind, to be honest.
And as you can imagine, there have been quite a few demands made to close all of the migrant hotels in Scotland.
And this is even coming from the Scottish Tories, as well as other people as well, which shows how far things have come.
Because, of course, the migrant hotels was a Conservative Party policy in the first place.
So it's interesting to hear that they're pushing back on it now.
Very convenient.
But I'm sure there are many, many people who are not just Conservatives in Scotland who want to get rid of them because they understandably bring dangers everywhere where they are.
It shouldn't be the position of this party or that party.
This should be an entirely apolitical policy.
It's just beyond politics.
Does this endanger the Scottish people?
Yes, then we're not doing it.
And there should be entirely unanimous consideration from all of the parties of Britain on this point.
Well, if there are any Scottish leftists watching, it's a very English thing to welcome diversity.
You're very not patriotic if you do it.
And so by welcoming diversity, you're a bad Scot.
there you go, because it's a quintessential, no, I'm just trying to wind you up but But I also wanted to give an update on that Scottish girl that went very, very viral because there was a bit of a resolution to her story that didn't really get nearly as much publicity as people talking about the issue itself.
So you may remember this.
She's been censored because she's obviously a child.
Scottish Girl Censored00:06:45
And it was framed absurdly.
Like, Dundee Mann, this is just a man from Dundee, this clearly not white British person.
Isn't Fatos a quintessentially Scottish name?
I think that's fatass, isn't it?
It says Fatos Ali.
The average Scottish.
I think he's a Bulgarian gypsy, which says all you need to know.
At the centre, yeah, Dundee Man at the centre of far-right misinformation row speaks out and they're trying to present this guy as a victim.
And then here's the standard saying, migrant confronted by schoolgirl 12 wielding axe in Dundee says he came to UK legally and did nothing wrong.
And here he is with his partner.
Look at him.
He's just a happy migrant trying to make it in the world.
Yeah, I feel bad for him.
It's these terrible 12-year-olds being mean to him for no reason.
It's racism, young child racism.
Of course it isn't.
And then here's the BBC.
Police issue misinformation warning.
That's a weird dystopian Orwellian style phrase all on its own, over girls' weapons arrest.
So of course she was brought into custody because she had weapons in public, which knowing the law wasn't necessarily surprising, unfortunately.
But then it turns out the man behind the knife video is a self-described gypsy gangster.
And then you see him here with like big tattoos on his chest, swearing, trying to be a gangster.
He looks like a right wuss that could be snapped like a twig.
He has a tattoo on the neck.
That's a good sign.
That's a pretty good sign that you mean trouble, isn't it?
Or at least, you know, it's a good way of signalling.
So in the comedies.
You can actually just make these life-saving prejudices.
It's perfectly fine.
Yeah, and in fact, it's easier to just, when you meet someone, just say, I have an IQ in double digits.
Just save yourself the money on getting the tattoo.
But I thought there were more pictures of him here, but you could see that the guy was no good.
And thankfully, there was a fundraiser for the girl who was targeted for having the weapons because she was clearly being accosted by this guy, by this couple, in fact.
It's both of them.
And she received £74,000 at least at the time of this article.
And I don't know whether it went directly to her or whether that was to help the legal case.
But either way, I'm sure it's very helpful.
But then, very, very quietly, man and woman charged after girl's weapons arrest.
And this is a very short article.
You can see it's already over.
It's just a few lines.
And you'd be forgiven to think, well, who are these men and women?
Is it the girl's parents?
Who are these people?
And it says, a man and woman has been charged over an incident that saw a 12-year-old girl allegedly brandishing weapons on a Dundee street.
The girl was charged.
Yes, we talked about that.
Police Scotland said officers made extensive inquiries into the incident and repeat pleas for people not to share misinformation on social media.
It talks about the footage.
I mean, Elon Musk, much of the speculation focused on the ethnicity and actions of the people confronted by the girl.
They talked about her being referred.
But then there's absolutely nothing about these two people that have been arrested.
And the only two people I think that were involved in this entire thing, man and woman, were them.
Other than that, it was those two kids.
So unless the police arrested her parents for some reason, which I can't see any reason for that, then one would presume it was them that were arrested.
And actually, they did do something wrong.
And it was just hushed up, which I can entirely believe happening.
Because in post-Southport, Britain at the minute, I am absolutely convinced that there has been some sort of intelligence briefing to say that, listen, the country is very, very unstable.
Yeah, it's very unstable, and so we have to control how information is presented to keep the stability and make sure there isn't a collapse of order and widespread social unrest.
And so there is precedent for this, by the way.
We've done this in many different conflicts over the years.
The intelligence agencies have instructed media outlets to frame things in certain ways.
And I would not be surprised if this sort of thing was going on to not add fuel on the fire.
And this sort of unprecedentedly muted response here, man and woman charged, so they've followed their obligation to report on it.
But the information in the article, there's none there at all.
This is useless to you relative to the headline.
And that makes me think that they're just deliberately trying to sweep things under the rug.
If you hadn't been keeping up with the story previous to this, you'd have absolutely no idea as to who that man and woman were.
And it's remarkable how they're campaigning on this, as you were saying, the fact that there's clearly some coordinated effort in terms of message discipline, in terms of how migrant crime is being reported on.
But I would suggest to the British state that if they want to preserve the cohesion and safety of Britain, maybe not mustering all of the arms of the media to lie about these events and basically use them to defend people who shouldn't be here.
And to maybe actually, I don't know, report the truth wholeheartedly and just accept that perhaps this isn't the utopia you'd wanted it to be would be a good way of starting that.
It would be nice, wouldn't it?
But yes, that is my roundup of what's been happening in Scotland with migration.
And obviously there's been a lot of other things, but I'm limited for time.
But my point being that even in Scotland, which is still vastly majority white Scottish, they're having all of the problems that you experience elsewhere, perhaps to a lesser scale, but still it doesn't make the lives of the people affected any less worse for that fact.
And that people should be considering the impact of these sorts of things on their local community, no matter their politics.
And keeping people safe should be the primary goal of any government.
Mainstream Media's Bias00:15:35
Controversial.
I know.
There's a potential for headpuzz.
I'm not surprised.
Yeah, yeah.
He alarmed.
I'm not actually sure.
Are you referring to this one?
Which one are you referring to?
Probably, yeah, probably.
No, no.
I was actually just going to address this because Luke 91, just rumble ramp, thank you.
Says, I feel like mustache man referring to me.
You can just call me Captain Darling.
It's tidier.
He says, you've got to be careful.
If you don't end up personifying the saying that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, I just want to make it clear that is not my position.
There are wars worth fighting.
There are causes worth dying for.
I'm simply suggesting, Luke, that this one isn't it, Chief.
That's all.
And I hope you'll take that charitably.
All right.
And then Sigil Stone from your segment says, sure they all know it's just part and parcel of living in a gay clown world, which does seem to be the case.
Oh, yes, you'll need that, won't you?
Go on then.
The EU is joining the fight against terrorism with unorthodox methods.
We are going to talk to you about these methods in this very segment.
Do you think that the EU is going to be very strong against terrorism?
I think they're going to be unintentionally strong in favor of it, or intentionally, depending on your interpretation.
But I think they're certainly going to be keen to give welfare to terrorists.
They like doing that sort of thing.
A track record isn't great.
Are they going to strike terror in the hearts of terrorists?
I wouldn't be surprised if Ursula von der Leyen came out and said we're going to have bomb-making classes for our recent intake into Europe.
You know, they're doing everything they possibly can to facilitate the sort of spread of terrorism.
I mean, it's already quite well established, so that's why I was hesitant to say it.
But they're doing everything in their power to do nothing.
Yes, exactly.
Right now, as we speak, Macron is doing some serious aura farming and talk about nuclear deterrence, which is a good thing.
But the EU, not Macron on his own, the EU on its own is fighting terrorism with regulations.
And as you would expect...
The only weapon in the EU's arsenal.
And as you would expect, regulation is only as good as the will to enforce it, if it makes sense.
I don't know if it makes sense, actually.
If this particular thing that they are proposing, I don't know if it makes sense.
I mean, maybe they're trying to weaponise German bureaucracy, which is notorious for being convoluted and a very long and drawn-out process.
And with a terrorist being confronted with that, they lose their will to end their own life in a martyrous sense and just want to do it regularly.
I mean, when I confront bureaucracy, I often feel somewhat that way.
Yeah.
It's like, you don't understand, Ala.
I wanted to do my bit for paradise, but there was so much red tape around me.
I had to fill out so many forms.
There's so much paperwork.
Right.
So there's the Protect EU initiative.
The EU Commission presents a new counter-terrorism agenda.
Now, this agenda...
Death by a thousand paper cuts, I bet.
Exactly, yeah.
Right, so let's see what the details of this agenda are about.
On the 26th of February, the European Commission presented the new agenda to prevent and counter terrorism.
The new agenda sets out the way forward to reinforce Europe's collective response to evolving terrorist and violent extremist threats.
I'm sure that means the right, doesn't it?
It means the right wing.
The evil baddies are, haven't you seen Star Wars?
The baddies are scared.
I see what it means because from a cursory, from a just glance, I couldn't understand how people are supposed to talk about things without being framed as terrorists.
That's always nice, isn't it?
When you can't have a conversation without being worried that you're going to be put in the same category as a member of ISIS.
It can only help some people who are involuntary celibate.
Maybe with women who like bad boys.
They could say, hey, listen, the EU says I'm a terrorist.
To be fair, I've not tried the chat up line.
Hey, I'm on a terror watch list.
But I think it wouldn't go down well, to be honest.
So the EU has strengthened its response to terrorism and violent extremism over the past decade.
Has it?
How?
Has it?
I must have missed that decade.
By strengthening it, they mean they've imported more Islam, so there's no need to attack Europe anymore because we're indistinguishable from their home countries.
However, the evolving nature of these threats requires an adapted and stronger response.
A flagship initiative under the Protect the EU, European Internal Security Strategy, the new counter-terrorism agenda, puts forward a comprehensive set of cross-sectoral initiatives to step up preparedness and response, better protecting people and businesses in the EU.
Right, so I'll just give you the six key pillars and then we're going to move forward because we are going to talk again about the DSA and we're also going to talk about how a very similar initiative in the UK managed to actually do nothing and in some cases do things worse.
Who would have thought?
Yeah, we have talked about it before about the Prevent UK and who counts as a terrorist in the eyes of the Home Office and whether in some cases it may be a bit far-fetched.
I think the Home Office's new criteria of terrorism applies more to us than radical Islamism, to be honest.
It speaks very much of their political priorities.
They're like, well, let's not talk about those guys anymore.
They might blow us up.
But, you know, have you seen the far right?
They're talking about taking over their country.
My goodness, they're becoming more popular.
They're actually getting sympathy.
This is terrible.
So according to the EU, the youth is being radicalized.
Now the question is, why?
Conditions.
There are several conditions why the youth would be radicalized, but the number one thing is the consistent failure of the European establishment to actually deal with some problems.
It's always a failure from the state that is the number one thing.
Well, I mean, you can look at it like this.
Even if you're a ruler and there are people with illegitimate concerns that are just causing trouble, a competent ruler is able to navigate that situation and put it to bed.
So any way you look at it, they failed.
Yeah.
Right.
So they are saying that the youth is being radicalized and that the modern landscape with social media is changing the game of being lured into terrorism.
Okay, now I'm absolutely sure we're not talking about the same terrorism as the EU.
Yeah, yeah.
Because I go on Instagram and look at pictures of animals, I'm now joining al-Qaeda.
But look at what happened before.
And let us tie this to what we said before, that a state and the establishment failure comes usually first.
The EU is trying to regulate social media.
That's why they're putting forward the DSA, as they're saying here that they're going to enforce it even more rigorously.
But they're not focusing on mainstream media.
And I think one of the issues is that alternative media has the reach it has and the prestige it has, primarily because one of the big reasons why the alternative media have the prestige that they have is because mainstream media has been delegitimized.
It's lost the mandate of heaven, basically.
And it's inevitably going to die.
And mainstream media is propped up by mainstream politics because they're both in bed together in Reform's case, quite literally, and many others as well, where there's such a close relationship between the two that everyone knows they're the same sides of the same coin, right?
Or the two sides of the same coin, should I say.
And that's why they're dying, is that they're not a reliable source of information.
They're not truthful.
And although alternative media sources have their prejudices and have their own opinion, at least we're honest about it, right?
I think that you can't overcome bias, this notion in the mainstream that you're magically able to overcome all of your human biases by being a human being alive in the world Is a delusion and it's much much better to present things as here's what I think, here's my evidence, make up your own minds.
That's far healthier.
Exactly.
And there's a pattern that I'm noticing when it comes to the European establishment and its relationship to mainstream media is that instead of focusing on reforming themselves and say, right, let us actually make people feel safer.
So they don't feel that they're less safe and that's going to make them more angry and aggressive and etc.
And prone to be lured to extremist ideology.
Instead of reforming themselves, they try to say, no, no, we are going to carry on the very same policies that are setting up the fire and we're going to complain about smoke.
Well, they can't see beyond their own paradigm, really, can they?
It's like the end days of the Soviet Union in that they're pretending like everything is fine and carrying on as normal when everyone knows it's over.
I think there's just a point to add to that as well, which is the fact that the fact that a lot of these old parties, all the parties that currently make up the EU, and you've got, you know, CDU in Germany and you've got Macron's party and all these sorts of parties, obviously a lot across Western Europe could be overturned by populist parties in the next five to ten years or so.
And yet this has not caused the EU to pivot.
And in the same way that, you know, the establishment don't really seem to be too panicked about reform and Farage in the same way that they are about restore.
And I think that what this should signal to us is the fact that actually the populist parties getting in to power and having access to the full strength of the EU doesn't actually alarm them and isn't actually that paradigm breaking in the grand scheme of things.
As far as they're concerned, a few populist parties poking up across Europe is kind of business as usual and it doesn't threaten anything too critical to their ambitions and aims.
They view it like a gardener might view a few weeds popping up in his flowerbed.
They can be plucked out, it can be dealt with, whereas they're not recognizing the desperation of their situation.
You're correct.
And I want to show you exactly where all this goes and how the EU is going to counter and prevent terrorism.
Right.
So they're saying anticipating threats, increasing the resources and capacities of intelligence analysis at EU level, reinforcing Europol's analytical support capacities, strengthening security research, preventing radicalization.
That's the acronym psych for the like we're going to monitor terrorists.
Psych.
Nice.
But look at this here.
Of course they did.
A 5 million Euro community engagement and empowerment program supporting projects that focus on early prevention of radicalization, focusing on youth empowerment, digital resilience, and community cohesion.
Basically, they want to give money to communists.
I was going to say, I like your Freudian slip of just communist cohesion.
You had it right there, didn't you?
You did.
You did.
Okay.
It works.
Protecting people online by enforcing the DSA.
This is the Thierry Breton thing that we have been talking about all the time.
Everyone's an extremist, according to them.
Protecting people in the physical environment.
IRL, basically.
By the way, this is what the state needs to do.
This is state 101.
Protect the thing.
I don't know why this has to be step four of a particular initiative of the EU.
Yeah, what they're going to do anyway, put up more diversity barriers because they're not going to physically remove the people doing it.
They're going to disarm them.
And they're going to ban knives.
Responding to threats and attacks.
This is, again, what the state is supposed to be doing.
It shouldn't be step five of this obscure initiative.
I can't believe I've never thought of it before.
They're going to respond to attacks.
My goodness.
You can absolutely tell they all went out for drinks after this and thought they'd done a good few years' work.
The Euromaxed afterwards.
Cooperation with international partners.
Actually, this makes sense.
This does make sense, right?
Okay.
The Digital Service Act, we have talked about it.
I'll refresh your memory.
It's rules for online services used by European citizens in the everyday life, and it's constantly used to regulate social media platforms like X.
And I want to show you the first page here.
The European Commission releases a new plan to prevent terrorism that includes, I want to show you this, they say that the EU has seen fewer large-scale coordinated terrorist attacks the later years.
The threat has not gone away completely.
It has evolved.
They say between 2019 and 2023, the number of terrorist incidents more than doubled from 57 to 120 before dropping to 58 in 2024.
Doesn't that mirror migration numbers just to the EU?
A weird correlation there.
I wonder if those could be linked.
I don't know if it's exact, but the issue is that if you check out the major attacks with most of the victims, they all seem to confirm a particular kind of bias.
But all of these as well, they're all ideological.
You know, as it says here about democracy values, anti-LGBT, anti-Muslim hatred, all these sorts of things, right?
They're based on forms of ideology.
But what is there to be said for the people, as we had in the last segment, on Scotland?
Like the guy there who just stabbed a bunch of people and tried to enter a school, that's not an ideological attack.
So, you know, it's not a political attack.
So technically it's not terrorism.
But that doesn't mean that it's no lesser threat or something to be dealt with.
Yeah, people from certain areas of the world are just ticking time bombs is the way it should be viewed, but they're not going to view it realistically.
Ideological Attacks vs. Real Threats00:12:23
To be fair, they're better than the UK government here in that they acknowledge that jihadist terrorism remains the most prominent and lethal terrorist threat.
What was it?
98.
something 96% of all attacks since 2005 in the UK that were lethal were Islamic in nature.
So that's pretty resounding.
But I was just going to say that we've had efforts in Britain for a long time to exaggerate the political threats faced by the left more than anything.
And that we had this recategorization of far-right terror threats.
And all it did was it pushed a bunch of pensioners into the terror watch list.
And so all of these pensioners were getting contacted by Prevent, even though they're in wheelchairs and in nursing homes.
But because they're scary and far-right and they hate foreigners, therefore they must be terrorists.
And I feel like there's probably a similar line through this as well.
It's truly a more radical place in Britain than the bingo hall.
I want to describe to you what motivations they believe are involved in terrorism and make several comments there and listen to what you have to say.
Right, so they're saying that while jihadist terrorism remains the most prominent and lethal terrorist threat, terrorists and violent extremists are driven by a growing range of motivations, not always attached to a specific ideology,
including the rejection of European democratic values, anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim hatred, and other motivations are anti-LGBTQ hatred, misogyny, racism, anti-system ideologies, nihilism, accelerationism, and a range of ideologies that hold that the existing state of society is beyond redemption and requires destruction of the system and a fresh start.
I want to make two claims here.
I feel that then I want to hear what he has to say.
First, I see the EU making a promise that they won't honour.
Because one of the systems, one of the ideologies that hold the existing state of society to be beyond redemption and requires the destruction of that very system and a fresh start is communism.
Right?
I don't think that they are going to say that communism is terrorism.
Something tells me that the EU is not going to say this.
It feels like they've just defined a terrorist as the antithesis or exactly everything that I believe.
I'm doing the Jose Mourinho.
If I speak, I'm in trouble.
Also, they're even going for people who don't believe in anything in the nihilists, which you think if they didn't believe in anything.
Yeah, you're an absurdist.
You're an absurdist.
You're a terrorist.
Camus, put that Camus down.
But also, as well, the way it says, including the rejection of European democratic values and Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred.
Nothing about hatred of just the indigenous people of Europe.
Nothing about hatred of whites and Europeans and the people whose society they're actually coming in.
Absolutely.
And we will get there in a minute.
Okay.
Because I want to focus a bit on the previous claim.
We will go back to that very thing.
According to this definition, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the only thing that would be allowed in the left, according to that definition, to not be terrorist, is basically social democracy.
Yeah.
That's the prevailing paradigm.
Yeah, but left than that, it would have to be announced a terrorist ideology according to the EU, would it?
Wouldn't it?
Well, it's not going to happen, but by the definition, there are plenty of laws that could apply to the left, but don't because they're not enforced that way.
Yeah.
Right.
And now I want to go to the point that Luca made.
Yes, there isn't any such thing as anti-European hatred.
There isn't any such thing as, you know, ecophobia there or hatred of one's own society or white people hatred or man hatred.
We see misogyny, but we don't see misandry.
No.
There are a lot of hateful, spiteful feminists out there.
And here, yeah, and here is where the problem comes, because this is where the ridiculousness of it and the subjective nature of it has a very pernicious dimension.
It's why also wokeness, woke legislation is completely corrosive of societies.
Also, woke rules are corrosive of business environments.
And it's the problem with wokeness.
And it happens even in spaces where you don't have people with minorities from minority groups.
It's the kind of framework that is a problem in and of itself.
There are other problems, but the framework in and of itself is a problem.
If we have rules that are publicly, that have criteria that are publicly accessible, like do not kill, do not steal, do not incite to violence, that's publicly accessible.
It's objective.
You have criteria.
Everyone can establish whether someone has stolen or killed or incited to violence.
But when we're talking about subjective notions, that's not possible.
Hateful conduct.
Exactly.
You can't enter into one's mind to say, well, you have been offended or not.
Thus, it's increasingly more likely for people to say, I have been offended, therefore I'm in a situation where I have to defend myself.
And people who are against me, who are offending me, are terrorists against me.
And the issue is that what they're creating, they're creating a system that is so subjective where they can selectively choose who to name terrorist.
They're following the Chinese model where they make it so it's impossible for most people not to break the law and then selectively enforce based on political allegiance, which is a way to maximize your own centralized power, which, funnily enough, the EU has been trying to do for a very long time.
And it's again what Lucas said.
There aren't any kind of provisions for hatred, which personally I think that's too subjective.
It's a bad thing.
Even if we are to have it, there aren't any provisions for hatred against Christian people, against European, against men.
So it looks like the enemy has been...
Oh, sorry.
No, I was just going to say, it's entirely ideological.
And whilst this goes on, the EU will continue to exacerbate all of the problems that it claims to have these grand plans to be able to get on top of.
I was just going to say, it used to be a convention.
I'm old enough to remember the before times in English common law and Britain more generally.
I know, of course, no longer in the EU and the like.
But we used to be able to say that, listen, the court can't access what goes on in your head, and therefore it's not admissible as evidence.
And you can't just prescribe people emotions.
Like, you can commit a hate crime entirely dispassionately, or if you're me, probably entirely accidentally, just by merit of saying something that is seen as insensitive and offending someone, even though you could be meaning perfectly well.
And I want to end with one thing about accelerationism, which ties into what I said in the beginning about the original sin of the establishment.
I'm not an accelerationist, and I don't, I think that usually many accelerationists basically think that they're going to somehow get away with it.
They have a completely very, let's say, thwarted view of reality.
I just think it's hope, isn't it?
It's finding a way of feeling good about things getting away.
It's like thinking life's a video game.
And yeah, okay, yeah.
You're going to have some collateral damage when your cannons or someone else's cannons are destroying your ECT or something.
But at the end of the day, if the EU wants to stop accelerationism, yeah, they can stop promoting the policies that are destroying Europe.
It's like you can't complain about the smoke where you are creating the fireplace, putting wood there, and turning up the lighting up a fire.
I'm quite surprised they've got that there, because surely an accelerationist would be voting for like the greens or something.
Like the most destabilizing force.
And so surely they're all for that being a sort of weird eldritch horror of a bureaucracy.
Yeah, there's kind of the thing that makes you think that Melanchon should fall under the position of accelerationists.
Yeah, he does.
And I don't see how Melenshon, for instance, in the left would be someone who is a social democrat.
I think he's far way further to the left than this.
So according to this view, it looks like only social democracy would count as a non-terrorist ideology from the left.
But he has also said that he's happy with European people getting replaced.
Also, one good thing is that I think that the Spanish Podemos candidate, that Spanish woman who said she's happy for Spaniards being replaced, I think she got about 1% or something in an election.
She got completely destroyed.
Turns out people don't want to be replaced.
People don't want that.
People don't want that.
It's like, yeah, you're going to return home and there's going to be your foreign alter ego in your house completely replaced.
So I don't think that this makes sense.
It's typical EU arbitrary authority that is selectively going to be applied to whoever is the enemy of the ruling bureaucracy of the EU.
It's definitely not making things better.
And it's micromanagement of decline.
And it's the exact same thing that happened here in the UK, where the Prevent program characterized extreme right-wing ideologies as involving the rhetoric, according to which Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups.
Meanwhile, it is the left that is saying for decades that Western culture is irredeemable.
It has to be destroyed.
It has to somehow be dissolved and created anew in a way that mass migration would do.
And also, they themselves are the people who constantly appeal to lack of integration of groups when they want to say that because these groups haven't been integrated, taxation must rise and more benefits must be given to these very groups.
So it's just a complete nonsense.
Double standards.
And that's not exactly something that counts as particularly non-terrorist by the new EU prevent thing initiative.
Well, it seems like they've really thought it all through this time, haven't they?
Good for them.
There is a loophole here that if we pretend to be Islamic and say it's a sectarian thing, just like, oh, these guys are a different branch of Islam to us, we could get away with it and carry on criticizing immigration.
That's what I'm getting from this.
I'll just read a for $5.
Glee777 says, will the EU make an Emilia for the jihadis?
Is that their secret strategy?
Well, you won't be able to see her hair.
Who knows?
Who knows?
All right, video comments, Samson.
Iran's Secret Strategy?00:03:57
If biological ethnicity did not exist, there would be no basis for the belief that diversity is a strength.
An Englishman could identify as an African and fulfill the diversity quotas.
But then again, we are fighting against brainwashed midwits after all.
Logic has no place.
I only identify as an African when I'm running late.
Just throwing that out there.
You can still identify as European with that excuse.
Mediterranean, perhaps.
Yes.
Sorry, Stelios.
He embraces it.
Help!
Help, police!
Hey, I got problems of my own right now.
I'm alright.
This is going to get worse before it gets better.
God, you're pathetic.
Ooh, fire.
Please don't burn me or my possessions.
I'm so important and flammable.
Is this a test?
No, not a test.
Come on, Mark.
Fucking out.
Get your elbows in.
It's all gone back to one of my favorite memes from the weekend is the one with the women with the social media influencers in Dubai with the inflated duck lips.
They're showing the bombs falling a missile.
I mean, Iran could have done something beautiful.
Ian Miles Chong and a bunch of Dinos and influencers were in Dubai.
I mean, you really messed it up.
Just saying.
throwing it out there.
That's a very good point.
It's also nice to hear concerns about our domestic politics abroad and, you know, hoping you're staying sane in California.
And it runs into the Lundry Pot I feel like a very male autistic part of my brain has just been given a massage watching that.
Yeah, I know, right?
I could watch that for hours.
I was thinking about this as I was watching it.
Like, it's the male equivalent of when a female friend comes back with shopping bags and she's showing her friend what she's bought.
It's that, but machines.
You know, by the way, I'm sure you're going to appreciate this, but I really like watching the extended and listening to the extended Twin Peaks theme with the sawmill.
You can just look at the sawmill for a long time.
Also fireplaces.
From segment one, Michael Drabelbus says, this is how I know that although Iran has been overdue for an attack since 1979, this isn't necessarily a good idea.
If the English Brits aren't coming out for Donald, then it's probably not a good idea to have a Donny Brook.
Forgive my ignorance.
I don't actually know what that Donny Brook means.
And Cumbrian Kulak says, wonder if it'll be like any more Liberty-style events.
Honestly, I don't know.
All I know is I don't think it's a very reciprocal relationship, Kulak.
And Fuzzy Pirates says, interesting how America ensured oil supply from Venezuela before launching a war on Iran.
Well, I mean, if that is the case, then it's just, that is fairly good planning.
Birmingham's Burning?00:02:46
I'll give it.
I think also Iran is one of the major sellers of oil to China.
Yeah.
I didn't know Michael Drabelbus was a US veteran.
He has another comment there.
Oh, yeah.
As a US veteran, I will say that going to war without England-Britain is like going hunting without a proper scope.
Yes, the United States can go it alone, but without Britain, it's a hardest log.
Oh, well, that's very nice of us.
That's very decent of you, Michael.
Thank you.
I know that in Iraq and Afghanistan, our intelligence stuff was very helpful.
We punched above our weight still.
Right, some of my comments.
Jimbo G says there has been another multiple standing incident today, this time outside a Birmingham school.
How am I not surprised it's in Birmingham?
It's getting crazy out there, and it certainly is to the point of, You know, retreat to the countryside while you still can, whilst it's still safe.
I remember when you made a thread on X at one time where you just went through the news and was like, here's an example of every day in this particular week where someone's been stabbed or something terrible has been done by a migrant.
I mean, it's just every day now.
Every day.
Yeah, I completely forgot about that.
I need to start doing that more.
Keep up the unbroken streak.
Ewan Baker says, We can't get rid of these people, but a Ukrainian family was denied asylum and were instead told to block out bombs with headphones.
Blimey, that's a bit harsh, isn't it?
I mean, I did see that 4chan post of the person who didn't leave Kiev because Elden Ring came out, which is about as based as a human being can ever become.
Would you like to read some of yours Stellios?
Yeah, Sophie Liv, again, she may be trying to trick me.
The home office targeting native nativists might have something to do with the majority of that office being migrants, so they're protecting their own.
Just maybe.
There wasn't any nuendo in this, in this comment by Sophie.
No.
I remember that was.
You're reeling from that time.
Yeah, that was so hilarious.
That was in the Tolkien.
Yeah, yeah, the Tolkien roundtable, right?
You're still.
It was a funny thing.
It was a fun thing.
Right, John V says, hi, John V. When you first mentioned there's a new counter-terrorism agenda, I thought, well, it's a start.
And at least something might get done.
Then the jargon started, so never mind.
And Alpha of the Bettas says, I wouldn't be so sure Joss isn't on a terror watch list.
He's a spreader of extremism in Stama's UP.
Thank you for noticing.
All right, then.
Well, that's all we've got time for today, ladies and gentlemen.
I hope that you've enjoyed the show, and we'll look forward to seeing you in the next one.