The Lotus Eaters #1367 dissects the UK’s escalating knife violence, linking 2025’s school stabbings—like Birmingham’s Afghan victim case—to "foreign-run" county line gangs and media suppression of attacker details. Hosts blame policies like the failed "ninja sword" ban while critiquing Reform UK’s Iranian refugee stance as hypocritical, despite 450K+ legal permits issued in Italy under Georgia Maloney’s neoliberal labor strategy. Meanwhile, Keir Starmer’s flip-flop on Iran strikes exposes elite hypocrisy: condemning Trump’s military action while ignoring Iran’s Houthi-backed terror and Spain’s amnesty for undocumented migrants tied to far-left groups. The episode frames populist rhetoric as empty, warning that systemic failures—from migration loopholes to political cowardice—only fuel public radicalization. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters episode 1367.
I'm your host Harry joined today by Josh Lou and Stelios.
Hello everyone.
Hello Harry, hello everyone.
Can I quickly move this song as well?
Yeah.
All right, briefly.
Stellios is like a mogway gremlins.
He's going to sing us a nice tune.
You said the word mog.
You're going to set him off if you carry on to that language.
Either way, we're going to be discussing the inevitability of a second Southport, which sounds quite horrifying, terrifying, and yet horribly predictable.
I'm going to be talking about what is soon to be dubbed the Maloney wave, and Stelios is going to be talking about any and all who were cooked by the Mullers.
Yep.
so we've all got all that to look forward to so uh yep let's just what you want me to raise my microphone Harry's not loud enough, blimey.
Pinch yourselves, Tom.
All right.
I've been projecting my voice to the point of ear strain for many, for my entire life, and yet I'm not loud enough for Sam.
Have the walkie-talkie mute, Harry.
I'm sure many people would prefer it that way.
This is the consequences of spending too much time down south.
You've discovered an indoor voice.
No, no, I haven't.
Either way, let's get on with the news.
Yeah, sorry.
So yesterday I covered a stabbing in Scotland where a knifeman, as it's described by the Scottish Sun, obviously the guy is not a native Scot, as you can clearly see from that grainy picture.
He is not of the complexion.
But he tried to get into a nursery and also a school before stabbing people.
And this is reported by multiple people who were witness to it, although the police have been very hesitant to admit this sort of thing.
And so the press has sort of been reporting on it without any police confirmation.
But I think that if multiple independent members of the public have said so, I think that that's pretty reliable.
And then there was another attack which we'll be getting into, which ties into a much greater theme of, I think that a second Southport is inevitable at this point because we've had two knife attacks in two days, stabbing multiple people, and both of which they were outside of schools.
The way the not only the police, but also the way some intelligence communications are framed, they are treating it as it's not a matter of if it happens, but when.
And I think that there's lots of preparation going on behind the scenes that the public are not privy to for a retaliation to that fact.
Because I think what these institutions fear the most is, well, Southport in 2024, all the riots following that, the police were stretched pretty much to their capacity across the country.
There were riots in over 20 different towns and cities across the country, and they couldn't cope with it.
And so this obviously raised major alarm bells.
You don't want there to be widespread disorder.
And so I think that they're clearly going through the motions of preparing for it.
They might even be telling the media to miss out certain details and things like that.
There are certain omissions of details that you would think would be included, even by biased left-wing press that are not.
I showed an article yesterday, if you recall, Stelios, from the BBC, talking about those two people that were accosting those two Scottish girls, you know, the one with the knife and the axe.
And when the BBC reported on the people being arrested, it gave as little information as humanly possible.
And then, if I remember correctly, the Daily Mail of all publications did that article trying to make it seem as though the people doing the filming of that video were just innocents.
Didn't do nothing.
There was quite a lot of that, actually.
Model immigrants.
So I wouldn't be surprised given the precarious state of the country, whether media institutions and certain institutions outside of that as well are being given instructions to try and keep the language tone down, try and stop people from getting too angry because obviously these problems are preventable, they make people angry.
And as we saw in 2024, it's enough to push people to demonstrate on the street.
And people have rightfully pointed out, and I found this interesting, that even trying to look up the latest stabbing is difficult because of the sheer number of articles about people getting stabbed.
So this person was trying to look up this one about Birmingham that I'm going to go into today.
And it's hard to find it because there are so many different cases.
And of course, this is something that wasn't a problem in Britain until mass migration.
We, you know, it was within our living memory.
And, you know, we might have been younger, but do you remember hearing about stabbings all the time?
I didn't.
It was a very rare thing, but it did occasionally happen in my town, and it did only ever include or only ever involve migrants.
I don't remember.
There was an infamous machete attack back in 2011, but of course, now this is kind of like national news every single day.
It barely registers.
Where I grew up down in Devon, obviously, not much migration there.
It's all very white British.
And we just associated stabbings with London.
We thought it was only a thing that went on in London, and that's what we thought.
So we didn't worry about it.
But obviously, the way things are going now is spreading out to everywhere because of the county line drug gangs and things like that, which are largely foreign-run, aren't they?
I mean, it's a mixture of different ethnic gangs.
Well, I think one of the more important things to notice from what you're talking about here is that given what we know about previous media responses and government responses to this, the response is never to see how they can prevent an attack like this in the future.
It's about policing the reaction to it.
It's a public relations campaign is that they all is what they always have to do.
Micromanagement of decline.
It certainly is.
And it's set up to the point whereby you're just expected to accept that this is now a problem that you should live with.
And that's not something you should ask of people.
Just live with unspeakable, unthinkable crimes that if you had the country to yourself wouldn't be going on.
And it is absurd.
And I want to add something is that crimes do happen.
I mean, I'm not a utopian.
Crimes do happen.
But what you want to see is the state being, in a sense, there for you, communicating to the citizens that at least I'm going to try and make the place safer, the country safer.
And that there is going to be a sort of comeuppance to those who will commit crimes.
This is what isn't taking place.
Sorry.
It's unfortunate timing.
No, at the minute, you've got a situation whereby even if you defend yourself with sufficient force to make sure that you're no longer under threat, that could lead you to a situation where you're arrested.
And we'll be talking about that a little bit more.
But back in August, some legislation came into effect to ban ninja swords.
And this has done the square sum of absolutely nothing to curb knife attacks.
Clearly, the ninjas are still at large.
And I mean, they are difficult to catch.
They're, you know.
Little ninja costumes designed to elude the authorities.
But anyway, what I wanted to draw attention to is this latest incident where it happened in Alamrock in Birmingham.
Of course, it's Birmingham.
And I'm going to read what the police have said, and then I'm going to fill in some of the other details because, as I've alluded to already, the police reports are very sparse on details.
And of course, part of that is just because they don't want to release information that might interfere with the case, which is perfectly reasonable.
But also, I think that they're being a lot more careful about certain details that they're disclosing, because I've read innumerable police reports about incidents, and they used to give you a little bit more than this.
So they said, we've arrested a man after another man was stabbed in Alamrock this afternoon.
We were called to Bridge Road after that time following reports of a man had been seriously injured.
Firearms officers were deployed to the incident as part of our response.
A 32-year-old man has been arrested in connection with the stabbing and is currently in police custody.
A woman also sustained injuries not believed to be life-threatening or life-changing.
A number of firearms officers, uniformed and plain clothed, attended the incident today.
And then they carry on talking about various other things.
It's not treated as terror-related.
This is coming up constantly.
They said the same thing about that incident in Scotland, and they also suggested that there was no clear motive and these stabbings were random.
So if it's not terror-related, it still has the character of a terror attack in that they're not targeting specific people.
They're going after passers-by.
And this happened as well in Nottingham, didn't it?
With Valdo Callocane, that guy who was released from mental health care and within 11 minutes was committing crime.
That's what a recent report found out.
Well, it's difficult not to count it as terror adjacent if some of these attacks are taking place near or at nurseries and primary schools.
Whether or not they're part of larger cells or part of larger coordinated attacks doesn't really matter.
If the intention is that if we have these people dispersed throughout the country, there is just a certain understanding from the government that they are going to try to attack children.
They're going to try and break into primary schools and attack people.
Remember only a few months ago when there was, I believe, Callum from Epping, there was more situations where a migrant had tried to get into a primary school in or around Epping, and when locals were looking around the local area, found that in a field in a forest behind the school, that migrants had just set up tents and sleeping bags and were sleeping behind there.
It's really strange, isn't it?
The understanding from the intelligence, domestic intelligence, seems to be shrugging their shoulders and saying, yes, we'll do what we can to maybe try to prevent some of these larger, more coordinated terror attacks, but random acts of terror committed by lone, insane individuals is just something that has to happen now.
Yeah, and I think there have been a number of cases where they have actually foiled attacks, and I think recently there have been a few prominent ones as well.
So it's not to say that they're not doing anything, but it's more that they're more concerned about the reaction to the attacks having a destabilizing effect on the country than solving the problem once and for all, which means, of course, removing the people doing it.
This is what makes Operation Scatter, as it has been deemed the use of HMOs and Circo and other organizations attached and contracted by the government.
Even more disturbing is the knowledge, is that to a certain extent the people doing this understand that this will be a consequence of it?
Well, if it can happen anywhere in the country, it all of a sudden has a tremendous amount of power over ordinary people that understand that.
Classic anarcho-tyranny.
Like there's the example of that attack in rural France, where it's a town of 150 people and a group of about 15 Islamists turned up and just started stabbing people and they murdered a 16-year-old boy.
That sort of thing is the kind of thing that lingers with people because now they realize that nobody is safe.
Nothing can go untouched by migration.
And that's the same sort of situation that we're going to find ourselves in here very soon, I think.
So the BBC adds a few extra details, but not very much.
It mentions that a nearby school had to go in lockdown, and also a nearby nursery was also placed on lockdown.
This could just be precautionary.
Maybe they are trying to learn some lessons from Southport and trying to lock schools down before people get to them.
Maybe it's just a coincidence that in two days there have been two attacks outside of schools.
I mean, it's not like schools are uncommon, but I think it's unlikely given the probability of this happening.
And also the nature of the attacks is that they seemed, at least in the first one in Scotland, seemed a little bit more random.
The second one could have been maybe gang-related, which we'll talk about in a second.
So there is a video of the incident.
This is labelled as graphic content, but is just a picture of the scene.
So I don't know why it's done that, but just in case, I'm not going to play it if it's getting flagged automatically.
But you don't see anything.
But there is a video where you can see an ethnically sub-Saharan man stabbing a man on the ground.
I heard from locals to the area that the guy on the ground was an Afghan.
I haven't been able to confirm that, so please take that with a grain of salt.
But that might suggest that it was maybe an inter-ethnic rivalry in some capacity, maybe gang-related.
It's entirely possible.
We know that these two groups run gangs.
But we need more information first before we know for certain.
I don't really know.
But apparently the Afghan who was on the ground, Afghan in quotation marks, was hospitalized with serious injuries and then they eventually succumbed to their injuries, meaning they died.
And so at least one person has been killed here.
And also a woman was injured.
Presumably non-fatal from what I've been able to gather.
Which is also interesting because if it was a gang thing, I don't think a woman would have been targeted.
So this seems to suggest something else, which is enough reason You know, keep focus on this because if it's a gang dispute, then it's unfortunately not that unusual and not politically that interesting beyond obviously solving gang crime.
But there's enough reason here to be suspicious, I think.
And it's also worth mentioning that the laws of probability suggest that maybe it could just be a gang thing because as I've pointed out many times, black Londoners are only just 13% of the population, but are responsible for 61% of knife murders, which this was and 63% of gun crimes.
And of course, as you've covered before, you've got the drill gangs and that sort of thing.
Probability And Gang Activity00:09:27
Yeah, that's mainly in London, but in places like Birmingham, I'm sure there's other gang activity where it's probably equivalent.
Young people will be involved in these gangs.
They'll be going to their schools.
If it is taking place outside of a school for a reason, it's not just a coincidence, then it might even be inter-gang rivalries within the schools themselves because we have seen that in London, children as young as 13 years old stabbing their classmates over post-code gang-related rivalries.
By the way, one of the senior members, maybe one of the founders of the Black Lives Matter movement, was accused by a woman that he was embezzling funds and they fought and it's on camera.
And actually, she kicked him.
He didn't manage to kick it.
It goes straight to the top of the bank.
Yeah, but he went violent.
And the other thing I want to say, when it comes to the mental illness talking point, I think it's ridiculous and infuriating.
It's somewhat redundant, isn't it?
Yeah, because you've got to be mentally ill to do that in the first place.
So ignore that explanation.
You need a deeper one, don't you?
It's not just that.
It's that I know many mentally people who do have conditions and they're now violent.
Right?
Number one.
And number two, if someone who does possess, who does have conditions that constitute mental illness in the eyes of the law and goes and kills people, then that's not an excuse for having them roam free.
Well, it's even worse, really, because it means that no matter what you do, chances are they're not going to recover.
Because if you've got a mental illness that's severe enough that it can lead you to kill people, you're too far gone.
There's no rehabilitating that person.
Yeah, that's just an excuse that they're using as a talking point.
I very much agree.
And it's quite frustrating, really, because it's not a motive.
Like, also, what aspect of their mental illness, what mental illness?
Maybe it's just the psychologist in me that wants to know, but I think that the public deserves more transparency over these sorts of things.
What of questions of different ethnic groups suffering different rates of mental illness, like schizophrenia?
Like schizophrenia in the United States, for example, blacks are 2.5 times more likely to suffer from it than whites.
And so that seems to suggest that there's a predisposition in that ethnic group, which has been corroborated across the board, both in Africa, America, and Europe, which seems to suggest that it's got some sort of physiological basis.
But just to carry on and look at some other stories that have been in the news that were sort of clouding my ability to even research the Birmingham one, there was this one.
Two more teens arrested over mosque stabbing death.
Because they were 17, we don't know who they were or what their backgrounds were.
But the person who was injured was Zishan Afzal, 18.
And we know from the Southport riots that the police instruct people to leave their weapons in the mosques with the imams for whatever reason.
I don't know why they get this double standard.
They get to walk around with machetes and just say, please put them back off.
Whereas, you know, if you get caught with a penknife in Britain, which we'll be looking at, you might get prison time, which is absurd.
Here's another one as well.
Police name the victim killed in stabbing attack.
There's another person here killed in a stabbing.
I think this one was in a skate park, yeah, Northampton.
Here's another one.
This was end of February.
Man charged with murder following fatal stabbing in Wimbledon.
I think we might have touched on this one.
Wimbledon, of course, London.
But it used to be a nice area at one point.
But the point is just how frequent these things are, as well as the fact that a lot of these seem to be ethnic grudges and things.
Like, for example, the victim is called Luke Brereton.
The perpetrator, Amar Zafar.
So you don't need to be a genius to infer the ethnic dimension here.
Biblical name.
But they're saying of Cambridge Grove Road, Kingston.
That's still in London, isn't it?
But it carries on here to the point whereby stabbings are so common now that members of gangs have taken to wearing chainmail to carry out hits on one another because they expect each other to carry knives.
And of course the gang thing is separate to the sort of terror-related thing, but it muddies the water in trying to understand what is gang crime, what is a madman on the loose looking to harm innocent people.
And I think that one thing that we're losing by the media and the police being so sensitive about not encouraging Southport Riots 2.0 is that they're not telling what the difference is.
And what they're unwittingly going to do is raise the temperature because every stabbing is going to be seen as, well, this could have been another potential Southport.
But you need the details to sort of properly calm the temperature.
And we're not getting given them.
So all they're doing is in the absence of any information, allowing people's minds, you know, this is a charitable interpretation, it could be perfectly valid, but allowing people's minds to fear the worst and assume that this sort of thing is going on and the authorities are covering up for it, which given the situation is the last thing you want to be doing because that only further alienates people and makes people feel like there is no legal solution to the problem we're facing, which makes people more likely to riot.
And so it's self-defeating, even if that's what they're intentionally doing.
And yes, we basically return to a medieval meta by having knife crime run so rampant that people are using Crusader chain mail.
And I wanted to point out that if there is another Southport 2.0 sort of thing, another repeat of that incident, that if the riots kick off again and the police can't cope with things, the British population has been basically persecuted for petty things that shouldn't be crimes in the first place.
I've got an example here of a caravaner was prosecuted for having a Swiss army knife in his glove box in his vehicle to cut up fruit for picnics, which, you know, this guy is 61 years old.
Does he look like a person who's going to use a knife to kill people?
I don't think so.
I think some leeway should be needed at the very least.
But this is the state of play for British people, whereas you have instances like this.
This was Carl when the riots were going on, 7th of August 2024, with a screenshot of someone, clearly an older Islamic man who just has a sword and he's ready to go.
And as we saw from Southport, they all turned up with machetes and significant bladed weapons at the very least.
They were treated with kid gloves.
They were told to leave their weapons in the mosque.
And so if things like this, something like this does happen, what is going to happen potentially is that there's going to be another considerable backlash.
We don't know for certain, but it could happen.
And then people like him are going to come out in large numbers because they believe their community is going to be targeted or blamed for it.
Maybe the people are right to blame their community for it.
Who knows?
Well, the second it happens, they're ready to come out with blades and knives and all sorts of weapons.
And then they have institutional protection as well.
It's not an unreasonable for people to jump to.
When you mentioned the Southport thing, I believe that what you're talking about with them being asked to put their weapons back in the mosque, that was taking place in Stoke.
It was.
riots and stoke going on and i think i mentioned at the time but it's worth reminding people that the guy in the video who was part of the stoke police force who told them to put their weapons back in the church sorry in the mosque uh looked ginger So he looked white enough.
I know from a guy who was actually in the force at the time that that guy was not an English or British ginger.
He was a ginger jihadi.
Every time.
Yeah, so this is one of the other threats that gets piled on top of it, which is institutional capture, infiltration by people who are more sympathetic to their group and tribal and religious loyalties than to law and order.
And of course, law and order is managed largely by the Home Office, and the Home Office has a very large Islamic contingent.
And so if things like that go on, they're going to be using their power in that institution to lobby for their own in-group, which is perfectly predictable.
But if this sort of situation is allowed to happen again, I don't think it's going to be quite as peaceful as last time.
And in fact, it could be a case of tit-for-tat violence, as often happens in, say, the United States, where it's a downward spiral of increasing escalation.
Institutional Capture Threat00:03:54
But rather than the left and right, as in the United States, it'll be with different ethnic groups.
And that seems to be just a matter of time now.
I hope it doesn't happen.
I don't want any bad things to happen to anyone.
But nothing is being done to address the root cause of these problems, and so it makes them inevitable.
All right.
We've not got any screens available down here, Samson.
So can you put any rumble rants that we may have received?
Here we go.
Do you want to read through some of that?
Of course.
That's random name.
Says, loving the Restore Britain coloured suits, gentlemen.
Your look's especially good, Harry, as it contrasts with your crimson hair.
Thank you.
I prefer Flaxen.
I didn't even mean to go for the Restore Blue, but yeah, it's just a wonderful bit of synchronicity.
Yeah, although Stelios, I must say, is edging a little bit too close to reform for my liking.
He's got a Mediterranean store.
I'm above politics.
Stellios' preparation for this podcast.
I've moved on.
I'm transcendent.
Yeah, your preparation for this podcast was having a cigarette, coffee, and a little snooze at a lakeside cafe.
Sounds good to me.
Where do I sign up?
Tom Ratt says, I learned earlier this week that race riots that hit leads in the 90s were actually an internal scrubble between rival Pakistani drug gangs that outgrew the instigating parties.
Yeah, I actually wrote about this at one point.
It's very interesting when you go far back.
I remember the first mention of no-go zones was, I think it was in Leeds.
And they were actually instituted to protect the white population from the Pakistanis, which is an interesting detail that the first sort of no-go zone that was informal at least existed in that way.
I mean, all of these riots have such awful mythologies attached to them that don't represent reality at all.
It's like if you read Peter Hitchens' abolition of liberty, the Brixton race riots of the early 1980s were all instigated, if I remember from the top of my head, by the fact that the local community was upset with the police arresting a drug dealer.
And then when the riots started, the local community just happened to have like stockpiles of bricks and weapons to throw at the police ready and waiting to go.
Bit of a condemnation of the community if they do that.
If you're ready for a riot, then that's a bit of a question.
That's Random Name says, if the system wants to de-radicalize people, they would act actual justice whenever something like this happens.
I entirely agree.
The best way to contain people's anger is to solve the problems.
Who'd have thought?
You guys and the lads at Restore are actually the ones trying to de-radicalize people.
Yeah, well, I don't want people to go out and get hurt.
A radical anti-Fed post from Random Name for whatever.
Yeah, well done.
We're proud of you.
They say again, and by de-radicalize, I mean you guys are advocating for actual justice and real solutions to our problems, which is the only thing that can de-radicalize people.
Yeah, I agree.
I don't want people to be radical to the point where they don't believe in political solutions anymore.
That's a dark place to be.
That's a random name.
Mental illness is used as an excuse because the leftoids running the system genuinely think that not being white is a disability.
I mean, that's actually quite true.
Look at the court decisions where because some black kid has too low an IQ, he can't be held responsible for his actions, even though he's murdered someone.
Or Chigdor says, what do criminals care about laws, especially when the system doesn't enforce?
And yes, we see what you're trying to do there, Random Name.
Please do not do that in the chat.
Streisand effect, Harry.
I'm just saying, just to make it clear.
Supporters Diverge00:15:12
Anyway, let's go on to the next segment, please.
All right, so on this podcast, over the years, we have generally been seen as supporters of populist politics and populist parties.
We have supported Maloney back in 2022 and 2023 when she was first rising.
Obviously, there was skepticism, but there was general enthusiasm surrounding her.
We were supportive of reform as an anti-uniparty vote in 2024.
But now I do think it's time to look back on some of those parties and examine the results outside of the rhetoric, as we have done a number of times with Maloney herself.
But it's time to go back and look again at the results now that we've got a bigger picture and see that she has enacted what I'm calling the Maloney wave, which is the result of the fact that whether or not you agree with populist politics, populist parties have this tendency to talk a big game, talk a lot about illegal immigration, but then open the floodgates to legal immigration.
Recall, of course, that Boris Johnson was elected on somewhat of a populist ticket back in 2019 and then enacted the Boris wave.
And I worry in the future that if there were to be a 2029 reform victory in parliament, a majority reform parliament in 2029, that we would get what some would describe as the Farage wave off of the back of it.
And that may be legal immigration.
It would most likely be legal immigration because frankly, a lot of these populist parties seem to be funded by foreign policy interests and big business interests who are always eager for foreign adventurism to create more refugees and more legal immigration to push down wages.
But also because, again, they are very supportive of stuff like this.
So this is a recent report in the Telegraph talking about Britain bracing for a surge in Iranian asylum seekers.
Migration experts, according to the subheading, say that people fleeing the conflict and an estimated 2.5 million displaced Afghans in Iran could fuel a new migration crisis.
And that is a ridiculous number.
We knew that millions of Afghans had gone into Iran following the fall of Kabul, but 2.5 million more of them might be coming straight for Europe as a result of this conflict that's going on in Iran right now.
Now, this has been a question.
The conflict between Pakistan and of course the other conflicts in the region, but this seems to be the one that people are focusing on right now.
There are always conflicts in the Middle East, but particularly when it's a huge one with someone like Iran, the first question that should be on everybody's mind is, how is this going to end up with millions more people coming into Europe?
Because that is always the response.
And to tie into what you were saying, the frustrating thing with a lot of these centre-right parties that are offering solutions is that what they do is they curb perhaps some of the worst excesses, if not, you know, exceeding all expectations and having more immigration than ever before.
But Even if they tackle the worst excesses, what actually ends up happening is that they preserve the system as it is and allow it to continue in a way that had they just done nothing, it might have ended sooner and therefore in the long term might actually be better.
So it's frustrating because what they're effectively doing is breathing new life into a regime which they say they oppose and yet what they're doing in reality is making it carry on for longer.
I've seen it many times.
Whenever I see maximalist demands and rhetoric, I just instantly think that something's going wrong.
Well again, as I'm saying don't look back in anger if you look back.
A lot of these parties seem to be very entrenched with big business interests.
And big business interests on a kind of monopolized corporate nation level do want mass migration for economic purposes.
They want it so that they can keep wages low.
They want it so that they can ensure that there is a kind of freedom of movement of human capital so that they can just shift people from one place to another for whatever needs capital needs at the time.
Either way, we look to how reform have been handling this and reform have been hugely like there's they've been very critical of Starmer's government for not going all in as soon as possible with American involvement with the Iran war, supporting Israel, supporting America.
They've been highly critical.
And when asked questions about this on LBC of all places, just a few days ago on the 1st of March, Richard Tice was asked the question: if this goes wrong, depending on how the situation develops, would you welcome Iranians here on small boats?
And I'll just see if we can get a little bit of this clip so we can get some of Tice's answer.
The people there, it will be very risky for them.
Clearly, they will be risking life and limb to take up arms or who knows what against their own government, which is armed to the teeth and has been embedded in that country for half a century.
Given that, therefore, if they attempt that and it goes wrong and people have to flee, would we welcome those refugees to our shores?
Would you think we should?
I think from everything I'm hearing, actually, the likelihood is that Iranian dissidents will want to go back to Iran to help Iran.
Sure, but if the revolution goes wrong, all of that, in a sense, is to look at over the coming months.
What we must hope and give support is for the Persian people, the Iranian peace-loving people, hard-working people, to give them the maximum opportunity to get their country back.
I mean, Iran, I just only mentioned it because we already have a reasonable flow of refugees from Iran.
Iran, in fact, was the third most common nationality of refugees on small boats in 2025.
That is a true statistic.
It's also worth noting that in the Center for Migration Control statistics that get released as well when they look through ONS data, Iranians that come over as refugees do also tend to rank quite highly in the sexual assault statistics in this country as well.
And there's no reason to believe that masses of people fleeing this war would behave any differently.
But the issue is whether or not those Iranians in small boats because our deep concern is that actually some of those have links to the regime looking to spread anti-Semitism.
Within Iran, there are those who are part of the regime who are very bad.
And there are those who are good people.
And we should be supporting the good people.
And you've just got to have the courage to tell it as it is.
And should we support them?
If, as I say, if this revolution, which you're backing, goes wrong, you would welcome them if it's not.
Will appear on small boats.
Let's back it to go right.
That is what we've got to be totally focused on.
As you say, there are bumps in the road.
There will be bumps in the road, and you keep supporting good people.
That's what you do.
It's a complete non-answer.
It's a politician's answer is what that is.
It is a politician's answer.
Of course, the actual reality of the matter is by his own standards, supporting good people, if, as Goodall, of all people, I'm having to sort of like side with him in this.
And I hate when situations like this happen, but he's the one speaking sensei.
It's a good job questioning.
Yeah, if the war goes wrong and the mullahs, the IRGC manage to retain power and then end up persecuting people within Iran who were supporting American and Israeli action over there.
And if we were to get involved, as we certainly would under a reform government right now, if we were supporting them as well, obviously those people would be persecuted.
They would attempt to flee the country.
By his own standards of supporting good people, then Richard Tice would have to let these flows of people in.
And even worse than that, we have the case study with what happened in Afghanistan.
And we have the guy who let all those Afghans in, Robert Jenrick, in the reform government right now.
Well, the shadow cabinet right now.
So there is no situation where this war wouldn't, if it goes wrong, wouldn't result, even if it goes right, it will still end up with people coming over here because regime change is very messy.
He didn't say no, did he?
That's one thing you've got to know.
It is very messy.
But the thing is, the next elections are in 2029.
And we are going to have Starmer for a long time.
And it's not like this migration flow has stopped.
So at this moment, three and a half years before the next election, Thai saying this and saying, let's back the people who want to change the regime.
I don't see how he is saying that in that case, if this fails, the migration flow is going to be any different to the one that already exists.
So this isn't that it does.
The point is that it's not that there isn't already a migration flow right now, but somehow there is zero, and because of what happens in Iran in Iran, it's going to increase.
Nobody's saying that there's zero.
What we're saying is that my point is that this migration flow already exists.
Okay, and it can be increased if a situation like this were to cause chaos in the region, which it absolutely would.
And what we're looking to is checking their attitudes now so we can see what they will do in the future.
We can use this to predict what these people will do in the future.
Again, people are always trying to second guess these kind of populist politicians and look back on 2016 at Brexit and say, we never knew that Brexit under Boris Johnson could lead to something like the Boris wave.
When you can go back to 2016, you see Nigel Farage saying at the time, we want to use Brexit to stop EU migration so that we can get more non-EU migration from across the Commonwealth.
Boris Johnson at the time saying the exact same thing.
These people, if you listen to what they're saying outside of media spin calling them all Nazis, do tell you exactly who they are and what they're planning on doing.
And what I'm hearing from this is a man who is desperately trying not to say what they would do, which is, of course, they would let millions of people in.
Of course they would let tens of thousands of people in in a situation like that.
And we have to consider this for the future because it will be all so predictable.
And the antidote to this is just not getting involved in geopolitical events that are nothing to do with us.
Because as I see it, the correct position is that Britain has no involvement with Iran.
We're not next to it.
We have no need to interfere in what's going on there.
It's basically none of our business.
And if you intervene, it makes you more obligated to then take the refugees as a consequence of your intervention in the first place.
I say, you know, don't get involved in the first place.
Don't take the refugees.
And anyway, why shouldn't they have to stay and fight for their own country anyway?
I don't understand.
Obviously, women and children know, but most of the time the refugees we're taking are young fighting-age men, which is not good for us or Iran, really, in the long term.
Well, either way, of course, that's my predictions going off of some of the things that are being said by the reform team at the moment.
There was also the clip that went out right before we came on, where it was a former Labour Party member who's now defected to reform at one of their conferences saying that he loves migration, he loves the culture that they bring in, he loves the food, etc., etc.
Reform just seem to have reformed the establishment.
That's what I'm seeing from this party and can predict what will happen in the future as a result of it.
Of course, there are some reports coming out as well saying that it's too soon to know if the Middle Eastern war will affect small boats' arrival, according to other experts.
This one being Dr. Madeleine Sumption, director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, saying it remains unclear how much latest unrest will affect asylum trends.
She said it's too soon to know how the conflict in Iran will affect the number of people fleeing.
If there is another violent crackdown, this could push more people to leave.
If there's a change in regime, some people who feared the previous government might feel safer, but instability and conflicts could emerge as new groups wrestle for power.
This makes the situation for refugees unpredictable.
And that just seems to be dancing around the subject that in any eventuality there, it seems that obviously there will be people fleeing the country in its numbers.
And of course, Turkey has interests in the region as well.
And we know that the Turks are very keen on weaponizing the refugee crises to send them over to Europe to destabilize the continent because it's in their interest to do so, particularly Greece, as Stellias, I'm sure, is more than aware.
And so I do wonder whether the Turks will be deliberately mopping up refugees to then send our way.
Which are they already?
Yeah.
Which they already did.
And of course, none of this is to excuse the party that is still in power right now.
They are all, as far as I'm concerned, part of the same establishment.
It's all continuations of similar policies, just at different levels of speed.
So there was this report that came out just the other day that the Home Office awarded over 800,000 long-term visas in 2025.
Only 20% of those were work visas.
That was the Labour government.
Meaning that, you know, the rest of them will be student visas or family visas, temporary visas, indefinite leave to remain potentially as well.
So who knows how many of those people are just going to be sticking around forever?
It's worth mentioning as well.
A work visa doesn't necessarily mean someone's going to be a net tax contributor either.
And so the number of net tax contributors amongst this portion of 800,000 is probably going to be a rather small minority of them, whereas we've just imported lots of financial burdens by the sounds of it.
Certainly.
And of course, the Labour government engages in the same kind of obfuscation and lying that all of the other parties do in a situation like this.
We've heard reports that net migration was down, down by a record amount last year in comparison to the past 14 years or so.
But when you actually examine the data, as people from the Office for Budget Responsibility have done, and Stephen Edgington sums up quite nicely here, net migration falling is actually a leading is actually leading to faster demographic change.
More British people are fleeing the country while the same number of people of my same number of migrants from the Third World are entering.
So this is actually just more British people going than less foreign people coming in.
That's why net migration is down.
Yes, which is a horrifying statistic to look at.
So that's what's going on over here with our situation.
What's going on in Italy?
Italy's Migration Blockade00:14:54
Now, of course, regarding the recent situation and war in Iran, Maloney has been very supportive of it.
She said, at this time, we're experiencing a new, dangerous international crisis.
Our thoughts cannot help but go to the Iranian women and girls facing prison and torture.
I have profound admiration for them.
There are no women's policies, but there is a female vision of politics.
There are no issues that are women's responsibility and other women's.
A multifaceted sensibility is always needed.
A woman isn't a woman just because she thinks like other women.
We haven't fought to move from being told what to think by men to being told what to think by ideological blocs.
We must defend freedom and merit.
And again, to me, this is all globalist world police, liberal globalism being exported across to countries across the globe in the Middle East.
This is the same sort of rhetoric.
We need to bomb them to secure their freedoms.
That's the kind of rhetoric that I'm seeing here.
But of course, the question then becomes, if you're so dedicated to women's issues and women's safety across the world, what is it that you're doing to protect women inside of Italy?
Well, last year we were reporting that there were statements about agreements made to issue half a million non-EU work visas over the next three years in Italy, and that was from 2025.
Now, the actual reporting of this was the headlines were a little bit misleading because it makes it sound that since Maloney came into power in Italy, only half a million came in, which would be bad enough given that it's non-EU.
This is the same sort of thing that we experienced in Britain with the Boris wave.
But as has been reported on a number of times elsewhere, that the demographic change in Italy is even worse because between 2023 and 2025, the government issued 450,000 permits as well.
So actually, if you tally up all of the numbers that are projected between 2023 and 2028, it will be almost a million people into the country through legal routes.
And we're starting to see this now because there was a recent report from the Telegraph as part of a five-part series that they're doing looking into Maloney's Italy that carries the headline, how Maloney quietly flooded Italy with migrants.
Now, remember, of course, that at the time when we were supportive of Maloney, when a lot of people on the populist right were very supportive of Maloney, it was being pushed on an anti-migration ticket.
The rhetoric that we were hearing was that she was going to use a naval blockade of the Mediterranean, she was going to keep the foreigners out, she was going to sort Italy out.
They were basically describing her as kind of the heir to Mussolini.
A new fascist Italy was about to emerge.
And of course, what ends up happening on the other end, you get neoliberal economic policies, neoliberal thinking being used to justify bringing in hundreds of thousands of people and potentially irreversibly changing the demographics of Italy.
And she has Mussolini's ineffectiveness.
That's true.
That's true.
It says here: a total of 164,850 people will be allowed in next year, aiming to reach a cumulative total of 497,550 new entries by 2028.
The second such move Prime Minister Georgia Maloney made since she took office nearly three years ago as the head of a right-wing coalition.
The government has already decided to issue over 450,000 permits to migrants.
The Reuters article, of course.
It actually goes on in this article to give the kind of like journalistic reporting that you get from somewhere.
You get the nice life story of these two migrant workers in Italy, Parwinder Singh and Bent Singh from India, working and living in Italy as part of the policy introduced by Georgia Maloney.
It says they're a long way from the parch fields and scattered villages of their native India after being taken on by an Italian dairy farmer, the latest beneficiaries of a policy quietly introduced by Giorgio Maloney's government to allow nearly half a million migrants to come legally to Italy over the next three years.
And they point out here the scheme appears paradoxical, at odds with Ms. Maloney's uncompromising stance against illegal migration.
But this is the thing: when you notice them always talking about illegal migration, they very rarely want to apply those same standards to legal migration because ultimately, having a neoliberal outlook on the world, these people see these two guys, they are not carriers of a separate culture or different values or visions of the world who have different relative rates of in-group preference and ethnic nepotism and narcissism.
No, these two people are simply economic Economic units to be shifted from one part of the plane to another.
There is no need to have any greater consideration for these people other than what will they do to the GDP.
And if business and think tanks and other interested parties say they will raise the GDP, well, great job.
You are let in.
If there's extra information as well, maybe suggesting that, like we see in Britain a lot, well, they also tend to bring over lots of dependents that then end up costing the state a hell of a lot of money on top of what these people are adding into the country, if they're adding much value at all in the first place.
Well, we'll just ignore that and shift it to the side because it's inconvenient to our narratives and it muddies the economic calculus just a little bit.
And it says here, it carries on saying she has forged controversial deals with North African nations to stop migrant boats crossing the Mediterranean, built a detention center in Albania from which to send failed asylum seekers back to their home countries, and threatened to impose a total naval blockade to stop illegal migrants from reaching Italian soil.
Great.
All pointless.
All rendered completely pointless by these economic policies.
And also, I know the case with the Albania base, they had problems whereby they, for the first few months that they were opened, they sent like one person and then they got sent back again.
And so I don't know how to do it all over again.
At least initially.
I don't know what state they're in now, but when they were set up, they were very ineffective.
But the question then becomes: why?
As I've mentioned, it's all due to a kind of neoliberal economic calculus.
They say why?
Because Italy's demographic crisis that has led to labor shortages.
It's quintessential Maloney, said one expert, pointing to how she's very tough on unauthorized migrants, but practical enough to realize Italy needs migrants if they come through legal channels.
And one of the interesting things is they talk a lot in this article about how Maloney has two faces.
She has the strict neo-fascist public face that she puts on when she wants to throw red meat out to her base.
We're going to blockade the Mediterranean.
We're going to send all the illegals back and we're going to put them in camps in Albania.
And then there's the actual Maloney behind the scenes who pushes all of these policies and lets these people in.
As far as I'm concerned, that's simply called lying.
It's also another issue.
It's just we need to talk a bit about populism.
In a sense, it's something that I believe is very intuitive.
Saying that the people should be sovereign, that a state should have the people's interests at heart.
I think that's generally speaking a good thing.
But when we are talking about also populist movements, most populists are retarded.
And they are just very frequently making lots and lots and lots of promises without even having done the homework.
Why?
Because One of the issues with populist movements is that it's easy to get into the rhetoric.
And if you're trying to dumb down the rhetoric, you're addressing a very low common denominator.
You are addressing from the get-go people who aren't that smart or aren't interested in nuance.
So when it comes to govern, you have to have an actual policy.
And when you govern for four or five years, four and five years in politics are a lot of things, are a long time.
All sorts of crises happen within a time span of four and five years.
So you also need to be a bit more flexible than the initial rhetoric is proposing.
By that, I don't mean that you need to constantly say that Europe should be Islamized or should be losing its European character.
I'm just saying that when we have a particular goal in mind, it's a good idea to actually do homework before people just go out and just scream and have this Rousseauian rhetoric of, you know, this is the general will.
Whoever is for the general will expresses what is the right of the people.
And if you disagree with this, you're just an enemy of the people.
And you're no, of course.
And so that's absolutely retarded.
What you also need to have, as shown by situations like this, is a plan for how you are going to rein in big corporate business interests who are going to want to use their influence in your party to allow for mass migration into the country because it helps their bottom line.
There have been a number of reports done which all show that in Europe, sub-Saharan Africans and Asians, and that's Asians from across the block except for maybe East Asia, tend to earn between 20 to 25% less than EU migrants and native workers.
Now, this will be spread out across a lot of different industries as well.
Yes, but one of the reasons that wages are pushed so low in these low-skill jobs that these people go to is because of the glut of labor that they bring in from foreign countries.
These people who don't care about the conditions that they're working in, who don't really care about the hours that they have to work, because anything is an improvement from whatever squalor that they're coming from in the first place.
And so you do have to take into account that, yeah, business loves free movement of labor.
It just makes the most economic sense.
That's why they love DEI is because they can lower the standards of the people they hire and justify bringing more cheap labor in, isn't it?
Yeah, and we can see an example of this here.
Their employer, these two's employer, Mr. Piccotti, is thrilled with Ms. Maloney's policy, as are employers across Italy's sectors struggling with labour shortages, from agriculture to tourism.
I'm sorry, could you imagine going to Rome and you're going to take a tour of the Colosseum and you have got this guy giving you the tour of ancient Italian history going back to Rome?
No, no, I don't like that.
I need an authentic actual Italian person to be doing such things to me.
He says, young Italians don't want to do this work.
They're too molly-coddled.
They stay at home until they're in their 30s, having their meals cooked and their laundry done for them.
So what you're saying is there's no economic incentives and there's no economic opportunity for them to make their own way in life.
So they do the most rational thing and don't bother at all.
This to me sounds like the typical kind of rhetoric that you hear from some guy who's just trying to justify why he hires the cheap foreigner.
This is exactly what you would expect to hear.
And if it is the problem that young Italians don't have enough incentives to go out and work, then you need to do something to give them the incentive to go out and work.
He carries on, the Indians, by contrast, are serious people.
They're willing to work 72 hours in a row with no break.
No, he doesn't say that part, actually.
Sorry.
He says they work hard.
They're diligent.
They're respectful.
If you ask them to turn up for work at 6 a.m., they turn up at 6 a.m. on the dot, not 6.30 a.m.
They never get angry with the animals.
They always stay calm.
That's important for milk-producing cows.
It's easy for a dairy farmer, isn't it?
You're dealing with cows from people who worship them.
Also, this is basically union-breaking rhetoric as well.
Obviously, I brought the foreigners in to break up the unions.
They just work so much harder.
They don't ask for rights because from where they're from, they don't even believe in rights.
So if Mussolini drew his power base from the unions and Indians are inherently anti-union, then Indian, the existence of India is inherently anti-fascist.
This is crazy implications.
This is the World War II post-war paradigm taken to whole new levels.
Under the Maloney Legal Migration Scheme, Mr. Piccotti has now requested the services of a third Indian worker who he hopes will arrive by April.
And of course, these people, they don't just come by themselves.
Even these people here are said to have brought their families over and to be raising their children in Italy as well, which presumably will mean that in the future they get the opportunity to just stay forever.
Because, oh, I've got family life, ECHR rules.
The government has understood that there's a need for these foreign workers and they're streamlining the whole process of allowing them to come into the country.
They've made it easier and faster.
Brilliant.
Many of the migrants from this new tranche of migrants coming in over the next three years, it says, will be assigned to seasonal farming work and will receive nine-month visas.
In theory, they must return home once the visas expire.
In theory, there is a way, the article goes on to say, however, in which they can apply for the nine-month visa to be extended indefinitely.
That's what we need because it doesn't make sense to have a worker arrive and give him all the training he needs only for him to have to leave the country and go home, said Mr. Piccotti, whose family has owned the farm since the 1960s.
And presumably at some point, he's planning on selling it to some big business interest anyway, so that he can go on cruises for the rest of his life once he decides to retire.
That's the attitude that I'm seeing from here.
Just a complete disenfranchisement of your people, throwing away of the entire legacy of an ancient and great civilization purely for the sake of cheap foreign labor.
And it's even worse when you look into the youth unemployment rate.
Now, this is typically calculated as between ages 15 or 16 and 24 and 25.
Typically is considered the youth demographic.
What's it looking like in Italy?
Well, it's hovering pretty consistently around 20 to 21 percent.
That's with current migration as well.
That's with current migration.
Danger in Education00:03:57
How many of these are going to be people who have come into the country recently?
But also, surely there is some kind of policy that could be formulated by the people in government to encourage these people to get to work, to go to work, because a high percentage of these themselves will be NEETs.
You can say, oh, well, a lot of that's going to be made up by people still in education.
No, typically, a huge number of the people included in these statistics are NEETs.
They're not in education.
I forget the other word.
Education, employment, or training.
So there is a huge unused demographic of labor that could be mobilized in Italy that just isn't.
And I would expect that part of it is because many of these people may have voted for the anti-migration party and then the anti-migration party just brought in a load of foreign workers to suck up all the work.
And then we move back to England.
And we see that as a result of these kinds of people coming in, increasing numbers of asylum applicants in the UK are from migrants who arrived via legal routes and not illegal ones.
And this is the danger of bringing people in on these limited work visas is that once the visa runs out, you can see the changes in the graph here.
Well, a lot of them just decide, no, I want to stick around.
I'm in danger.
I'm in danger if I go home.
Look at that.
Study, work or visit visa is massively taking up an extra chunk of the asylum claims in this country.
And they will take advantage of this system every single time, whenever and wherever they can.
Well, it provides a foot in the door, doesn't it?
Yeah, it's a wedge for them.
But this is why I am very skeptical and not sold on any populist parties right now, because they will big up the rhetoric, they will big up the base, they will throw out all the red meat, and then they will do this time and time and time again.
And until they can solve these kinds of problems, they are not a solution.
All right, let's go on to the Rumble Rance.
I hope that segment wasn't too long.
Oh, here we go.
Random name: the only way in which a politician should ever be allowed to start a war is being forced to send their kids to the front line.
They play with our lives as if this is a game to them.
Well, I mean, as recently as the First and Second World War, they did often do such a thing.
I mean, you could argue that in the Iraq war, you know, Prince Harry went off to fight it.
Was he in Iraq or Afghanistan?
I can't remember.
I think it was Afghanistan, but just double-check.
So, he did.
So, even as recently as those wars, there was still a level of honor involved in fighting it.
Yeah, he did two tours of Afghanistan.
Yeah, that was it.
Although he was, you know, as famously touted a spare.
That's true, but even then, he was on the ground and there were people.
Credit to him, of course.
He was in danger.
Obviously, in the First World War.
I mean, he was in an Apache helicopter.
Well, details, details.
I'm trying to be generous.
But I mean, in the First World War, the aristocrats' lineage was massively wiped out by all of their sons going to fight the war.
These days, that just doesn't happen.
It just doesn't.
Do you expect Richard Tice to be offering up any children that he has?
Do you expect Nigel Farage to be offering up any kids?
I don't know, but if he did, do you expect them to go, all right, time for you to do your duty, son?
No, I don't.
Habsification, the only acceptable form of migrants and asylum seekers are single, childless, really fit birds.
Random name again.
Love how Maloney tried to sound profound and philosophical when talking about women, and she ended up sounding like a schizophrenic.
And Gale says, funny you mentioned migrants doing tour guides in Rome.
Tyler Oliviera done a video on just that.
Terrorism And Sectarian Divide00:15:07
Yeah, and he got his Patreon taken down recently after that New York Jew video, which is quite unfortunate.
Anyway, let's go on to the final segment.
Of course, you can.
Thank you.
Blessed with the mouse.
Right, so many people have been cocked by the mullahs, politicians, and commentators as well.
And I want to talk to you a bit about this.
And I want to speculate about why this happens and what is behind it.
Right, so I did in the beginning of the year a segment about the protests in Iran where thousands of people have died by the regime.
Check it out if you want.
It was with Luca and Firas.
And here we have Trump obviously starting the Operation Epic Fury, he called it this Saturday.
And as we speak, it's, I think, the fifth day.
Today's Wednesday, isn't it?
Yeah, today's the fifth day.
By the time this is going to be released, it's going to be the eighth day.
It's going to be Saturday.
Is he not going to have a day of rest on the seventh day?
It's going to be the eighth when it's released.
I don't know.
Maybe the seventh is going to be a ceasefire, but I don't think that there has ever been a ceasefire lasting a day in the Middle East.
I don't think so.
I don't know.
Maybe that would be a record of something.
So we are going to talk about a lot of people, especially leaders from the European establishment.
Right here, Trump is again trying to justify what he's doing.
He says that the regime is evil.
And he mentions more than 35,000 people having died by the regime.
He says it's a very evil ideology.
And lots of European leaders went out and they said that they are not going to support him.
Now, let me be very clear.
It's not exactly clear what kind of support people are saying Trump asked for.
From what I've seen, at most, he asked from several people to use army bases, military bases.
So I don't think he has asked, for instance, Kier Starmer or Macron or Pedro Sanjez to put boots on the ground.
So Starmer, Sanchez, Macron, and others have proceeded to criticize Trump and to appeal to international law, saying that what Trump is doing at the moment is violating international law and human rights.
And I want to say that I see a pattern here.
The same pattern that these establishments are displaying when it comes to the domestic of their countries, with, for instance, crimes by radical terrorists and radical Muslim terrorist jihadists especially.
It's the same thing that they're doing when it comes to the international thing.
They are constantly appealing to law for criminals and for terrorists.
Criminals in the domestic, terrorists when terrorist hits happen, and terrorist regimes such as the one that Trump is waging war against right now.
I'm not sure if it's actually what is the case, but one potential explanation for this could be that Trump is obviously holding tariffs over Europe at the minute.
And one way to basically get back at him and have some sort of leverage against him to perhaps alleviate some of that pressure would be using institutions that are favorable to basically the European power base, which is, like you say, these human rights organizations and international institutions that are, you know, adorn themselves in this sort of language and these concerns about human rights of terrorists and the like.
And we know that they bat for them, so to speak.
And so maybe they're doing it purely to get back at Trump to have some sort of bargaining.
That's possible.
Although, given precedent, particularly with Keir Starmer and his time as a lawyer, I think actually you don't have to be too imaginative to imagine a world where he genuinely sticks up for these people out of principle rather than to any tangible advantage.
That is a charitable interpretation, and I'm not dismissing it.
I'm all out of charity myself.
Exactly.
Yeah, I'm all out of bubblegum.
Right.
And you already have homeless people.
So I'm not dismissing it.
I think, though, if we bear in mind the larger context, maybe we will ask ourselves whether he's basically cut by radical Islamists.
And I'm not putting all Muslims in the same category here.
There have been Muslims and officials from Muslim countries like the UAE who have said to European officials, like, what are you doing?
You're crazy.
You are letting in really bad people.
So I'm not going to put all the eggs in one basket, but I will notice that the kind of...
What's the name of it?
Is there the Islamic Council or something that Connor was reporting on quite a lot, having very deep ties with the Labour Party?
Muslim Council of Britain.
That was it, yes.
Yeah, it could be the case.
So here, Starmer is talking to several Muslims saying that they did not join the attack on Iran.
By that, I presume he means that he obviously hasn't put what's on the ground, but I haven't seen Trump asking him to do so.
So most probably he wants to highlight that he hasn't given the green light for British military bases to be used in the operation.
But he sort of changed the tune a few minutes before we went on air.
And what he said here is: what I was not prepared to do on Saturday was for the UK to join a war unless there was a lawful basis and a visible thought-through plan, which is a different formulation.
We'll see what's going to happen.
And Trump is suggesting that Starmer is pondering to Muslim voters on Iran.
I don't know because at the same time, you know, sorry to carry water for Keir Starmer here, but my contrarian nature dictates it.
But Iran isn't necessarily the most popular country in the Islamic world.
You know, anyone who knows anything about Islam is that, you know, there's Sunni and Shia, and they are not fans of one another.
And the Iranians are in the minority, globally speaking, being Sunni, aren't they?
Oh, no, they're Shia, sorry, the other way around.
And so a lot of the Sunni Muslims, which are most Muslim countries, oppose that sect of Islam.
And so they're not exactly the biggest defenders of Iran, necessarily, which is why you see countries helping Israel bomb them, for example, from the Islamic world.
It's not that they've suddenly betrayed their religious interests.
In fact, they're pursuing them just through a temporary ally.
Well, a lot of those Gulf states are already aligned with the US, which is why you've seen Iran immediately striking a lot of them.
But in this case, I don't think it's an issue of numbers, like saying that 85% of Islam is Sunni, 15 is Shia, and it's located in Iran.
I think this has to do with leadership.
I don't think the average, let's say, citizen of the UAE had a say over whether the UAE is going to back the US or not.
I think this has to do with Trump's geopolitical moves in the region.
It's not so much an issue of how many people.
But I do respect your argument here.
But one of the things I think that the Americans are trying to say here, especially the US, and we frequently hear Marco Rubio, JD Vance talking about these things, is just they need to see some, they say they want to see some hardline approach towards radical Islamism in Europe.
And the question is, if you say you want, for instance, to deport many people, why are you afraid to counter signal operation against one of the regimes that they name a terrorist regime,
which is one of the biggest funders of terrorism in not only the Middle East, but around the world, which would be one of the massive lobbies that would protest against any attempt to deport radical people.
So that's one of the questions also for the right wing of Europe is if you want to do deportations, people aren't just going to voluntarily go into an airplane, right?
There is going to be backlash.
So who's behind the backlash?
Could it be that particular regimes have funded it, have engaged in hybrid warfare when it comes to instrumentalizing migration flows, but also funding terrorist organizations?
So that's one of the worries that the Americans have.
We know that the Iranians were funding the Houthi rebels in Yemen who were able to disrupt shipping, which did have a tangible effect on Britain. is one example of them having a direct effect on our country, to be fair.
Here we have Macron backing Spain and declaring the UX strikes on Iran illegal as Europe wrings its hands over decisions to topple Tyron Khamenei.
And they're talking again, they're appealing to international law and human rights.
And in the same way that we mentioned Maloney before and the attempt to appeal to human rights when it comes to the women of Iran, that a sort of lukewarm approach towards violations of human rights and women's rights and safety, the safety of natives, the same comes here.
Whether, you know, Macron, Pedro Sanchez, Starmer, they are very cavalier with international law and human rights when it comes to criminals, terrorists, and terrorist regimes.
And they aren't exactly cavalier when it comes to the safety of their own people.
That's one of the questions that people ask and leads them to say that many of the countries in Europe have been completely cucked.
And I can sort of see it for Macron, to be honest.
I can sort of see it.
And let's move here to Spain.
Spanish PM Pedro Sanchez says to Trump, we're not going to be accomplices to something that is bad for the world and that is also contrary to our values and interests simply because of the fear of reprisals from some.
The question is here whether he is afraid of reprisals from radical Islamists in Europe.
And the same applies for Starmer and Macron and other leaders who are doing this.
Isn't he importing lots of people from that part of the world?
Exactly.
And he was criticizing X and Elon Musk for saying that he was completely misrepresented when it comes to the provision of citizenship and the right to work to more than a million of undocumented migrants.
Look at this article from France 24, not exactly the most right-wing media outlet.
It says here, why Spain is offering amnesty to half a million undocumented migrants.
Again, it's the same thing that we heard with Maloney.
It's the same thing that we hear with Spain.
I mean, we do also have to take into account that Donald Trump and his administration spent the entirety of January basically pissing off the entire European establishment.
And then Donald Trump going out of his way in some interviews to infer that Britain, for instance, didn't actually contribute any people or many people to the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And those that they did send, you know, they weren't on the front lines.
They kind of stood back a little bit.
You know, we basically had to do the whole thing.
Basically, lying.
He insulted the entire war effort that went on with Iraq and Afghanistan from the European perspective.
And then what comes with his hat in hand, insulting us again, asking for help this time.
So he's not set up the European establishment to want to come to America's help in this.
To some degree, I agree with you.
And I agreed we were on the same team when it came to Greenland.
And I was one of the people who called him out on this.
Yeah, I think it was a.
If, as it seems, some people are suggesting that the attack on Venezuela and securing their oil reserves might have been done in preparation, given that Marco Rubio and a few other people have made statements that seem to suggest that Israel was already planning on making an attack on Iran, that they did what they did in Venezuela to secure oil reserves and oil production for preparation for this, then at the same time as doing that,
maybe going out of your way to insult and antagonize a load of allies you knew you might need in a few months wasn't the best way of going of preparing for it.
I agree with you on this.
He was wrong to do this, and I called him out on it.
I was one of those who did.
I think he was thinking more about the midterms and galvanizing his base, who I think may be quite prone to sit on their backsides on election day.
That was needless, and I don't think it's a sensible point to make that the Danish government and its hold over Greenland is equivalent to the IRGC's hold of Iran.
Here we have Vox President Santiabo Goabascal, who is the deportations guy in Spain.
He says the Islamic regime in Iran and Venezuela have been financing the far left in Spain over the last 15 years.
That's why Pedro Sanchez is the Ayatollah's best friend in Europe.
And he is also talking about his calling for elections and he's saying that Pedro Sanchez is inflicting damage on Spain's image.
And I want to show you another politician, Irini Monte Irene Montero from Spain's MEP.
I think she's from the Podemos.
She's again putting forward this rhetoric that this was a needless operation.
Trump's Pro-Peace Messaging?00:07:30
There is no real threat or anything, and that Trump is the that the US and Israel, uh, she says, are currently the main threats, the security and stability of humanity at large.
She is the person who is saying that she's happy for Spaniards to be replaced.
It was going so well with what she said before, like withdrawing NATO and saying, I think we need to look at a broader perspective here because I understand that there are always two tendencies: one tendency is to be very inward-looking, the other tendency is to be very global-looking or focusing on the global perspective.
And I think if we focus on the global perspective, we will see that every country is affected by the world.
Every country is affected by things that happen in the world.
So, if I think that this is a question that people will have to answer, and that this is what I think Trump is trying to do here, he says that essentially the approach that Obama had, that Kamala has right now, Biden had before with the Iranians just didn't work.
So, the time for soft power is over.
And it's interesting to see that, you know, when Trump was elected, because lots of people are saying now Trump turned his back to his promises or something.
Remember, he was presented as the hard power candidate.
And also, he has Trump, to be fair, a lot of people have been mistakenly saying that he didn't sort of run on intervening in Iran, which isn't true.
He actually always has said he wanted to intervene in Iran.
Since the early 80s, I think.
Yeah, and so that is the case, although people associate him with being pro-peace because in his first term, he didn't start a war.
And generally speaking, he's been critical of intervention.
I think you can fault the Trump messaging in 2024 when there's literally posts from the GOP Twitter account with a big picture of JD Vance and Donald Trump saying, vote the pro-peace ticket.
I know they've a number of interviews with people like JD Vance saying that, oh, if you want to get the war ticket, then you vote for Democrats.
They've got Liz Cheney backing them, and you know what a neocon she is.
And he did explicitly say that he was going to be anti-war to try and win the libertarian vote as well.
That's why people like Dave Smith supported him at the time.
I think you can be critical.
I think his messaging on it has been contradictory, but the overwhelming thrust of the GOP messaging in 24 was largely anti-war, pro-peace.
I can put it like this then.
Because I'm a political commentator, I was aware that he was always committed to Iran, but for the general population and the electorate in the United States, he presented it as he was a pro-peace candidate.
I think that's basically not disagreeing with what he's saying.
But in that case, similar to the way that I described Maloney in the last segment, where she was talking out of both sides of her mouth.
I remember he was against forever wars.
So I will fault him if this turns into a forever war.
And also if the next, let's say, regime isn't going to be able to govern the country.
I think that's fair.
That would be a very bad.
I'm going to fault him if he puts al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group in charge like he did in Syria.
Please no.
Okay, so let's look at some other statements here, which I think shed light into what is happening.
The DSA stands against imperialist war and with the Iranian people.
Now, when I see this, I go ballistic and I'm completely infuriated and I have anger management issues.
As I've told you before, Josh, I had immense outbursts of anger because this is textbook commie propaganda nonsense.
First of all, this is just Mao talking.
It's like Mao is the anti-imperialist and the Soviet Union is the anti-imperialist.
And anything that is against Mao and the Soviet Union is imperialist.
That's this framing.
And also, one of the things is that you can't equate the Iranian people with the regime that right now governs Iran.
Wasn't it Marxist instability in Iran that created the conditions to have this Islamic takeover anyway?
I believe it was a leftist uprising that then the Islamists just took over.
Josh, I had your curiosity.
Now I have your attention.
Here we have, I think this is one commie in the US.
He says Iran is not just fighting a war.
It fights at the vanguard of world revolution against the entire global system.
Revolution is the ultimate law of the cosmos.
All things are destined to be forced upon the mercy of the premises.
Iran delivers the will of heaven to mankind.
Now, this is unusual language for a communist.
Yeah, it's a bit religious, isn't it?
Yeah.
So, Josh, who is this guy here?
Karl Marx.
Never heard of him.
No idea.
Right.
So, how is it that we can have theocrats and Marxists together?
I'll scroll down.
You can answer me while I'm scrolling down.
I mean, a lot of modern Marxists treat Marx's proclamations and his publications, even though most of them are wrote by Engels, as if they're divine proclamations from the Lord Almighty himself.
And that's how they talk about them, and that's how they proceed with their politics as these articles of faith.
I realized this when I spoke to radical left-wingers about economics, and I started talking about actual economics, and then they started talking about people deserve this, people deserve that.
And it's like, yeah, but how does it actually work?
And they're like, what?
Right.
So here we have the final words of the communist manifesto by Karl Marx and Engels, I believe, in 1848.
They were doing this during the revolutionary spring.
In short, the communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
Right?
In all these movements, they bring to the front as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.
Finally, they labor everywhere for the union agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
Yeah, we've seen this.
The communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.
They openly declare that their ends can only be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
Let the ruling class tremble at the communist revolution.
Blah, blah, blah.
Worker, working men of all countries unite.
So this thing here hasn't exactly worked well for the communists in the case of the Iranian Revolution.
This is one of the major incidents of 20th century history.
So you have to be, how should I put it politely?
Kamala Harris's Leftist Shift00:03:24
I can't.
But you have to be a massive moron to think that a theocrat is a revolution, a theocrat movement is a revolutionary movement, which shows actually that what they have is anti-Westernism, anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism, anti-Europeanism at heart.
That's their prime motivation.
They have zero sense of survival instinct, zero sense of self-preservation.
Well, they hate their country, they hate their people, and they hate themselves, and it manifests in everything they do.
Exactly.
And this is what precisely manifests in all these people here.
In Starmer, I think Macron, into Pedro Sanchez, in this Irini Montero, who is calling for the who was calling for the great replacement of the Spaniards.
Where is she?
She hid herself from shame.
Yeah, here she is.
We are dealt with a very unholy alliance between leftists who haven't understood that Khomeini massacred them and they still carry on being cocked by that regime and they are exporting this kind of alliance that they had in Iran domestically.
They're trying to export it internationally.
Well, I don't think it's going to work because I think the power of the United States missiles is going to far supersede the power of left-wingers saying, hey, join our coalition with this government that's going to last all of five minutes.
Yes, but we say this, but we have Kamala Harris, for instance, trying to completely go that leftist way.
And we have the left in the West being incredibly ecophobic.
And the people we mentioned in the segment who say Western civilization is irredeemable and it has to be destroyed by mass migration, by all this destruction and liquidation of culture, they're for this.
And Kamala Harris was really close to becoming the president of the United States.
It's scary if you think of it that Trump won her, but it wasn't a kind of Nixonian oregano landslide.
There are millions of people who voted for Kamala Harris.
And you also have people like Fuentes saying vote for Kamala Harris.
But maybe he's going to get 300 people to do so.
I think what he's trying to do there is trying to drag the Republican Party to the right by saying we're going to deny you votes.
I don't know whether that will work, but it'll be interesting to see what happens.
It is more difficult in a country like the US where there is a greater monopoly on the two-party system than it is in a place like Britain.
Obviously, it was very, very difficult in Britain to break outside of the Conservatives or Labour.
But as much as I think that they are just becoming the establishment again, the rise of a party like Reform and now recently Restore, even on the far left with the Green Party gaining in popularity, does show that you can get outside of just pure Labour conservative thinking in a way that you basically just can't in America.
It's just Republicans, it's Democrats.
Looking Forward to Weimar00:03:06
And I don't see that changing either.
There's too much elite capital invested in keeping it a two-party system for it to change.
All right, then.
Shall we get the Rumble Rants up for this one and then we can quickly go through comments and videos.
And would you like to read, I think...
Absification.
I'm wondering, why are they trying to appeal to their Muslim bloc voters when the majority of Iranians hate Islam?
Yeah, every every Iranian I've met has not been, you know, they've been religious in name only, really, in that they'll say that, you know, they're Islamic, but actually they drink alcohol and they're pretty westernized as far as it goes.
But it's the regime that they don't want to count signal.
And I, at least from the people I've met from the Iranian diaspora, the overwhelming majority of them are against the regime.
The Habsification before this war, Iran was barely 30% Muslim and 50,000 of their 75,000 mosques closed down because nobody went there.
No one fasts during Ramadan in Iran.
That's a random name.
Harry's trying to be generous to another fellow Ginger who's also named Harry no less.
Coincidence.
Hashtag.
No hashtag.
Listen, gotta stick with my brothers.
It's a known conspiracy in the Lotus sphere that Harry will side with a ginger no matter what.
Yeah, that's me and Cameron.
Stick together forever.
We stick together.
We get to say gingers, you've got to say ginger.
You know, ginger is our word.
Go ahead.
Harry.
Seeing the preview of your part two of the history of the gay rights movement?
So you deserve another Sakura video.
Thank you.
Looks like you've done another deep probing study.
No.
Getting to the bottom of the movement.
Oh, dude.
We've been plugging away at this.
Taking it on the chin, no matter how hard the subject is to swallow.
I'm sure the field work has been substantial and left you with a load of information that will likely fill many more episodes.
Masterfully done.
Beautiful.
Just put the research interests gaze in Weimar.
I'm okay.
Sadly, the Hope Not Hate report came out today, State of Hate, and it didn't list me as a civil rights and gay rights expert next year after this.
And hopefully the Weimar one is out by this time next year.
Hopefully they'll get that.
That's my MO at this point.
Yeah, it's out on Friday on the 6th.
I'm really looking forward to it being released.
It was filmed in September or October of 2024.
The rest of that time has been spent editing and the editors do a lot of other work, which is why it took so long.
But we've been sat on it for a few months now.
Another pun there for everybody.
And I'm really looking forward to seeing everybody's response to it.
Rewatching it after the editing was done reminded me, oh God, there's a lot of really effed up stuff in here.
I completely forgot because it's been so long since I was researching it.
But the Weimar one will be out afterwards.
That's not been edited yet.
No Representation Without Taxation00:02:40
We might be doing some extra stuff for that, so I don't know.
And I've got another project that I'm working on now.
What about lesbians in Weimar?
Is that a live or a friend?
No, the Weimar one or it is.
No, the one I'm looking into now is like the use of NGOs as part of the basically an arm of the CIA and the State Department to spread human rights across the world with like Edward Bernays style tactics like in South America with the banana republics.
No representation without taxation.
Based on that anyone who does not pay the poll tax should forfeit his or her right to vote.
The rallying cry of the American War of Independence was no taxation without representation.
I offer a new clarion call.
No representation without taxation!
Maybe I'm going to become an Arab.
About the idea of how enjoyable life might be if we were all a little bit more like the Arab.
To be fair, the only thing I would take from, you know, Dubai would be their tax policy.
That's pretty good.
I do like Harry Enfield always seems to be able to get away with a lot more than you would expect in those shows.
I do respect that.
Let's go through a couple of the comments and then we'll call it a day.
course kevin fox says in the uk you can't keep a baseball bat besides your bed to deal with intruders unless you keep a baseball and a baseball glove lying with it wait are you are you not That's genuinely true, yeah.
Is that genuinely true?
Yeah.
I've been told by a police officer that if you have a baseball bat in your car, you need the glove and the baseball.
Otherwise, they'll presume you're using it as a weapon.
Naturally, if you have a cricket bat, all you need is the ball.
I need to get a hat and a glove.
So yeah, remember that.
Turn to your Anglo-tradition and get a cricket bat because you need one less item.
True.
He says, when I was a mini cab driver, I was not allowed to have anything in the car close to hand that could be construed, I think that's meant to say, as a weapon.
Bear in mind, on a good Saturday night, I might have 300 quid in cash in the car and was not allowed to search customers before they got in.
As a result, I kept a can of Lynx deodorant in the door pocket to keep me smelling fresh and blind any numpty who fancy kicking my taking uh, nicking my takings, should I say.
You can also add a lighter to that and then you have your own flamethrower.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
Crusty burglar is uh, always a disincentivized one.
Occupying Force Risks00:03:52
It's not a phrase that will catch on.
Then I'll read one more, Omar Award.
Remember the explicitly anti-white job openings for GCHQ?
I have to wonder how much of our security services looks like the HOME Office.
I'd be surprised if people qualified to be honest unless they lowered the standards for them.
Oh, they'll love standards for.
I'll read two.
Nick Taylor says Selius finds out he can say cocktail on YouTube, then crafts a segment around the word.
This is exactly what I did right, John V. Hello, John V. That's True.
Trump offending and angering all of Europe was very foolish.
I remember the clip of Prince Harry going on the front lines when viral at the time for all of his jokes on Biden not being all there.
He's not that much younger than him.
And I honestly feel like he was given bad advice in some instances like the ICE shootings.
Yeah, it makes sense.
But I think Iran funding terrorism in places outside the country is what maybe makes people not oppose Trump in this instance.
That's all fair points there.
And I'll go through a couple of mine.
Sophie Liv, I'm so tired that we can't just say no to this in reference to potentially millions of new refugees from Iran.
Iran is a very large country, so send the kids to safe rural areas in Iran.
I mean, it's a huge country, so maybe there are places like that.
Have the women work so they're still a functioning country and men have to fight for their own dang country, you know, like the English did when they were bombed by the Germans.
Again, the problem is that if we were to have some, if we win this war and have some kind of occupying force and then it falls apart like 10 or 20 years down the line, then all those people are going to, by some right, have to come over here anyway, which, you know, I don't think that that's how the laws of war should work.
You get involved in a foreign occupying force, you know what you're signing up for.
Like, for instance, the French who signed up to help the German occupying force in the Second World War, they knew what they were signing up for, sad to say.
And they got what you would expect at the end of losing that war.
And Henry Ashman, there's no way of telling who the Iranians turning up on small boats really are if the regime holds and cracks down on the US-backed dissidents.
Who is to say that the Iranian boat people are truly fleeing oppression and not IRGC-aligned people out to cause chaos and hunt down dissidents already seeking refuge in the country?
This is kind of what we were talking about as well with Turkey using refugees as a potential weapon of war as well.
So all of the rules on allowing these people into the country in the first place and not just locking down our water, our sea borders is ridiculous.
That's why from my perspective, if something like this happens, and let's phrase it differently, to the degree that it will happen, I think the proper response from Kier Starmer and NEPM should be to actually tackle this.
I agree.
Right?
So them counter-signaling an operation against that very regime seems to me to indicate a kind of lack of strong will.
You'd expect this from Starmer.
But still at the same time, in such a situation, I wouldn't expect Tice or Farage to behave any differently either, personally.
I would expect them to go, well, these people are fleeing from persecution.
They're having their rights violated, so we need to let them in.
So I, again, I see this all as part of the same establishment, ultimately, which is my big concern with a party like reform.
Whereas Restore, who we've all been very positive about, do seem to be outside of the establishment or positioning themselves outside of the establishment.
So whatever else their flaws may be, that is a big positive for me.
And with that, that's all that we've got time for.
Thank you for sticking with us today and thank you for watching the show.