Luca, Josh, and Firas dissect the UK justice system's crisis, criticizing David Lammy's plan to scrap jury trials for "either way" offenses despite magistrates' 80% conviction rates versus juries' 60%. They condemn the Courts and Tribunals Bill for repealing parental presumption in the Children Act 1989 and restricting appeals, while analyzing the "American murder paradox" where falling crime rates coexist with brutal, random violence. The hosts further attack the appointment of an anti-Muslim hostility czar, arguing it rewards extremists like Mohamed Hijab and ignores right-wing hate speech, ultimately viewing Labour's concessions as a desperate perception management failure that alienates citizens and fails to address ideological threats. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters, episode 1370 for Monday, the 9th of March 2026.
I'm your host Luca, joined today by Josh and Firas.
Hello.
And today we're going to be talking all about the absolute state of the British justice system and why, if there is one consolation we can take from it, it seems to have humiliated David Ramy and his plans for it.
We're then going to be talking about the American murder paradox, which I've dubbed it.
Pretty dark, dark theme by the sounds of it.
Yeah, but it's going off of the back of murder rates falling.
So actually, it'sh, I guess.
I'm going to break it down because it seems paradoxical.
Pot thickens.
And then we're going to be talking about Britain's new anti-Muslim hate czar.
Yeah, they couldn't call it an Islamophobia Tsar, but it's an Islamophobia Tsar.
And the idea is completely stupid.
Was only a matter of time.
It was, I mean, next step is a Mohammedan Inquisition, and then it can only get worse.
Oh, goody.
I'm surprised they called it a Tsar.
Isn't that quite sort of imperial and close?
It is, it is.
But technically, the Ottoman Caliph called himself the Tsar of some sort.
So, yeah.
There we go.
And we have several announcements for you, actually, before we begin, ladies and gentlemen.
First of all, at three o'clock, Firas will be presenting a freemium episode of Real Politique, talking all about, I don't know, some Iran's.
There's something going on.
I mean, the question is, has anybody thought about this war before actually committing to it?
And the answer seems to be no.
Right, excellent.
Well, if you want Firas' further insights on all of that, you can catch that at 3 o'clock, and that will be free.
The powers that be, we've ordained, we've given it to you as a freemium.
But there are other reasons to subscribe to the actual channel.
Most among them, we have a new documentary, ladies and gentlemen.
This, I was going to say labor of love, but this labor great research from Harry.
He's worked on this for a long, long time.
You can tell because in the actual documentary, he's still got his Victorian mutton chops.
That's how long ago it was.
But I've traced Harry's progression through time, through his hair and facial hair.
But I will say, ladies and gentlemen, that I've watched the first half an hour of this so far.
The level of detail that Harry gives on the Stonewall myth is phenomenal.
And the entire thing has such a magnificently edited and polished style to it.
So it's going to be really immersive, really informative, well worth you subscribing to the website for.
And also another privilege to you if you are subscribed to the website already, which is that we have a live event coming up, ladies and gentlemen.
The Lotus Eaters are going live again.
So if you are already a subscriber on the main website, you can head over to the website and start buying your tickets now.
The live event is going to be hosted here in Swindon on the 11th of April.
And as you can see there, times generally are going to be from 7 till 10.
There will also be VIP tickets available as well, which will give you extra access to VIP balcony area after, where you'll be able to mingle with us all, post-show reception, and obviously also a couple of goodies.
So it should be really exciting.
We're really looking forward to it.
Obviously, there'll be many good and hopefully banterous discussions.
It should be a good night.
There'll be a live Rads Hour and many other things besides.
So if you want further details about it all, head over to the website.
It's all there for you now.
David Lamy's Mandate00:15:37
So shall we start talking about British justice and what it all means?
Because there does seem to be a disagreement between people like us who think that it sounds trite, but the process is a large part of the justice itself and how we operate in Britain, that it's not simply about tidying up and polishing the bureaucracy so we can simply sentence as many people as fast as possible.
This is something that we covered back when David Ramy first announced that he was going to be scrapping a huge part of the jury trials.
And this probably serves to talk about the three distinctions of types of crime that are categorized here in Britain.
So we have the summary only, which are very, very minor offences, which are all handled by a single magistrate in the magistrate's court.
Then we have the indictable only, which are the very, very serious murders.
And these are the ones, sorry, and other serious crimes such as murder and sexual assault.
These are heard in the Crown Court and these are given with juries.
And then you have the either way.
And it's these ones which generally it is up to the conscience of the people.
You know, you say, I would like to be tried by my peers on this case.
And it's this particular section of people who've, you know, obviously either received, are going to be prosecuted or need defence in Britain that Ramy is strictly targeting here.
And there is a reason why, just on the face of it, on the facts, it seems that the British public are more tied.
You know, they've got more emotional trust, I suppose you could say, in the jury trials, which is that they have a 60% lower convict.
They have a 60% low sorry, they have a 60% conviction rate as opposed to an 80% conviction rate when someone is tried by a magistrate just entirely by the judge.
And we also have to address as well the fact that all of this is coming in and our justice system seems to be overburdened with a colossal queue of about 80,000 cases.
And we're obviously just not going to spend much time addressing the fact that we've had quite a few new arrivals in Britain over the past few decades that have certainly contributed to why we would possibly need to have so many trials and so many investigations into criminal behavior,
especially when those more recent arrivals seem to purposefully avoid understanding per capita whilst continually contributing to its relevance.
So that's an excellent way of putting it.
That's an amazing way of putting it.
So this is where we were.
And this is obviously Lamy proposed we're going to scrap jury trials for these.
And he goes on to point out as well that this is only something that 3% of the British convictions are actually really tried on.
So it's not even a huge section of the trials.
So the idea that this is being done for expediency and that this is going to rapidly cut through and just get the bureaucracy going smoother, it just doesn't seem to hold much weight on the face of it.
As a Fabian, what he would do is introduce this idea to this 3% and then say, well, it was a stellar success.
Let's expand it further.
That's how all things in the British state seem to expand.
Yes.
They have a little pilot study and then they can sort of see how it goes, see if they can get away with it, and then they can expand it.
Everything has scope creep in the government.
Exactly.
And the purpose of this at the end of the day is to scrap jury trials completely because you can't assume that these people have any kind of good faith.
You can't assume that it's just David Lamy because he's absolutely brainless.
And we know that for a fact.
I'm not exaggerating.
Check out his performance on what was it?
Oh, Master Mastermind.
Well, he proved that he wasn't.
Type of blue chief.
Red Leicester.
I mean, came after Henry VIII.
Henry VII?
Yeah.
It almost feels compulsory to just remind people of those two anecdotes every time Lamy comes up.
Because it shows that it isn't him.
Yes.
Because what it demonstrates in this case is that it isn't him.
And so if they succeed, he's just sort of being used as a mask, as cover, as a puppet.
And if they succeed, they're going to just go further and further and further, because that is the nature of Fabians.
Yes.
And none of this is to mention how tasteless it is to have a man who is not of British origin just radically changing the British justice system in such a way.
Well, the way he said it in that previous tweet that you had there, that tradition for tradition's sake, basically.
But it's not even for tradition's sake, and let alone the sort of sacrilegious aspect of the British way of governing ourselves and saying that, oh, it's just a worthless tradition.
No, it existed for a very clear purpose and is not stayed around because it is just a tradition.
It makes sense that your peers assess whether you are wrong because then it is an effective check on the government.
If the government is the sole arbiter of guilt, then there's a very strong incentive to abuse that.
Yes.
Having said this, one of the things that we did talk about in the original segment that we did when we covered this is we did talk about the fact that though there is both a practical, moral and emotional attachment, by and large, from the British public to jury trials, they, of course, themselves are not infallible.
And they are, as a procedure, being corrupted by the more and more multicultural state of Britain and its societies as we basically get into group reference.
Yes, essentially.
Which is something that I'll come to a little bit more in a moment.
But I want to start by using this particular article by Stuart Wallace.
You can see this from towards the end of last year, just ruminating on the fact the end of trial by jury in the United Kingdom.
And I want to say as well that so looking into this particular chap, Stuart Wallace's credentials and where he's come from, get a load of this.
So Stuart is an associate professor at the University of Leeds, where he teaches constitutional law and international human rights law.
Prior to joining the faculty at Leeds, he worked as a lecturer and director of studies at Homerton College in Cambridge and affiliated lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, lecturing on civil liberties and human rights.
And he's also held posts working at the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court prior to entering academia.
Now, the reason that I say all of this is to show you that from his pedigree and of his credentials, it's voices like Stuart's that you would most naturally expect the Starma government to just kind of have towing along with it, right?
These are, they totally exist within the same ideological framework.
They both believe in the exact same principles and the sort of progressive quote-unquote values that are obviously mangling Britain.
However, Stewart, like many, many other voices from within those institutions, have absolutely come out against this.
And so it's not just that he's Rami and Starmer by putting this forward have annoyed the really, really radical left, like Corbyn, you know, hated this as well, and us on the sensible centre of politics as well.
It's all those in the liberal middle as well who just look at the practicality of this.
And it seems like from what Rami is trying to do with the jury trials, it just doesn't sound like for the amount of things it's going to sacrifice that it's actually going to smooth over the system in any meaningful way that justifies that in and of itself.
So he goes on to talk about the fact that, yet, sorry, he goes on to say that about the backlog.
So rather than making high-minded claims about the sanctity of Magna Carta, which, you know, he's not particularly sentimental about, opponents of these measures should focus on the real issues of them.
They will not fix the problem.
Beyond this, the government should have an electoral mandate, not to mention a damn good reason before altering rights protections, regardless of whether this takes the form of nudging the lines on jury trial or reducing more fundamental constitutional protections.
It has neither, and for that reason, the changes should not go ahead.
That's good.
I mean, it's just such an extreme position to take for a parliament that is effectively a zombie parliament.
They all know that they're going to lose their seats come the next election.
They know they have zero public support, zero legitimacy, zero credibility, and yet they're engaged in this constitutional destruction.
It speaks to me of a party that is just trying to throw everything at a wall and seeing what sticks once they're out.
Because I think they've accepted the fact that they're not going to win the next election.
And so they're just going for sheer quantity of their agenda.
And I think that that's not a good thing at the best of times, let alone considering how bad their agenda will be for the country.
Absolutely.
But the other thing as well is that, you know, the three of us can sit here.
We can appeal to Magna Carta.
We can, you know, appeal to all of the things that we do when we talk about a defense of jury trials.
But, excuse me, such criticisms coming from us don't in fact mean an awful lot to those in power, of course.
They don't give a damn about our point of view on any of this.
But the entire project of modern Britain has been set up in such a way that it is designed to defend minorities, not against themselves, of course, but Against just the old British institutions and the old culture and its own morals and standards, one could say its old value system, right?
The actual older British values that used to make this a very safe and secure place that you know contributed to our own prosperity.
But you can see here, again, so this is from just last month as well.
This particular substack was from the Black Current, which is just one that goes, talks entirely about black affairs.
And they talk about the fact that from their point of view as well, they're horrified by the loss of the jury trials because they know in many cases that because a lot of the magistrates and British judges are white, often from more privileged backgrounds, you know, they've been through all of the proper channels and everything, that they feel like that disproportionately affects them.
And so they're not happy about it either.
And they go on to point out that, look, we're not going to be able to receive, to address these racial imbalances in society if we can't have juries where we can basically stack them with our own communities to make sure that we arrive at the proper verdict, which is always innocent of happens a lot in the United States, doesn't it?
Like there are a few prominent cases.
I know in the Derek Chauvin trial, there are a few people that were provable supporters of Black Lives Matter who I feel like would not be impartial.
Right.
But it is enough to sway convictions.
So I think that that might be part of the reason here they under.
You forget the old J. Simpson trial, right?
Of course.
Very infamous.
It's one of the best examples of it going, really.
Yep.
Sorry, you were just about to add.
No, no, no, you carry my.
All right, okay.
And so we end up in a position now where judge-only trials in England and Wales will not wipe out the Crown Court backlog, which, and this is coming from the Institute for Government as well, and all of the arms and the quangos around government.
Even they're saying, this isn't going to work, David, this isn't going to work.
And David Lamy, being David Ramy, has just said, well, we've looked at it all ourselves and we're pretty confident that it will.
Because every time the government looks at things, we always diagnose it exactly right.
And, you know, we have a really good track record with all of this.
He's very perceptive, isn't he?
I remember that time when he was saying, I haven't seen the police officer all day.
And there was one stood right behind him.
Proper panto moment.
He's behind you.
And so we get to, yeah, the Institute for Government says that the proposed plans, which will slash the number of jury trials, will produce marginal gains of less than 2% of the time saved against David Ramy's claim that it will be 20%.
A just society would be talking about justice as in the sense of we want there to be as much of it as possible.
If you start talking about it in terms of time, then you sort of instrumentalize the process itself.
Which is a point that David Lamy will never understand.
Yes.
And by talking about efficiency, all you do is erode justice in the true sense of the word.
And also as well, it goes on, there was a point made where he keeps talking, the way that Lamy frames it is constantly in this state that, oh, well, we have to do this because the victims are being denied justice.
The victims are being denied justice.
It's like, David, you don't know if they're victims yet.
That's what the trial is for.
So it's all built on these preconceived ideas of just rushing people through.
And obviously, sorry, Ferris, none of this is to even touch on the prison system and how overburdened the prisons are right about now.
Sorry, and any claim of wanting justice for the victims rings completely hollow when it comes from the Labour Party, given their cover-up of the rape gangs.
Yes.
The audacity involved in pretending to care for justice while also covering up the greatest injustice in the last century is insane.
Yeah, of course.
There's no mandate and it's all done by an entirely illegitimate government, which is only in power because the Tory Party collapsed and never had a mandate to do this in the first place.
And going further through the Guardian article here, it says that it said while the number of jury trials would fall by about 50% under the proposed measures, there would probably be about be only a 7 to 10% reduction in total time taken in the courtroom as a result of the entire package of changes, with judge-only trials contributing to a fraction of that.
And Cassia Rowland, who authored the report, said the government's proposed reforms to jury trials will not fix the problems in the Crown Court.
Distrust of Backbenchers on Children's Rights00:10:52
And goes on to mention the statistic about 2%.
And it goes on to say in this article, and bear in mind this is from January.
And there's a reason I've laid these out in the way I have.
So in January, it mentions in this article that there are dozens of Labour MPs and peers from across the upper chamber who are going to rebel against this.
They don't like it on the face of it, whether it's because they feel like the proposed legislation would endanger minorities or because they simply feel it's too radical or they're worried about electoral ability for some reason.
Whatever it may be, they do have grievances with it.
You also have the criminal bar, which is a strong association in terms of the constellation of its voice, and what it projects out into Parliament.
And obviously, it's not in favour of these either.
It said that it'll oppose the government's plan.
It says the proposal for judge-only trials has been missold on the false promise of swifter justice.
And it does nothing of the kind.
The government's own impact assessment glosses over the fact that even on its own figures, it'll be negligible.
And so the government have not been able to provide really in the three months that this has been proposed any concrete evidence that this will do the thing that they claim it will do.
They've been caught in a sort of pincer, really, from both sides of the political aisle.
The sort of left of the Starma government and the left of the Labour Party have been very critical of this.
I've seen Labour MPs going just as hard against this, using the same language that I might use, which is refreshing and to see.
But at the same time, I think the government is just far too unpopular to waste its political capital on something like this.
You know, if I were Starmer, I wouldn't be doing this sort of thing.
I'd be focusing on other areas that you might have more success.
But thankfully, they're making a mistake that is going to harm them further.
Whether there's going to be any consequences, I don't know.
It could be that the insanity is a sort of defense, in that what they did with the assisted suicide bill, which was completely, completely unjustified to turn the NHS into a medical murder service, what they did with the removing limits on abortion, and what they did with Chagoss and what they're doing here.
It just seems that maintaining a level of madness just lets them get on with things that they're doing, which just seems strange.
Right.
Could be a tactic, could be that they're just stupid, but who knows?
I think it's just that they've accepted that they're not going to win the next election.
Maybe.
But though, obviously, everything and the mutilating of the system and the jury trials is a travesty, there are other darker aspects actually hidden in this bill, and that's something that we'll need to address now.
So we can see here from the Gazette of the Law Society, they just summarise that part one of the bill, which deals with proceedings in the criminal courts, amends the Magistrate Courts Act 1980 to remove the right to elect trial and the Senior Court Acts 1981 to enable cases to be allocated for trial without a jury.
Another provision creates a power to order certain complex or lengthy cases to be tried without a jury.
if they decide that oh this is just taking too long they have the power to just take the jury away after someone has already been given the right to the jury as well from the sound of it and i i can as usual it's fabian And what's more, and this is another dark aspect that was found.
Sorry, I mean to credit the chap, I can't find his name in it.
I'll retweet it afterwards.
But another part from part two as well, which is welfare of the child, repeal of presumption of parental involvement.
In section one of the Children Act 1989, omits subsections, the ones named, which provide for a presumption in certain circumstances and for certain purposes, that the involvement of each parent in the life of a child will further the child's welfare.
Wow.
So they're still doubling down on transing children.
This is really, really dark.
This is quite radical.
Yes.
This is very extreme.
And notice how dare you.
But.
But all of the light has been on jury trials, jury trials.
And so they've tried to sneak stuff like this through the legislation.
How could a parent's involvement not further a child's welfare, assuming that that parent is at least somewhat competent?
Well, which most at least qualify.
The generous answer, and it's not what I believe, but the generous answer would be to simply say, well, if a child is in an abusive home, then it cannot always be guaranteed that being, you know, with each parent's involvement in the life of that child is good for the child's welfare.
However, we know from the way that the British state works that what they will be trying to do here is they will use this and the repeal of this basically as the child isn't particularly safe with these people because they have these particular political beliefs.
Pair with the extremism definition, you know, and so it's leading to your child certain books can become a crime.
Well, it's basically saying that children belong to the state.
Yes.
It's furthering that argument.
It's another insane.
Which is something they're trying to smuggle into the bill.
And this has all come to light after the recent first reading.
Another thing as well, Matthew Scott brings up here is that it's not just about juries.
The courts and tribunals bill will institutionalize injustice in the magistrates' court as well.
And this is worth just showing you here.
The courts and tribunals bill will abolish the right of appeal from the magistrates' court.
Instead, the proposal is that anyone wishing to appeal against either conviction or sentence will have to apply in writing for permission to appeal from the Crown Court judge.
Prospective applicants would need to show that they had arguable grounds of appeal.
Presumably in most cases, those grounds would have to be that the magistrates had got the law wrong.
And that mirrors a position, sorry, that mirrors a For those wishing to appeal from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal, difficult though appealing through the Crown Court is, these proposals would make appealing from the magistrates far more difficult.
And for the many defendants, nearly half of the total, who are not legally represented, appealing against convictions.
That's insane.
And they've got to appeal to a higher court as well.
Yes.
Which presumably.
They've got to appeal to a higher court to have the right to appeal.
So that actually adds a new burden on the system as the various petitions for right of appeal are being adjudicated.
So it doesn't actually reduce the stress on the system.
It arguably increases it.
But it just means that if you're sufficiently broke, which they will do to you if you're right wing, you can't actually go through the process and argue that you have a right to appeal.
And it does also make deeply evil.
Yes, and it also makes sure that those who are in these positions who are very much friendly to the institutions have more of a final say on those verdicts.
And then the attempts at retrials are made far more difficult for the accused in all of this as well.
So it is really, really dark stuff and really, really seismic.
So where does the humiliation of Ramy come into the title?
Where am I going with all of this?
Well, fortunately, and though it is still a little bit hazy, it does seem like there has been significant enough pushback that particularly Carl Turner, a Labour MP, has basically rallied the Labour backbenches and backbenchers in such a way that he now has a rebellion of up to 80 MPs, he believes.
Now, this kept snowballing and snowballing, and for the sake of time, I'll conclude everything now.
But the point is that with these 80 MPs, it is going to give more bargaining power to those backbenchers.
It means that perhaps some of the more extreme stuff which is being pushed through, particularly with the jury trials, may well be diluted.
The problem is, I don't trust the Labour-backbenchers enough and their intuitions on what is moral and what is goodness or fair to basically abolish the larger points that I've brought out about children and about rights to appeal in this as well.
So all of this is very much in flux.
It doesn't seem like the bill is going to be able to pass in its original form, but we are, it seems for the time being, kind of just left at the mercy of whatever the prejudices are of the labour backbenchers.
But it is still a great embarrassment to be the Justice Secretary and to have these radical plans.
He's used to it.
But for your own party to go, no, You know, when you have a license as big as you do.
So, yes, another humiliation for David Rami and another episode of us, the British people, just hanging on by the skin of our teeth as we watch our country and its way of life bastardized before our eyes.
I think there's one last point to make here, which is the fact that it represents a complete breakdown in the authority of the Prime Minister.
Slowly, his authority is just being completely destroyed.
And he can't hold on like this.
And we have no idea what kind of backbench revolt is going to deliver a different leader.
So that's the last thing.
It won't be Andy Burnham, will it?
At least not him.
I mean, there have been more U-turns from the Starmer government now.
What is it?
15, 16?
It's like an Indian heavy goods driver on an American highway.
How many U-turns?
Well, this was a frustrating thing.
Obviously, the Tory party deserved zero seats, but there was just something really frustrating about the Labour Party being like, oh, you're U-turning, you're U-turn.
It's like, you would be no better in government.
And now, you know, so it surprises absolutely no one, apart from the Labour Party, it seems.
The Murder Paradox Explained00:09:08
That's a random name says, what would someone whose ancestors cannot read, but point taking, random.
Open.
This invention from that part of the world was, I believe, a special kind of harpoon used to hunt maybe sharks around 10,000 years ago.
Very industrious.
Just saying.
We should learn more from them.
Opunk, yeah, okay.
Other points, right?
Yeah, okay.
Message received.
And that's a random name also.
Ooh, spice.
Points out more inventions.
Can't read them, but very amusing, boys.
All right, okay.
Over to you, Josh.
Hang on.
Okay.
Get to my segment.
There we go.
May I please have one of those?
You may.
How very gracious.
So the United States has what I have dubbed a murder paradox because I saw this and I found it very interesting because it seemed very counterintuitive.
US murder rate hits lowest level since 1900.
And this was looking at 35 major cities across the United States, which you would expect to have the highest murder rates.
And so I don't necessarily think the sampling has done anything wrong here.
And also, I think actually I've had a little look at the data.
I don't think that the data has been misrepresented.
And so this seems to be an actual true statistic.
And it doesn't feel right there.
And I want to get to the bottom of this.
And it talks about, I'll just scroll down so you can see.
Oh, sorry.
There we go.
I'll scroll down here.
And it says, murder fell 21% last year in 35 large US cities, the biggest one-year drop ever and likely the lowest rate since 1900.
And it does acknowledge that there was a COVID-era crime wave.
I wonder, I don't know whether it was the COVID era.
Yes.
The COVID crime wave or the BLM crime wave.
It was the BLM crime wave, obviously.
Just checking.
I wish I'd known about this matter.
I'd have brought my deer stalker in and have shell hosted for the segment.
But the one thing that is up relative to all the other crimes that are down is drug crimes, which are up 7%, the loan category to increase, apparently.
And this pattern actually is the same as lots of other countries as well.
It's the same as the UK, where the murder rate has been falling for quite some time, and lots of other European countries.
Basically, most Western countries have seen some form of decline.
And I originally put this down to, well, they're obviously hiding the numbers, aren't they?
But actually, there's a complex, multi-layered thing going on here that I want to break down because it's a little bit more complicated.
And when talking about these things, actually, I think it's important to characterize them as accurately as you can because, obviously, murder is very serious.
It's something you don't want happening in your society.
So having an accurate picture of what's actually going on is integral to tackling the problem head-on and, you know, reducing the murder rate even further because ideally you don't want any.
You want it to be like Sanford, just safe and exactly, nothing going on.
Here's Britain.
Homicides at lowest level in nearly 50 years, the ONS says.
And I wanted to look at some explanations for this because I am then going to go into why we think it is very counterintuitive.
And I think there's a good, neat explanation for all of it.
So the most plausible explanation for me is that there's a compound of multiple different factors that are small, but if you add them all up together, it leads to these significant changes.
The first of which, of course, is the massive expansion of the surveillance state.
Makes it easier to monitor people's movements, makes it easier to catch them for crime.
There's CCTV pretty much everywhere.
I know at one point Britain was the CCTV capital of the world, since been overtaken.
Just like Orwell would have wanted.
Exactly.
Well, it's since been taken over by two countries.
Can you both guess what countries those are?
China and Canada.
Close.
China.
China.
North America is correct as well.
Okay, the United States?
Yes.
Wow.
Because China and the United States now have more CCTV per citizen than Britain, who led the way in the 90s.
And then everyone copied us.
Sorry about that.
But it's obviously easier to monitor citizens than ever, which means you're going to catch more murderers.
There have also been developments in policing and forensics since, say, 1900 or the past 50 years.
You've got DNA databases.
I know in Britain they're introduced in the 90s.
Digital forensics.
So, you know, checking phones, laptops, being able to track people's location with those.
And ballistic fingerprinting systems and things like that.
All of this technology makes it easier for the police and forensic scientists to catch people.
The lethality decline, which is something that very few people actually think of, but medicine is better now.
So what would have been fatal in the past is now not as fatal.
And so because medicine's got better, there are fewer homicides, which is actually quite important.
Also, there's an aging population.
So there are fewer young men who are typically the demographic to commit murder as a percentage of the population, although there are certainly some young men that commit a disproportionate number of the murders.
And the final thing I wanted to mention was that organized crime, particularly in the United States and Britain, is pretty well established.
There's no instability and vying for territory, or at least not as much as there used to be.
And organized crime cracks down on street crime because it's a competitive competitor.
Exactly.
And then also, this might sound a bit weird, but if you apply economic theory to organized crime, well, monopolies reduce output, and if your output is violence, then violence is reduced.
And we've talked about this.
I had an episode of my series Contemplations on the website where we talked all about how organized crime actually reduces crime rates, which is not advocating organized crime.
It's actually a statement about economics.
But still.
That's why the Japanese state doesn't bother the Yakuza too much.
They sort of cooperate.
That's arguably one reason why the Chinese cooperate with the triads.
They keep the criminal element in line, essentially.
And you will always have a criminal element.
Can you think of any other potential explanations before I go on to the paradoxical aspect?
Go on then.
Tao.
Well, that was it.
I was just done with the ones I've said.
The aging population was the first thing that occurred to me.
And I would argue maybe what's it called?
I was going to say Game Boys, which sort of shows my age.
Right.
But video games, you could sort of express your violence in other ways and also be more socially isolated.
And if you have, you know, more of a drinking culture, well, no, that'll be much more crime.
Yeah, well, alcohol consumption has gone down, hasn't it?
Yes.
So I think that'll have more of an effect in Britain than America because they're not quite as big drinkers.
And, you know, I've seen Americans on our sort of high streets at night time and they're amazed by the amount of violence and drinking.
Terrified almost.
So where is the paradox?
So despite murder going down, the nature of crime has got more brutal, I would argue.
So it's more random in nature.
is not really as targeted as it used to be because in the past, at least where I grew up and talking to people that formed my attitude on it, it was sort of seen as premeditated and targeting those who had somehow involved themselves with bad people to some degree or at least that idea was more prevalent back in the past and perhaps it was more true.
It's a difficult thing to necessarily establish.
It's what you get in a gang war, right?
If you're in a gang, you're going to be in a gang war.
If you're going to be in a gang war, you you risk getting killed or killing, whereas if you were a normal person on the street, you didn't really have to worry because you weren't involved unless you were really unfortunate and in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it's sort of like one in multiple million scenario.
But what actually happens with this random nature of brutal crime is that it creates maximal fear in the populace, and this is warranted as well, because if people just come out of nowhere and murder you for no reason, then your sort of fight or flight has to be going constantly in the back of your head whenever you're in public, and so the actual social consequences of the nature of this sort of crime are far more destructive to ordinary people, even in than in the past,
Random Brutality Fuels Public Fear00:06:43
when the murder rate might have been higher, but it was more within certain communities, let's say.
And that's um all uh changed as well by the fact that you're supposed to have a normal human sort of fight or flight.
You know, survival mechanism, and all of it has been mutilated and, you know, repressed by uh, numerous arms of government and then propaganda telling you that certain things that are dangerous to you are actually benign and good for you and that some things that are actually good for you are obviously beyond the pale.
But what it ultimately does is mute people's instincts and further make them anxious because of the uncertainty, because uncertainty maximizes anxiety, and so you just create a low trust, deeply suspicious society, which further compounds the problem.
To begin with and I think the best example Of this being the case was this story.
So I'm going to just tell you the story rather than read the article.
So there was a guy last year this happened called Ronaldo Lafonce, who was 68.
He'd recently retired and liked visiting the library in his spare time.
He was charging his Tesla at an electric vehicle station outside of the library.
And whilst his back was turned, a homeless person, Giovanni Navarro, emerged out of the shadows and stabbed him.
Bystanders called an ambulance for him, and then the ambulance arrives and he starts getting treated for his injuries.
Then another homeless person, Nicolas DeMarco, climbs into the ambulance and drives off.
He leads police on a high-speed pursuit before crashing into a parked car.
And so the recently retired LaFonce died outside of this library without an ambulance to take him to hospital because of these two people.
And then it emerged that the man who stabbed him had been arrested for trespassing on the same library that he had stabbed him the day before.
And also, when they caught him for the stabbing, he was arrested at a high school, which caused the entire high school to lock down as well.
And so, you know, one person seemingly massively occupying the work of policing and justice when in reality this person shouldn't be out roaming in public because they're obviously a danger to the people around them because he stabbed someone randomly and committed multiple other crimes as well.
And now Lafonce family is suing the city for negligence for not having locking, you know, steering it and basically being able to drive the ambulance away without being the ambulance drivers.
Which shouldn't need to be locking ambulances, right?
No.
You should assume that there is a basic level of human dignity that says, well, this is an ambulance.
I'm not going to mess around with it.
Somebody might get killed exactly as has happened in this case.
And so the argument of the family, I understand, but, you know, that's the underlying issue, does it?
Exactly.
That someone would want to do this.
But the underlying issue here is that there are people who are allowed on the street that clearly should not be allowed on the street.
And that even if the crime rate truly is falling, these people aren't being addressed because there's this view of mental health issues and the like where they need to be in the community.
They need to live a normal life when actually the reality is there are many people beyond saving.
And actually, why don't you think of the innocent people that have to interact with them?
It's the same thing with the Nottingham attacker who killed three people.
He was sectioned four different times and was released every time after about a month.
And he kept on doing the same violent crimes over and over again, and they just kept on releasing him.
Same sort of thing here, where insane people are just being released.
But the paradox is, just in summary, really, that crime rates might be falling, homicide might be falling, but the nature of the homicides that still occur are even more concerning than the previous ones.
And this happened in California, sure.
There's nothing you can do about it.
No.
I mean, the argument would have been, okay, it's a bad neighborhood, but if you keep your nose clean and you do your own duties, you're not going to get involved and you'll be safe.
Whereas here it's sort of just random crazy people stabbing decent citizens.
And what's more as well, you have an ever-diminishing list of places you can relocate to that aren't going to be affected by these problems.
Nobody expects to get murdered at the library.
No.
No.
And it might be California, but it's not even an especially liberal part of California because the same place where this happened announced in 24 that they would no longer fly the pride flag, which for California is quite conservative, to be honest.
But you've got to remember that there are lots of mentally ill people.
This happened two days ago in California.
A man dies after allegedly cutting off his own penis in downtown Los Angeles.
So not only will you have these insane homeless people, but you'll have mentally ill people like this just walking amongst you.
Which I think needs to be taken seriously because crime might be falling, but the nature of crime is clearly getting worse.
Thanks for that.
You're welcome.
Look at that mouse if you don't mind.
Sure.
Thank you.
That's a random name, says...
Oh, sorry to interrupt you.
Instead of wasting money on all those cameras, they should employ a bunch of notices.
I can tell you exactly who's the purp at a glance, whether the glove fits or not.
You can't do that.
You're on the roll, aren't you today, random name?
And they've said again, to summarise, the crime levels may be down on paper, but the new patch has become an open PvP zone.
Finally, a comment that is okay to read.
About time.
Thank you.
Well played, sir.
So first I want to remind you, please go and watch Harry's documentary.
It is amazing.
It's very good.
The Real Threat of Mass Immigration00:14:49
I also want to mention to you there's going to be a RealPolitik in around an hour.
Come and check it out.
And it's going to be a freemium this time.
But now the question that must be asked: have you got a license to be Islamophobic, Mike?
Why, yes, it's my English passport.
You have no idea how qualified I am.
The Labour government disagrees with you because the Labour government is going to appoint an anti-Muslim hostility czar.
Pick me, pick me.
Because this is absolutely necessary, you see.
And their reasoning for this actually betrays something important, which is that the Blairite consensus is falling apart, but they have no idea what to do about it other than trying to double down stupidly.
I think moving around bureaucrats into different departments and trying the same thing in different ways is going to inevitably collapse.
And it's going to basically result in them having to rely on more and more heavy-handed measures, which I presume this is going to be.
They understand the Blairite goals and they believe in the goals.
They simply can't achieve the goals because their goals are ridiculous.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And so The Telegraph got a leaked draft of this strategy.
And it cites Islamic extremism as the biggest threat to community cohesion.
Who would have guessed?
Who would have guessed?
I mean, good on them for noticing.
But clearly their reaction to Islamic extremism being the biggest threat is going to be to appoint an Islamophobia Tsar.
Yes.
I mean, the two things are so contradictory.
Yeah.
You would assume that there's going to be some kind of counter-radicalization czar, or you would assume that there is going to be changes to prevent so that people who read Tolkien aren't at risk of having their children taken away, which seems to be the plan in the jury trial bill.
But no, no.
The answer is to appoint an anti-Muslim hostility czar.
It's sort of like there was some sort of wave of drownings, and instead of the government, you know, doing anything about it, they say you can't criticize the ocean.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And also we're banning swimming pools.
Exactly.
So a draft of the strategy cites Islamic extremism as the biggest threat to community cohesion.
It warns that anti-Semitism is becoming normalized in the UK and accuses right-wing groups of using the union flag and cross of St. George as tools of hate.
How would they know that?
They never talk to us.
They never ask us what our reasons for waving the flag are.
There's no dialogue between the state and the people.
And like from the outset, they admit that the problem is Islamism, but it's the nativists who are the enemy.
Well, this comes back to in the recent by-election, doesn't it?
When what is the name?
Hannah Spencer basically just accused Matt Goodwin of being responsible for the Manchester Arena bombing for calling out the fact that there were problems amongst Muslim communities.
Exactly.
But if you just didn't criticize them that, they wouldn't do this sort of thing.
I think they would.
If you didn't roll over and, you know, didn't lay out a red carpet for people who want you killed, then you're somehow...
Then your community cohesion might actually improve.
Shockingly enough, have you tried just rolling over and submitting?
Exactly.
Exactly.
The document warns that cohesion in communities has been broken down by mass immigration and the use of social media to spread hate.
Notice how they pair these two together.
Mass immigration is a problem, but really, Josh, you have to be careful in how you use social media.
And the question is, do Muslims maybe spread hate sometimes?
I've never noticed it.
Do you think they do?
I mean, let's sort of...
They're really nice and friendly.
Let's watch Mohamed Hijab here, who just recently lost a couple of libel trials.
So let's pick on him more.
Prepare for them what you can from strength and from horses.
You will terrorize.
You will frighten and terrorize the Adu Allah.
The enemy of God.
The enemies of Allah and your enemies.
I will, Subhanallah, I will put fear and terror in the hearts of the enemy.
So, ulqi fi quloobi al-lazina kafru, ro'b, ro'b, terror.
Fadribu fawq al-a'naqi.
Hit them above the necks.
How do you think this rates in terms of community cohesion?
I don't see it helping much.
Do you think this looks like successful assimilation?
No, not in the slightest.
And I also find it preposterous because, you know, the implication with the new Tsar, which, again, to come back to it, is a really weird title to give it.
But the framing for it is that if you have any problem whatsoever with this, if you think for a second that this man maybe shouldn't be in the country, then you need to be investigated.
Then we need to thinking.
Then we need to re-educate you.
And then you are the extremist.
The problem that they have is that this guy is just reading from the Quran.
The problem that they have is that he's not coming to these conclusions out of a vacuum.
He's just reading the Quran and explaining it in the most mainstream way possible.
And the conclusion is, I need to terrorize you and threaten to behead you.
And that is a good thing from God.
I like to quite often play a game with people who deny the violence baked into Islam.
I have a copy of the Quran and I say, open this at any page you see fit and see if you can find no mention of violence to unbelievers on the page and you'll be hard pressed.
It is a challenge.
It is a challenge.
How about here?
What message do you want to give to the far-right people?
That would be the sensible center.
We are here to take over your country.
You can't stop us.
We're here to uphold Sharia law.
And that's exactly what they say on the video.
Now, their accents are annoying and their faces are ugly, so I won't bother you with watching the video.
But that is precisely what they believe, and that's precisely what they're saying.
And, you know, they're putting up these videos on TikTok.
Is that use of social media that should be concerning?
Or is that use of social media that should result in the appointment of an Islamophobia czar?
What I find interesting about what you said here for some of the sort of justifications for it, or at least the ones they've stated, it's all of the things that the Labour Party see as problems for their political paradigm.
The far-right people putting up flags, social media, and there was something else as well, like, was it radical?
Mass immigration.
Well, yes.
But they're not going to point that.
They mention it, but the problem is your reaction to mass immigration.
Yes.
That's exactly the argument.
So they're starting to admit the problem, which is kind of them.
But if you take all of these things together, it basically amounts to criticism or things that are inconvenient for the Labour Party.
Exactly.
It's just entirely a problem of perception management.
What the Labour Party don't appreciate is that behind every video, like whoever took this video here in Tower Hamlets, you know, if it was a British person or whatever, don't know who it was.
But the point is, behind every single one of these videos, there is an actual human being witnessing this.
And then there are millions of people online, hundreds of thousands, who also witness it.
And once you've seen it with your own eyes.
Exactly.
No amount of legislation, no number of czars is ever going to take that away from you.
Nope.
Nope.
Here they are.
Rioting.
Yeah.
And you're supposed to go, oh, this isn't a threat to my entire civilization.
I'll just carry on, you know, going to Marx and Spencer's or wherever he's walking to.
It's like, obviously not.
Exactly.
Obviously not.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And it just keeps on repeating.
And you see that the Muslims are organizing in networks throughout the British government.
And to silence British people, be it the civil service network or the network in the Home Office or in the NHS or what have you.
And you see that they are using nepotism to promote each other because that is exactly what, for example, the Civil Service Network states as its objective.
It's to help Muslims advance in its career in their careers in the civil service.
And you're supposed to be pushing at open doors anyway.
And they're pushing at open doors anyway.
And you're supposed to say that, no, It's your fault.
I've actually written about the Muslim infiltration of the Home Office.
And they've done such damaging things, like they've been pushing for prevent to target the far right rather than Islamic terrorism.
And they're trying to argue that actually the focus should be the far right and not Islam, even though the vast majority, over 95% of terrorist-related fatalities since 2005 have been due to Islam.
Exactly.
And you sort of see them protesting and saying, World War III is near.
Are the Imam Mahadi soldiers preparing?
It seems like a problem.
It seems like a bit of a problem that they think they're going into World War III.
Here's another guy saying that you should have a state within a state in Britain until you're strong enough to take over.
Do you think that that causes some anti-Muslim hostility?
If I were to tell you, Josh, I'm coming here to take over your home, would you be a bit hostile?
I think I would be.
I think it's quite different from saying, you know, please can I spend the night because whatever.
It's no, no, I'm here to take over your home and I'm going to take, you know, half of your house and when I'm strong enough, I'm going to take the rest of it.
But that's exactly what they're saying.
And you, British person, just watching your country, your entire civilization, everything that you love, just slowly in this hourglass, the sand just pouring through it.
And you say, we're running out of time, we're running out of time.
And the British state tells you, shut up, go to jail.
Exactly.
It's like that is not going to, you know, get rid of anyone's anxieties on the situation.
And after Khamenei was killed in Iran, you had these Shia lunatics patrolling the streets on horseback and charging protesters who were against them.
The video doesn't show the charge to chase people with horses.
They just chase someone with an horse.
They just chase people with horses.
And they patiate a Manchester Police.
How come they're not being nitpicked for chasing them people with horses then?
We've just been chasing people with horses, officer.
Yeah, we've done.
So according to the British government, the person who took this video is the problem.
Mm-hmm.
Isn't that slightly mad?
I mean, the piece goes on.
The document goes on, and it says that Britain's historic social cohesion that has kept us united in the face of adversity is now under threat.
But the threat is people on social media.
And not the Muslims on social media saying that they're here to take over, and not the Muslims in mosques saying that they're here to take over.
It's the people who are noticing that the Muslims are saying that they're here to take over.
These guys are supposedly the problem.
Well, and the next step, of course, is simply to crack down more, you know, with the Online Safety Act and things on videos like this where you simply won't be able to view it in this country.
Exactly.
I mean, the social cohesion of Britain relied on this being a settled society with a strong sense of history and identity and values.
It didn't, it wouldn't have never survived this kind of demographic change because no society can survive this demographic change.
But according to the Labour government, making that observation is what's breaking social cohesion.
I mean, they sort of mention mass migration as a, yeah, it's part of a problem, but really, it wouldn't be a problem if you weren't reacting to a city like Manchester having patrols on horseback in supports of freaking chemeny.
That seems to be the brain damage take that is coming from the British state.
Yeah.
And it's not, they can't even claim, oh, well, you know, it's just ignorance because actually the problem is too remote for us parliamentarians.
We're all sat in Westminster and it's just happening outside to ordinary people.
And we're just not as aware of it as they are because Sir David Amos was murdered in his own constituency, in his own clinic, just by an ISIS fighter.
Yes.
And so it did happen to them.
And all they did was use it to clamp down on online censorship more.
Exactly.
And who can remember, who can forget Lindsay Hoyle saying that he's worried about the safety of MPs if they vote the wrong way on Gaza?
I bet he was.
And you then end up in this situation where actually you know what the problem is, but your policy is to continuously crack down on anybody who notices what the problem is.
That's the policy.
But Parliament also can't be a 650 person hostage situation here in that they're voting in particular ways because they're worried about a violent backlash.
Well, get rid of the violent backlash then.
Concessions Won't Solve Extremism00:15:48
Exactly.
And the idea that they wouldn't do something that elementary kind of shows you the lack of backbone and the fact that ideologically, they don't see these guys as the problem.
They don't see Shia Muslims on horseback attacking other people in Manchester as being the problem.
They see people in Manchester being attacked and objecting to being attacked as the problem.
So the whole thing has a completely ridiculous air to it.
And the document that they're using, I mean, just to read a couple of more lines from it, for many living in the UK, the changes brought about by mass migration have been too much too quickly, leaving people feeling as though they are losing their local and national identity.
Then they call integration a two-way street, calling for respect of different cultures and that newcomers have a basic responsibility to engage with and embrace what it means to be British.
Here's the thing.
All politics is identity politics.
You can have a slight exception to that when you have such a cohesive identity that everybody agrees on who we are in the national sense and what is good in the sense of shared values.
If you don't have these things, what you end up with is a fundamental division on who is the us, who is the collective, who should politics serve.
And you have a disagreement on what is good, what is the definition of good.
And in these people's case, what is good is the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate.
and the documents from the Muslim Brotherhood and from pretty much any mainstream Muslim thinker confirm that the objective of Muslims should be a global Islamic caliphate where everybody who isn't Muslim is subjugated and subdued and broken.
So, to say that these...
Sorry, and just to say all of a sudden values of diversity and tolerance will be quite immaterial.
And I imagine we'd get much leeway on those things once we are a minority.
I doubt they care very much.
No, obviously.
Obviously.
And so there is no pathway to integration here.
There is no pathway to assimilation.
You could argue that over generations, if enough people convert, you can get there.
Maybe, maybe.
But you will always have people identifying as different national groups because they are different national groups.
And also, Islam has been very bad at converting people outside of the Islamic sphere.
Exactly.
And the way that it does it is by slowly grinding them down until, okay, screw it, I'm giving up.
So the idea that there is going to be a two-way integration.
Firstly, again, if I go into your house and say, well, from now on, everybody in this house has to wake up at three in the morning and everything in the house has to be done my way.
And the meals have to be halal.
And we won't be using medicine anymore.
We will be using enchantments against jinn and so on and so forth.
I can't imagine anybody being happy about this.
But for that to be applied to the national level, you must understand that the nation is a family of families.
And that's what makes it function.
This blood relationship between people that makes them believe, actually, we are deeply connected to each other.
Our relationships to each other must take precedence.
And we will work to preserve these relationships and make them more cohesive.
And Islam's answer to that is to just, well, you can just get there by marrying your cousin.
Which isn't especially appealing.
To carry on the sort of house analogy there, though, when you actually visit someone's house realistically, you are the one that compromises.
Like you say, oh, would you like me to take off my shoes?
And even if you personally don't take off your shoes when you're at home, you abide by the laws and standards of the household, lest you expect to get kicked out for being an unwelcome house guest.
But when we expand that to the level of a country, all of a sudden, those rules go out the window, despite them being just as applicable, because human nature hasn't changed when you scale it up.
It's still the same.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And the thing is as well on that, that when you have people like Mohammed Hijab, it's like, okay, the government are going to put forward these anti-Muslim hates ares and they're going to police the criticism that you can have of Islam.
It's like, but wouldn't it also, like, if that is their stated goal, you know, in terms of defending multiculturalism and making sure that all these different diverse groups have to continue to exist, just slogging out in Britain together and just, you know, taking the destiny and sovereignty of the British people away from them.
So we have to constantly devolve into sectarianism.
If we have to do all of these things, would it not be conducive to that vision?
If we could just remove the most, like, if Mohammed Hijab was just deported, like, if the killer who, you know, David Ames was just, you know, and so on and so forth, just all the worst people, you know, just the members of the Muslim Brotherhood, all of them.
If they just went, wouldn't that help?
But no, it's not that.
It's never the concession either.
And obviously, I don't want the concession.
I want proper remigration.
Well, the hunt is.
Sorry, just to say that they never give an inch.
No.
They never give an inch.
And so long as they're never going to give an inch, they will never solve this because I was just going to say their unwillingness to compromise is what makes the system so brittle in the first place.
Yes, yes.
And so.
It's why Nigel Farage is stepping in to save it.
Oh, dear.
And to just add to that, from Muhammad Hijab's perspective, appointing an anti-Muslim hate tsar or anti-Muslim hostility tsar is a victory.
And it encourages him to continue down the same path that he is on because he believes that he's being rewarded.
He's being given more and more concessions, meaning that he doesn't think that there's anything about his behavior that should change because it confirms his narrative that he is taking over and that people like him are taking over.
So they're admitting that mass migration is a problem.
They're saying that Islamic extremism is the biggest threat to social cohesion.
Then they are rewarding the Islamic extremists.
That's labor policy.
And we can see that with every concession, nothing good ever happens.
I mean, this is the family of Salman Abidi, who blew up the children in the Manchester arena.
His whole family were a bunch of radicals.
And they had been saved from Qaddafi and given asylum in Britain and naturalized.
And what did they think of all of these concessions?
They thought, well, maybe one of us should go and kill a bunch of children.
And that would make him a good mujahid and guarantee him a place in paradise with 72 virgins.
And despite being a suspicion to one of the members of staff at the arena that night, the member of staff decided he wasn't going to say anything for fear of being called racist.
Exactly.
And so people died on like this sounds like one of those stupid AI models that have been made too woke.
Which is better to be racist to one Muslim or to risk the lives of tens of children?
No, You'd better not be racist.
Well, obviously, it's better to be racist.
I mean, what's the argument here?
And you keep seeing these kinds of pushes.
So Anjam Shoudhi's right-hand man is out of jail.
And he says that, no, we should have all of Britain submit to Sharia law.
And this is a guy who's probably born in Britain.
And according to reform, he is just as British as everyone else.
No one with British citizenship can be questioned.
But explain how has this person built any relations with the British that would be conducive to the well-being of British people?
Also, sorry, if I may just return to that point I was saying about Nigel Farage as well, because, you know, under Farage's, you know, if a reform government, hypothetically, were to deport this man, right?
All of us would, like, even if we're not fully on board with reform, we'd be like, well, that is obviously made Britain a safer country.
That was a good thing to do.
Well done, reform, right?
But an act such as that would invoke what Nigel called alienating the Muslim vote.
And so we have to ask ourselves, well, if such things as just deporting the most radical people would be alienating to that entire voter bloc, what does that say about the voter bloc?
Exactly.
Exactly.
To continue with the government's document, the new Tsar will champion efforts across the UK to tackle hostility and hatred directed at Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim.
The appointee will be expected to engage with communities and stakeholders and support action to strengthen understanding, reporting, and response.
We know how this is going to play out.
These Muslim networks are going to start braying, demanding that this not be considered extremism, that there should be more respect for Muslims, that actually there's nothing wrong with non-stun slaughter.
There's nothing wrong with calling for jihad.
Actually, jihad is a spiritual phenomenon first, which is complete BS, which is complete BS.
And we know what kind of response they're going to get from this Labour government, which is, yeah, let's give them more.
Let's give them more.
And of course, one of the worst things about this as well is that Britain has mopped up a lot of the radicals that have been cast out of Islamic society.
Yes.
There's a bunch of Egyptian and Jordanian and Saudi people who are living in Britain who would be executed in their home countries for being so deeply subversive and destructive.
In Britain, their own welfare.
And the government's reaction to noticing this is, well, you're using social media to sow hatred and expand communal divisions and you're not being understanding enough.
No, no, sweetheart.
It's because I understand Islam that I'm saying this stuff.
This is deeply destructive and giving these people more concessions isn't going to end well.
The document says that, no, more people in Britain should speak English and this is necessary for them to be able to function.
How did you let them in if they didn't speak any English?
Why did you let them in if they couldn't communicate?
How did that happen?
And what's the answer to Rupert Lowe saying, if you can't speak English, you get deported?
According to the census, there's a million people in Britain who can't speak English.
Well, that's a million.
They're probably on welfare.
You can't navigate the workplace, can you?
Exactly.
So it just seems like it's a completely desperate document from people who know that they've lost the argument, but who insist and who are losing the Muslim vote to the Greens, but who insist on continuing to be cucked and to give more and more concessions to people who literally want to behead them and subjugate them.
Whilst at the same time arguing against people talking about, say, Russia, and they use analogies like, yes, if you make concessions, you're like Chamberlain.
We've got to be strong.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Well, we can't have foreign influence, can we, in Britain, unless it's all the foreign influence?
Unless it's Pakistani or Bangladeshi or Indian.
It always makes me laugh when they say that.
It's like, really.
And they keep saying, we are here to take over.
We are here to take over.
Believe them.
And then they say, well, more Pakistanis should be in politics and should be in the highest positions of politics.
And you have a Labour leader in Scotland, Anas Sadwar, at a conference only for Muslims saying that we should have more Pakistanis in positions of power and this is how it should work.
So these guys are pushing against an open door.
And what is their reaction from the Labour government?
It is to acknowledge that this might be a problem, but to say that the so-called far right is an even bigger problem.
I mean, there's no argument here.
But the far right is, I mean, just going by the polls as well, they would characterize reform as far right.
So the far right is just the majority of British people at this point.
Exactly.
Preacher in the UK speaking in an Islamic festival in Norway.
Muslims have a right to kill non-Muslims.
And what the hell did the Norwegian people ever do to deserve to have to navigate their way through this?
Well, they allowed open-door immigration.
And so they will say that they're going to pass a new Islamophobia definition of sorts.
And they're going to crack down on Muslims who have supposedly who have supposedly had hate crime convictions that have not been spent yet or been, whatever, allowed to roam.
But the definition will, however, still condemn the predicational stereotyping of Muslims as part of a collective group with set characteristics to stir up hatred against them irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs, or actions or individuals.
Here I want to talk about the value of generalizations.
You can't have a conversation about religion or nationality or so many other things without generalizing.
And everybody who is intelligent knows that generalizations do not apply to every single individual, but that they are valuable.
And if we hear an endless cohort of Muslim Imams and people who have genuinely committed their lives to studying Islam say the same thing, we are under no obligation to ignore what we know and what we can see just because some guy is Ahmadi and his version of Islam is slightly nicer.
That's just stupid.
That's anti-survivalist.
And you must be able to generalize and say that, okay, two-thirds of mosques in Britain are probably radical, and there's a bunch of them that are affiliated with the Deobandis or with the Muslim Brotherhood or with the Salafis or what have you.
And that is genuinely a threat because these people do believe they want to take over and conclude from that that I want less Muslims in the civil service.
Myths That Bind a People00:07:08
And that's a good thing to have far less Muslims in any position of power.
And it's not an attack on every single individual Muslim.
It's merely the precautionary principle in action.
That's how you should generalize.
And you should say that, on average, this group hates me, meaning that I'm going to exclude that group from the decision-making process for things that deeply affect me and my children.
You should be able to say that in Britain.
And they want to pretend that this is some kind of extremism.
No, no, no.
I insist on generalizing.
Thank you.
In essence, Islam is a hostile faith to Christianity, to Judaism, to paganism, to every other religion.
In essence, all religions are naturally in conflict because their truth claims are mutually exclusive.
And in essence, Islam is a religion of government and power and seeks power wherever it goes.
These are generalizations that are true, even if they are not necessarily true of every single Muslim everywhere.
And no amount of social engineering from the British state is ever going to change that.
And absolutely.
No amount of tinkering is going to change that.
And they will present you with a polite face sometimes, but you shouldn't fall for it.
You should be suspicious and mistrustful.
If you want to see the true face of Islam, look at how many churches are in Islamic countries.
Or, you know, if you really want to be ambitious, look for synagogues in Islamic countries.
You're not going to find many.
Exactly.
And that is the easiest way to see the double standard that we'll bend over backwards.
There'll be a mosque on every corner, but you go to an Islamic country, you can find a church.
Then the government document pretends that, you know, They're going to allow legitimate criticisms of Islam and they have no intention of imposing a blasphemy law.
But then you see that when this guy burnt the Quran outside the Turkish embassy, he was convicted and they prosecute sorry, he was tried and the prosecution service tried to overturn the verdict of innocence and actually impose a blasphemy law.
So when they say they're not trying to impose a blasphemy law, no, no, no, we see your actions and we see your words and your actions suggest that you are and they're going to use this Islamophobia tsar in order to impose exactly that in the Fabian way.
Wasn't it this guy as well?
Didn't someone come out of the Turkish consulate and try and stab him and got pretty close to stab him?
He did stab him and got away with it.
And got away with it.
So thanks, Home Office, but this is all stupid.
And I'll let it go here and then we'll go through some of the comments and some of the video comments.
Fichtegius says, hope you guys vet people buying tickets and have adequate security.
Well, that's why the early sales are limited to subscribers.
And if you are a subscriber, try to fill it up with subscribers.
And then we won't have to worry because we love you guys and we trust you.
GLE777, Forfeitas, those pro-IRGC horse riders, are they Shia lunatics or Shir lunatics?
Yeah.
Good one.
What's the difference?
That's a random name.
Once again, all of this just sounds like yet another segment of women having suffrage far too much.
Yeah.
Opahook says, not all of them, but too many of them to let them stay here.
Yes, exactly.
Yes, exactly.
Again, Opahook, I didn't start out Islamophobe or Muslim phobe.
Islam and Muslims made me that way.
It's a silly word as well.
Like, you're so dumb.
It's like, also, like, if you're flying and someone says, Allahu Akbar on the plane, I think you're right to be scared as well.
So not only is it not a phobia in everyday life, but also when you are genuinely afraid of it, you're right to do so.
Yep.
That's a random name with a very good comment.
Every abuser I've met was an extremely weak person that is being enabled by the cowards around them.
Pretty much.
Pretty much.
Well put.
Do not fall for the demoralization.
The invaders are the weakest people on earth.
They only target the vulnerable and only ever attack when great numbers.
The traitors are the real danger.
Habsification says the most Islamophobic thing to do is to quote the Quran and the Hadiths in full context and then use historical examples from the life of Muhammad.
Yeah.
Exactly.
Yeah.
Exactly.
Let's look at the video comments.
Let's look at the video comments.
A short quote from Layman's Brute.
Just turn it up a bit, please, Samson.
Thanks, Ad.
A short quote from Layman's Brute, written sometime between 1190 and 1215.
Of England they came and thereof they took their name and let themselves be called certainly that folk that was English and this land they called England for it was all in their hand.
I think we've found the source of Ebonics here.
Of England he coming.
He a coming.
No, that was very interesting.
I love these sorts of things.
Is that that's all the video comments, is it Samson?
Just one.
All right, okay.
I'll go through some comments from my segment.
Zesty King says, Luca, you mentioned the importance of Magna Carta in jury trials, but that importance is denied by leftists.
There's a book by two Blairites all about the myths that shape English identity, one being Magna Carta and how it meant almost nothing.
I'm thinking of writing a book of my own to codify a right-wing English identity.
Well, I'd encourage you to do that, Zesty.
Aked into that is something I find quite interesting that they dismiss it because it's a myth, but myths actually are very important for the preservation of a people's identity, right?
Even if they're technically not true, they're still encapsulating some sort of animating principle that is meant to be held in common within a people.
They're basically moral in nature, and by saying that they're not true, you're basically saying that the morality that binds your people together is not true.
And I don't think enough has been said about how incredibly subversive that is to the point of almost an absurd degree.
Like, I can't think of anything more subversive.
Destroying Native Myths00:05:08
And also, as well, it's on the one hand, it's stripping and deconstructing and basically just rendering illegitimate your own myths, whilst also, of course, employing their own as such as with the windrush.
Yep.
Stonewall.
Stonewall.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Go watch Harry's documentary.
I want to watch Harry's work on the culture of critique, which should be particularly interesting in this whole idea of, you know, destroying native myths.
Definitely.
Thane Scotty of Swindon says, I studied law at university.
In my third year, I studied criminal justice, which covered things such as recidivism and prison effectiveness throughout history.
In the late 1800s, the UK appointed someone to the UK's prison management who instated a policy of very short prison sentences with very hard work.
The slogan was hard labour, hard fare, and hard board.
And recidivism dropped through the floor, the lowest it's ever been in English history.
We already have the solution.
Unfortunately, that course also informed us that criminal reform is always the cycle, and we keep trying the same failed policies over and over and over.
That is something that the Americans do better than us, is that they actually put their prisoners to work, which I think we should.
I mean, if it were up to me, we'd be sending people out to break granite with mallets out on Dartmoor in rough, harsh conditions, even though we've got technology to do it.
But, you know, the process is the punishment.
Get them building railways again.
Well, yeah, there's lots of dry stone walling that needs done.
There are lots of litter on the floor that needs picking up.
There's lots of things that, you know, if people are proven to cooperate, actually, I'm going to ignore that point.
There's a much better one to make here.
You don't care if they cooperate, then they will.
You habituate them into pro-social behaviour that also habituates them breaking out of a cycle of bad behavioural patterns by making them do good things, hard work that is pro-social.
And whether it works on everyone, of course, is not going to be the case, but it could on some people.
And if it doesn't work, there are other solutions, right?
Exactly.
That's the thing.
And Michael Drabelbus also says from my segment, liberal practicability is just a high-minded term for totalitarian bend.
Yes, yes.
All right, you want to go through yours, Josh?
Omar Awad says there must be a type of laugh occur for violent crime where fatalities decrease as danger increases because most people don't want to die.
I think that's probably true.
I'm pretty sure aversion to death is a pretty strong drive of human behaviour.
Damn God motivator, if ever I saw one.
I'm going to go out of the way as an armchair psychologist and say that.
The statistic almost deliberately misses the massive lost opportunity cost of not going outside after sundown.
That's true.
As you adjust to the fact that there is a lot of random crime, there are all kinds of costs to that adjustment.
Yes, absolutely.
I'm going to try and butcher this name.
I'm sorry if I mispronounce it, but isn't it Tulane Sloane?
Is that right?
Luca, you might recognise that.
Irish, isn't it?
I can't.
I'm very sorry.
Many of the worst cities in America don't report their crime statistics correctly.
This is part of the reason for the murder rate dropping.
Many murders are classified as assaults and accidents.
I knew this comment would come up, which is why I mentioned that it's also a trend across the entire developed world.
So even if that is the case, maybe it's a little bit worse.
Maybe it's not dropped as much.
But I think the overall trend of it dropping is probably true, given all of the different things making it so.
I'm not saying it's entirely a good thing because, of course, as we've addressed, there are opportunity costs.
But anyway, that's enough.
Kevin Fox says, so let me get this straight.
One mosque is set on fire by two Muslims and definitely nothing to do with an insurance claim to get the mosque out of debt.
And mosques get 43 million for security.
Meanwhile, police report 3,300 plus reports of vandalism and arson on churches.
And the churches get charged VAT on repairs.
250,000 young British girls are targeted by Muslim grooming and rape gangs, but we need an anti-Islam hostility tsar and anti-Muslim hostility definitions.
JD Vance was wrong.
Britain is already a nuclear-powered Islamic state.
Not already, no, but if something isn't done, that is the natural conclusion.
And part of the government's plan, sorry, part of the government's plan to tackle anti-Muslim hostility is to toss a huge amount of money at all kinds of community centers in Muslim areas, basically trying to bribe them, which the Muslims will see as paying jizya and will again make them double down.
The Middle East Misconception00:01:25
So everything the Labour government doing is to the detriment of the British people.
I was just going to say that in the 2021 census, Muslims were only 6.5% of the population.
Presume, you know, subsequent arrivals and illegals, it's still a small minority that is being pandered to here.
So the idea that they've taken over is not necessarily true.
It just makes people feel like they're going to be unable to reverse the problem here.
But who knows as well how much the problem will be exacerbated when we inevitably end up taking in a lot of Iranians as well, who are probably on the way to Europe right now.
Yep.
Yep, yep, yep.
Michael Drubelbis says, studied the Middle East and Islam in the 80s and the 9th grade.
The Middle East is predictable if you simply think like a Westerner.
Then just ignore accountability, logic, individual responsibility and autonomy, and civilization beyond tribal relations.
Remember, Islam does not mean peace, it means submission.
Yeah, well said, Michael.
All right then.
Well, you can join Firas back here in half an hour.
Do remember it is a freemium, so any of you are more than welcome to come join, hear what he has to say.
And I'd like to say on the channel, we've got the documentary.
And if you are a subscriber, be sure to go ahead onto the website and get your tickets booked for the live event.