Eva Vlaardingerbroek and Dave Rubin dissect Europe's crisis, detailing her UK ban for criticizing migrant violence and Starmer's suppression of free speech. They argue that 60 to 80 percent of Northwestern Europeans oppose mass migration yet remain silenced by human rights treaties, while condemning the EU's endless funding of Ukraine without securing peace. The panel asserts that the "marriage" of woke liberalism and Islamism threatens Western civilization, necessitating a return to Christian moral foundations and conservative guardianship against progressive whims to restore cultural homogeneity. [Automatically generated summary]
The official reason that I've been given is that I'm, quote, not conducive to the public good.
Unquote.
That is also the only reason that I've been given.
For those of you who don't know, I received an email a couple of, no, now two months ago or so, out of the blue from the United Kingdom government saying that I was no longer welcome in the UK and that they had revoked my ETA.
Obviously now as Europeans, we need an ETA similar to an ESTA for the US to go to the UK.
And I had gone to the UK in September to attend the United Kingdom rally where I spoke predominantly about re-migration.
And now we all know the stories of people getting arrested in the UK.
Thank God that didn't happen to me.
But obviously what they could do, and they did it now, is revoke my travel authorization.
And this happened three days after I criticized Keir Starmer on X.
And that, ironically, I criticized him about the attacks on freedom of speech in the UK and specifically criticized him for allowing the ongoing rape of British girls and not doing anything about these migrant rape gangs.
And so three days later, I received that email and it was just a couple of lines saying, not conducive to the public good.
Well, I must say, I'm wondering what I'm doing wrong that I haven't been banned yet.
Every time I go, I mean, I'm not kidding.
It sort of sounds funny, I suppose, but every time I go and I hand my passport, I think, boy, is this the last time I'm going to go there?
And actually, the last time that I saw Ava was at Jordan Peterson's R conference in February of 2025, and I had dinner with about 10 of the panelists, many of whom you know are well-known American, some American and some British speakers, whose names not be mentioned at the moment, but we sat at a dinner, all talking about the fact that for the first time in our lives, we were somewhere where there was some concern about what we might tweet.
You know, I wanted to tweet about what I saw on the streets.
This was, you know, a year after October 7th or so.
And, you know, there were, I call them Hamas rallies.
They were all over Britain.
I did not feel safe on the street.
I had armed security with me the entire time.
And I wanted to tweet about that.
And I thought, I also want to get out of this country without an international incident.
And I wasn't the only person that felt that.
And these are highly influential people who are accustomed to saying whatever they want and taking the slings and arrows for it.
So I suspect, well, look, first off, with all of the problems that the UK has, if this is your number one problem, then their math equation is slightly off.
That's number one.
But also, Silencing people from being able to say things in most cases which are true or vitally important to say is the point of what JD Vance said when he gave that important speech.
You will ultimately upend everything else.
And that really is what could take down Europe.
I don't think it's going to be a military takedown.
Would you extend that right to say the unsable and to protest your beliefs in public to, for instance, what we saw the other day in Trafalgar Square, where you had thousands of Muslims engaged in an act of public prayer, which by its very nature is one calling for the downfall of Christianity?
You know, there's a fundamental difference between saying what you want to say as a private person and constantly as a group of people taking over the public utilities.
And taking, you know, we see this now in Times Square in New York City, where there are thousands of Muslims praying in the middle of the street.
You know, at some point, if you do not, there's a difference between saying someone, you want to pray, that's fine.
Do you want to have your mosque?
That's fine.
Do you want to wander down the street and mutter whatever you want?
That's fine too.
There's something else that is being weaponized against us in the West, which is that they are now coming to take over all of our public spaces.
And we're going to have to grapple with that because, look, I'm an American and I have the most liberal, in the right sense of the word liberal, interpretation of free speech.
People should be allowed to pray.
They should be allowed to say whatever they want.
There's very slim exceptions to direct calls for violence.
And then, from an American perspective, libel and slander, which are laws that are almost never used, which I think is good.
But especially in the last two years, as we've seen mass movements of people who just take over Fifth Avenue or take over Trafalgar Square or take over every public park, at some point, that is stopping other people from their right to assembly.
It's stopping other people from their right to speak themselves.
And we're going to have to grapple with that.
That, in some sense, is more of a right to assembly issue than a right to free speech issue.
Ava, Isran mentioned Isabel vaughan Spruce, who was arrested many times for her silent prayer in Britain.
It does seem to me, I mean, you and I are both Catholics, so perhaps we have a particularly partial view on this, but it does seem that there is an intense hypocrisy in my home country about which religions are allowed to demonstrate themselves in public and which are not.
How would you respond to that and to Dave's points about assembly?
Well, I think the issue that we see in general in Europe is that the concept of human rights is one that only seems to apply to foreigners and not to the native population and not to the original culture or the original tradition that is the foundation of Europe, which is Christianity.
So every single time, we all know this, right?
Every single time we talk about human rights treaties, they are used against us.
And it's never discussed, okay, but what are the rights of the native people?
How should we protect those?
In fact, These types of treaties and these laws are used against us to limit our freedom of speech, which happens all the time.
So, I wouldn't argue for stricter laws to restrain the freedom of speech of groups that might be against us, because those laws are just going to be used against not against them, but against us, obviously.
So, I don't want to give our establishment any more tools in that sense.
I think that the answer to the problems that we're facing now and to the abuse that we are seeing of these treaties is re-migration.
So, we need to make sure that our culture becomes that our nations become culturally homogenous again.
Otherwise, you cannot have that type of social contract.
It doesn't work.
So, you know, for that, we will probably have to leave a lot of these human rights treaties as well.
I really don't see how we can operate within a system that is so corrupted and is being abused and used against us so deeply anymore.
If I could add to that for a moment, this is why it's interesting to whittle down the difference between free speech and right to assembly.
So, one of the problems we're having in New York City right now, for example, is they have all of these pro-Palestinian, again, I call them pro-Hamas protesters, who are specifically going to synagogues and protesting outside synagogues.
Now, I will defend their right to free speech as protesters.
Now, do they use that in the most specific way against us?
The answer is yes, because there are often actual calls to violence and genocide and things of that nature.
Now, I don't want the police coming in and grabbing these people for several reasons.
I think it amplifies it.
There's all sorts of reasons you don't.
However, if we consistently let these people, okay, you are allowed to at any time when you want, you are allowed to have hundreds of people outside a synagogue protesting, outside a church protesting, et cetera, et cetera.
Ultimately, the societal contract that Abe is talking about will start crumbling.
People will not be able to go to places of worship.
Eventually, they'll hunt you down at your business, which we've seen a lot of these types of things as well, and that's been happening across Europe.
So, that's what we're going to have to grapple with.
We have a set of people that have a certain set of ideas that are completely counter to everything the West is about.
We brought them in, or I would say I'm an American, so in Europe, I would say you guys brought them in.
We have a version of it in America, but you guys brought them in, and now will you do the things that are probably necessary to save your country?
It does strike me that there's an inherent difference, though, here between Britain and America, and that America is founded on the idea of a pluribus unum, that from the many, you gain one, one people, one culture, one language, specifically non-religious.
So, how do you think it would be possible to implement?
We're seeing a little of this with ICU, but how do you think it would be possible to implement the policies that are necessary to reverse the takeover of the public square by these hostile elements and yet retain a fidelity to the spirit of America?
Well, on the re-immigration issue, I mean, we have a huge problem in America that Europe has, which is that in the Biden administration alone, in those four years, it's unclear how many people came in, but most estimates say 15 to 20 million people.
Now, that's on top of we probably had about 12 million illegals before that, and there are the dreamers, you know, there are people who were born here.
So, we don't know what the numbers are, but let's say 20 million people were a country of 350 million people.
Does anyone here know how many people Donald Trump has deported through ICE?
It's about 800,000 people in the year since ICE has been on the street.
So if you take roughly 20 million people, and if only 10 million of them are truly nefarious, put aside that they broke the law by coming in, but if 10% of them have anti-Western views or are doing truly illegal things beyond just coming into the country, well, you can do the numbers on that.
That's 2 million people.
And if 10% of those 2 million are the worst thing that you can imagine, we can do the numbers on that.
And will we have the strength and the fortitude to get rid of these people?
The answer probably is no.
I mean, no one really wants to think about that, but would we really do it?
I mean, look at the pushback that Donald Trump got just by going into one city in Minnesota where it was pretty clear that these people should not be here.
I mean, if we do it, then it's over, especially here in Europe, because our situation is, I would argue, worse.
It's worse.
I can see the faces now in the audience when you guys heard the 800,000.
We were like, oh, we wish.
I mean, here, I mean, we have millions coming in every year still.
So, you know, I'm talking, I'm arguing for remigration, but we haven't even closed the borders yet.
So that is like, you know, count your blessings, Dave.
But I understand what you mean, though.
We need harsher action.
And I've also seen, of course, the pushback in Minnesota.
But we here in Europe, we have really no time to lose.
Like, we are, as you said, obviously, the history of our continent is different.
Our ethnic makeup is historically different.
You know, this country was not a predominantly white continent.
It was an essentially entirely white continent.
And that has changed over the time span of, what, two generations.
And now we're coming close to the point where we are becoming a minority in our own homelands.
And that was not something that we could even discuss as much as five years ago, but we can now.
And that is something that I do take, let's say, some, I gain some hope from that fact.
Not because of the political action, because there is only political inaction and unwillingness to do anything about this in most Western European countries.
But there is something, I think, tangible changing with the European population.
And that brings me back to what you said earlier, Dave.
You said, you let them in.
But we have to remember that the European people consistently say that they are against mass migration.
Like the most recent numbers that came out were, you know, if you see the different European countries, it's between, what, 60 and 80% of almost every single Northwestern European country that says, I'm not in favor of mass migration.
You know, this is not a democratically made decision.
This wasn't, we weren't asked.
You know, in 2015, when Merkel decided to open the borders to more than 2 million immigrants, we were not asked.
There was emotional warfare being waged against the European population with sad imagery and, of course, calling us a racist, fascist, Nazi every single time that we said, maybe this is not a great idea.
And as much as, yes, it's gone downhill from there, it's also gone uphill in the sense that now at least there is a discussion possible about it.
And I think that a lot of people have stopped caring about being called a racist for wanting their own homelands to remain their homelands.
And that's where I see the true possibilities.
And that's why the censorship is so important.
And of course, why it centers, I think, around two subjects.
Most harshly, let's say, immigration, right?
There's almost no right-wing activist left in Europe that is not facing legal charges because of their anti-immigration or pro-re-migration stance.
I've just personally been banned, as you know, from the United Kingdom, mostly for that, of course.
Social media censorship, I've personally experienced myself.
My phone is under mercenary spyware attack.
I mean, what do we, you know, what's next?
All of these things are happening, and it centers especially on those two subjects, because on immigration and abortion.
Because I think the agenda is native European population has to be replaced and they can't have children.
So what are you going to do?
You're going to promote abortion.
You're going to make it incredibly difficult for Europeans to have children.
That's, of course, happening as a result also of mass migration.
The insecurity, the economic pressure, and also the demoralization of our population.
And in sheer numbers.
And so that's, I think, exactly why the censorship centers around those two subjects the most.
And what can we do about that?
Well, we have to, of course, continue to speak out as much as we can still.
We have a platform where we can do it on X.
And they can't put us all in jail.
unidentified
that's why pushing the Overton window is so important Dave Ava makes a compelling case what has been called the great replacement theory And it is a compelling case.
Well, first off, I do want to fully clarify that when I say you, Europe, I mean the leaders of Europe and not the people, because you are completely right about that.
This was done with very little oversight.
And again, that's also what we saw in America.
The average American during the four years of Biden allowing these people in and these insane videos that we saw of people just flooding our country.
There's one, I will answer your question, but very quickly, there was one video that I think really changed the course of American politics and probably the entire world, which is that when Bobby Kennedy, who was running as a Democrat, he had never really said anything about the border or immigration.
That obviously wasn't his thing.
Health was his main issue.
He went to the border, and I'm sure some of you saw this video.
He stood there and he just started asking people where they were coming from.
And it was Pakistan and India and Africa and Chad and all these.
And you could see his mind being blown right at that very moment.
So nobody asked for any of this.
Now, as far as whether it was planned and is there an actual replacement theory, you know, I would say my favorite quote from the great Carl Sagan is extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So I don't know that it was fully planned.
Are there plans in Brussels to ultimately replace all these people and they just see no utility for the native populations and they don't want borders or sovereign nation states?
That kind of does sound right to me.
So I would say it probably was at least directionally planned.
And I think they unfortunately saw Europeans fold very quickly.
You know, on my show, almost every day we discuss some of this from a European perspective because I want Americans to see what is coming.
You know, I don't want the strife that you guys have.
We have versions of it.
We've had four Islamic terrorist attacks in the United States in the last month in New York City, in Austin, Texas.
We had two others.
And what's interesting is these things happen and then they're gone.
They're out of the news within 24 hours.
So will we just start having the situation that much of Europe has, which is, oh yeah, there was an explosion over there and people don't go in the trains over here anymore and everything else.
So I use Europe as a warning.
And I would say, as an American, there's a way to take the things that you guys have been talking about and dealing with and kind of show this isn't what we want America to turn into.
We also have other defenses because we have states' rights and we are a much better, more armed civilization.
We have more guns than people, quite literally.
So there's other protections, thankfully.
There's other protections that we have that the Europeans don't have.
There are people in New York who get mugged and they register Republican the next day.
I don't know.
I don't know.
You know, in the Western world, we are so advanced.
We are so free.
We are so distracted by our phones and all of the beauties of modern life and video games or whatever it is that we do that we slowly let go of everything, right?
You know, good men create hard times.
And it seems to me, sorry, hard times create good men.
Good men create soft times.
You got it.
And that seems to me where we're at right now.
We may not have enough people.
But I will give you a white-pilled version of this would be, how does it all turn around?
Well, America is clearly exerting itself on the world stage again.
And if, and this is a big if, but if the midterms go well for the Republicans, which, you know, by conventional wisdom, the incumbent president's party loses 70% of the time, obviously we have a war right now.
There's plenty of reasons to argue that maybe it will not go well.
We have huge problems with election integrity, et cetera.
But if it goes well, Donald Trump will be completely unchained in a way that we've never seen.
Yeah, if you think, if you think you've seen this man unchained, like wait till you see what Donald Trump, knowing that he's never running again, knowing he doesn't have to worry about midterms, and he might actually do some of the things that need to be done from an American perspective in terms of getting more people out.
He's hampered right now.
It's true.
It's true.
If you saw what happened in Minnesota, you know, they went in, they sent all these ICE agents there.
They were getting rid of all sorts of people.
Then there were two incidences where American citizens were killed.
One was in a car and she hit, she quite literally hit an ICE agent.
The other guy had a gun and was wrestling with ICE agents.
But Trump is sensitive to media still.
So when it started getting a little hot, he did pull back a bit.
But Trump, if he has the House and the Senate and never has to run again, I think there's a chance he really goes all in on this, particularly if the Iran war ends well, which my suspicion is it will.
And then hopefully that's the signal for Europe to do what it needs to do.
I'm glad you've mentioned the Iran war because that allows me to jump to Ukraine.
We cannot, I think, moan about the decline of Western civilization and our need to protect it, whilst simultaneously, as some on the right do, saying that Ukraine should be left to the wolves.
Now, I know that, Dave, you've had a variety of opinions on this subject, and on your program have hosted many people with the breadth of opinion.
Ava, I think you have a rather more rigid view of the situation.
Given your beliefs, and perhaps Ava, you'll start and then Davey would follow, how do you justify your various positions on this matter?
Well, I would immediately disagree with the idea that, first of all, they are not being left to the wolves at all.
It's like the opposite is exactly what is happening now.
And there's only one country, in fact, that is keeping some sort of level-headedness when it comes to this, and we're in it right now.
That's Hungary.
And they have had...
Prime Minister Orban, I think, has had the only sensible and the only morally correct position on this, and that he's pro-peace, and he doesn't want to further this, and doesn't want to send neither billions of euros over the border.
which is happening.
As we know, 200 billion Euros have already been sent to Ukraine.
Now there's the 90 billion question.
He's the only one saying no to that.
And what happened, Zelensky said essentially that he wanted to send his soldiers over to Viktor Orban's house.
I mean, you know, we're dealing with extreme political blackmail here from a bunch of people that I would say are the wolves.
That's the European Union.
So, yes, I have a bit more of a rigid position on that, I suppose, because I see that really, quite literally, the opposite is happening of what you are saying.
And it's not to say that I am therefore pro-Russia or anti-Ukraine, but there has never been even the slightest normal debate possible on this without being called, you know, a Putin puppet.
If you say, oh, I really don't think that the EU should be so deeply involved in this, or oh, why are they arguing so staunchly for membership of Ukraine to the European Union?
Because that was clearly the goal from the very beginning.
And look what is happening now.
You know, Ursula von der Leyen is the president of the European Commission.
Her banner on X is a Ukrainian flag.
Ukraine is not a member state of the European Union yet.
I mean, that's ridiculous.
That shows us where her alliances lie.
And they're not with the European people and the member states that are actually a part of this union.
So that's where I see the biggest problem in this, is that the people who are most in favor of sending money that they don't have, because who is paying for those loans?
We and our children, to the end of their days, to send that money out to a foreign nation that doesn't serve necessarily our interests.
And they are not in favor of normal peace negotiations.
They're trying to block all of that.
What do they want?
Do they want this to go on forever?
You know, I'm someone who likes to see things realistically.
And I think that they have not done that with regards to this conflict.
I also, maybe this, you know, I will go back for a second to the question of immigration because it ties into it when we are talking about things like intent, for example.
Like, I'm someone who likes to look at the situation, maybe some might say, you know, too, too simply.
But if you don't know exactly why someone is doing something, and this is a quote that I always like to say, look at the consequences and infer the motive.
That's the same, that's the thing that I do when it comes to mass immigration.
You know, they have been seeing the consequences.
For example, the terror attacks in Europe that happened almost on a daily basis, and we've gotten totally numb to that as well back in 2014.
But if we think about it, I don't think you have forgotten that.
We know the concerns of safety that we have.
Budapest is the only city in Europe that I visit, and I come to every year and say, hmm, this seems to get better by the year.
Every other city just deteriorates.
That's our status quo.
If they knew this, they saw it.
Like I said, are they doing anything to reverse it?
No, borders are still open.
So that's why I can't look away from that without concluding that there is true intent.
Because otherwise you would do something about it, no?
At a certain point, you would say, okay, enough boys and girls have been killed and raped.
Talking of how a conflict ends, I believe that America has now sent 5,000 missiles into Iran at a cost of $16 billion, and the stockpiles are simply running out.
How does President Trump conclude this war without ignominy?
Well, it's been interesting because from a military perspective, it's gone unbelievably well.
I mean, in 20 days, Trump promised to get out of forever wars.
And obviously, you guys know there's a contingent of people on the right, largely led by Tucker Carlson, who are radically anti-war and that are isolationist.
And isolationism is a completely, perfectly legitimate political position to hold.
I think there's some other things going on with Tucker, but that's a different topic altogether, which we probably don't have time for, and I'd need a drink for.
However, I would say militarily, look, we took out their Navy.
We took out their Air Force.
There's complete air domination.
Their ballistic missile program is completely gone.
They cannot produce a ballistic missile anymore.
The nuke program is gone.
So militarily, this thing has gone extremely well.
And 20 days certainly is not a forever war.
Donald Trump never said he didn't want any war to do anything.
He said he was against forever wars.
And my general sense is, and this has been made very clear by Trump and particularly Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth from the Department of War, as we now call it, that we are going to decapitate this regime.
We are going to stop their proxies all over the Middle East and Europe from spreading terror, which has gone as far as Latin America.
I think that is working.
We're seeing new alliances in the Middle East.
Suddenly, all the Gulf countries are going, boy, it's Iran shooting rockets at us, and it's Israel actually defending us.
So I think there's going to be a figurative rewriting of the map and all sorts of peace deals after.
And of course, the million-dollar question on all of this is, what can the Iranian people do after?
I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect that clearly Trump and Netanyahu and others, this has been planned for quite some time.
You aren't able to do something so overwhelmingly miraculous militarily so quickly and efficiently without a secondary plan.
So I don't know if that's bringing Pahlavi back.
I don't know what that rebuilding of the institution of the country looks like, but it seems to me there has to be a plan for it.
And again, that's still to the backdrop of the midterm elections, which Trump knows he needs a win before that.
David, the European countries have, for the most part, been, if not just reticent, outright hostile to joining in the Americo-Israeli war against Iran, which I agree entirely with Dave, is the progenitor of most Islamic terrorism in the world.
Given your views on Islam, its inherent character, do you not think that we should have gone full square behind America, behind Israel, and try to wipe out this evil regime forever?
Well, I think what we see in Europe is that, same as in America, it's something that's splitting the right, right?
I mean, it's less of a subject here.
It's not our number one priority, I would say, if I talk to people in our sphere, not even dominating the media as much as it is in America, obviously, because we're not so deeply involved.
I, once again, I think our leadership has extremely, but always, you know, this is no exception, this time always has bad judgment.
So I really wouldn't even want to waste too many words talking about that so much.
I think what is really important, though, is that we on the right try to stay united on the subject, especially of what this means for Europe.
I see a lot of people, for example, argue, oh, but this is going to cause new waves of mass migration to Europe, to the continent, because we've seen that in the past.
And that is, of course, true.
We have seen how destabilization of the Middle East has caused mass immigration.
But then we come back, and this is what I really would like Europeans to remember: is that falls or stands not with what happens in the Middle East, but it falls or stands with what happens with our leadership.
So no matter how bad the turmoil is in other parts of the world, if we would have people in power who would stand for our people, our continent, and our religion, then that wouldn't really matter so much.
Just keep the border shut.
That's the answer.
And that is not happening.
And I think that we as Europeans should keep that in the forefront of our mind at all costs.
And then we can have debates and we can have discussions and we can disagree all we want on how we think that other parts of the world should be run and whether America should get involved or not.
But for our nations, the most important thing is that we make sure that our leadership is in order.
And it's not.
So, you know, again, maybe it's boring because I'm getting back to the same thing over and over again, but we seem to get distracted so easily when our problems here at home are really, really large.
I think Donald Trump clearly, not I think, I know Donald Trump would way more respect European leaders who were standing up for their country, even if he didn't agree with the exact policy.
If he saw people, if he saw Kirst Armer or any European leader that was genuinely standing up for their country, if he had a policy disagreement, Trump loves that, and that would be fine.
But what he sees are a bunch of weak, feckless people that will not stand up for their own countrymen and who actually are afraid of the people they've imported.
I don't know if you saw, I just saw it this morning, so it probably happened in the last few hours.
But even in Australia, where I was just a few months ago, and I was shocked by the immigration system there.
And they don't have illegal, they don't have an illegal problem.
They have a legal problem, obviously, because of their geography.
But the prime minister, Albanese, went to a mosque.
I mean, this is a guy who has placated and pandered to the leftists his entire career.
And he basically got booed out of the mosque because he hasn't offered enough to these people.
So what's happening is the left, the left always eats its own.
And they think, I think Starmer and Albanese and several of these Macron, they think, oh, if they play nice with the Islamists, I think they basically think they'll get beheaded last.
And they're realizing the window is not so open anymore.
Well, I think in the case of Kier Starmer, everything comes down to the fact that he's an international human rights lawyer.
And therefore, there is no such thing as national sovereignty.
There's no such thing as belonging.
There is no such thing as our people or their people or our religion or their culture.
It is entirely explicable by this, as with most of his cabinet.
The third topic we are to discuss is the left.
And I want to begin this by asking, is there such a thing any longer as the good left?
I think we can all point to figures in all of our country's histories whom we would say we disagreed with politically, but were undoubtedly patriots of good faith and good character who wanted their nations to succeed.
You know, the thing is, I really haven't given the concept of the left, it sounds weird, but that much thought lately.
Because I feel like they're becoming more and more irrelevant, especially here in Europe, in the sense that, you know, the really idiotic leftist ideas that we've seen emerge, especially 10 years ago, you know, wokeism, etc.
I feel like that's really on the way out, even with the left, kind of, you know, of course it's still very present in the institutions and at the universities, which is important to fight.
But if I see the younger generations, like Gen Z is not buying the idea that there are 73 genders, like, you know, they're not really thinking about that that much, at least here in Europe.
The question is more identitarian.
I feel like that is the thing that is on our minds.
And that's something that we see a big split, sadly, in, between especially females and males.
So young boys are very right-wing, becoming increasingly right-wing the younger they go, and the girls not so much.
But so, yeah, the left, I mean, the European Union, to me, is a bigger problem even than our national leftist parties, because no matter, you know, what our coalitions end up becoming, now in the Netherlands, we have a new leftist government, which is horrible.
And, you know, I can't stand them, and I can't stand what they're voting for.
But even if we don't have a leftist government, as we didn't have the last two years or so, we still have that monstrous institution, the European Union, that is making laws that have precedence over our national laws.
So that's where I really see the biggest issue, because our democracy does not function.
It really doesn't exist this way.
And the fact that Trump is making fun of the Eurocrats, you know, I think that's glorious.
We need that so desperately, and it's such a positive development that this administration is very vocal about the injustices that are happening in Europe, that Rubio is talking about it, Vance is talking about it, Trump is talking about it.
He said it now just this week for the, I think, the third time, like, oh, Europe is really not going on the right path.
Soon there will be no Europe if you go on this way.
You know, how of such crucial importance that is, important that is for us Europeans, because we have this institution that we have no democratic means to fight, really.
You know, you can't vote people out that you never voted in in the first place.
And that's the case with Ursa von der Leyen.
This type of political pressure, like we really need that to come from the United States, because they are, as we've seen with the censorship and with all of the other madness coming from the European Union, they're just doubling down.
So I really see America in that sense as our only hope because it's the only political counterweight to the European Union that's actually going to make them, you know, in Dajwe would say, sing a little less loudly, you know, you know what I mean?
So I see that as a great, great, great development.
And I only hope that they're going to do more of that because those people really need to be put in their place a bit.
So there's a couple things here when it comes to is there anything left on the left?
Well, first of all, I was glad to hear Ishvan even use the word liberal in the proper sense of classical liberalism.
You know, my first book was the best-selling book about classical liberalism, I think, in the last like 40 years in America.
And I'm not saying that to pat myself on the back as much as the word liberal has been so dragged through the mud that I don't even, even though I do believe in classical liberal values, which was what the whole book was about, those are the things that I think lead to flourishing societies rooted in the individual.
It's impossible, really, outside of very specific places, probably like this room, for me to say I'm a liberal without people thinking I'm insane.
So that's I'm always glad when I'm in a space where there are people that still acknowledge the value of classical liberalism.
Now, unfortunately, there are virtually no classical liberals in the Democrat Party as it stands in 2026.
Really, the only two people from, let's say, a leftist perspective or a Democrat Party perspective in America who are defending liberalism are John Fetterman, who's the senator from Pennsylvania, who quite literally was a leftist and had brain damage.
And as his brain has healed, he's become more conservative.
So that tells you something.
But he's still wearing those hoodies.
I don't know why.
That'll be the final move for him.
He's going to say, you know what, I'm pro-life and I'm putting on a suit and that's it.
But it's him and Bill Maher, of course, who's been the standard bearer for true liberalism in America.
But interestingly, and I have said this to Bill Maher on air several times, and the first time I said it to him was about four years ago, and you can watch, it was on his Club Random show, and you can see him light up because I don't think he had quite heard it so granularly.
This is well before he had broke bread with Trump, you know, about a year ago, and it was before the re-election of Trump.
And I said, Bill, tell me this.
Where do you think you would go and be responded better to?
Would it be if you went to an AOC rally or a Trump rally?
And suddenly you can literally see his eyes open up because he realized the people that hate Bill Maher, that are going after liberalism, the idea to think differently, rooted in the individual, they're all on the left.
They want you to think what they think the second they think it, and that's it.
And I would also add that even though I think Ava's right, that wokeism in a certain sense, particularly the gender stuff, has sort of burned itself out, I think the thing that we're seeing is that it's actually now taking its final form.
And its final form is the marriage with Islam.
And that's what we have with Zorhan Mamdani in New York, and that obviously you have, I mean, in many senses, has taken over many cities in the UK, particularly.
So the state of the left, I would say, is disastrous.
In America, the fact that I'm sure many of you saw it when Donald Trump gave the State of the Union, and all he asked everyone in that chamber to do was stand up if you think that you are here to protect Americans' rights first.
And not one Democrat stood up.
I mean, that was a really good, the guy understands television and he understands moments and his pause and the way he stepped away from the mic and he just looked at them and pointed.
And I think Americans are realizing that.
And again, that's why I'm not as negative on the midterms as most people are.
However, the marriage now of the wokesters with the Islamists is the great challenge.
And it's the challenge that Europeans have been dealing with that now we are going to see.
But the woke, the purely woke bananas part of it, I think is now going to be hidden under something else that will be much more wrapped in just outright communism.
You know, years ago, Bernie Sanders used to always say he's a Democrat socialist.
They don't say Democrat anymore.
They just, now they say they are socialists, right?
Zorhan Mandami is a socialist.
He ran on a socialist platform.
He's really a communist, which they'll say in about two years.
Workism, it was said by the historian Tom Holland in Dominion, is a warped form of Christianity.
One of the things we've mentioned a couple of times in this debate so far is abortion.
It seems to me pretty unarguable that the absence of Christianity from society has completely removed our moral foundation.
And that if there is to be a resumption of Western civilization along the lines that we all hope, it cannot be done without God.
We sit in the nation where the first thing you see as you enter the airport is the slogan of God, family, and country.
They are absolutely unapologetic about this.
Whereas as a friend of ours texted Ava and me the other day, you land in London, you could be in Cairo or anyway, because you see a multicultural nation with absolutely no adhesion to its Christian past.
I think it's fair to say, Dave, that you have a less strong adherence to Christianity than we do.
Would you agree with my analysis, though, that without God, there can be no resumption of the West?
I mean, I can give you a purely secular argument for that, which is that our founders enshrined in the Bill of Rights the defense of what they called our God-given rights, right?
I mean, a lot of people, this was a constant debate years ago that Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris had.
You know, did all of the flourishing of the Western world come from the Enlightenment?
Or really did years, did generations and centuries of religious texts and belief get us to the Enlightenment so that we could then have this expansion of true liberalism?
The answer to that is obviously yes.
I happen to be Jewish, but I agree with everything that you said there, absolutely.
And I'm blessed and thrilled to live in a Christian nation, and I would hope that it will stay that way, 100%.
Ava, you mentioned earlier the demographic bomb coming up that young men are becoming more conservative and more religious, young women are adhering as it dies ever more strongly to progressivism.
Should this trend continue, how do we get young women such as yourself back to God?
I don't know specifically for girls or for boys if the approach should be any different, because the truth is the truth.
And I think that's exactly what we need to be saying.
And the truth can be found in Jesus Christ.
That's my fullest belief.
And I know that this society and its flourishment, the greatness and its beauty comes from that.
It's a cliche, but you can't have that house without a strong foundation.
It's going to crumble.
And so classic liberalism, we were talking about the Enlightenment.
I think it's like a joke.
The Enlightenment is where it went wrong.
Of course, that's partially true.
But the problem with liberalism, maybe with classical liberalism, is that it never stays there.
If your value system, your main value system is that everything revolves around freedom and equality, you only need a couple of bad actors who are going to tell you exactly what that is and force that down your throat and say that you can choose whatever you think is right and you can just follow that and that can be at your own whims and that there is no such thing as the truth.
And I think that's the main issue in the West is exactly that relativism that has become dominant as a result of the loss of God because we are not God.
We cannot decide what the truth is.
You know, like, oh, you have your truth and I have my truth.
That's the problem.
Like we all need to know, and our political establishment, I think, has totally forgotten that, that they are not God.
I think for, so this is something that works on all levels, right?
Not just in politics.
It's a personal thing.
It's something that works that way in a family, all institutions.
If you have people who are God-fearing, who know what the teachings of Christ are, deeply live it, then that is the best type of world that you could have here on earth.
I think that is the truth, and we've seen that throughout history.
That's where humanity flourishes.
And so knowing that we as individuals are not God, that we are sinners, but that we are forgiven if we turn to Christ and ask him for that forgiveness.
That is not, if you really deeply believe that, that's not a great breeding ground for dictators, let's say.
Or for people who think that little boys can become girls or little girls can become boys or that you can kill a baby in the womb because you just don't want it or because maybe it's not the right time, you know?
And those are the deepest evils that we see in this world, like every single day.
So again, for me, that's not a political speech.
As much as I believe that my faith is at the heart of everything I believe, so therefore also my politics, when I'm asked about it, I don't like to speak and impose as if I am the one who knows the truth.
I became a Catholic just a couple of years ago, and I really would prefer to be on the humble side in that and not tell people exactly how they should live their lives.
But I would rather say, I don't know everything, but turn to those who do.
Turn to the one who does, and that's Christ.
So again, this is not a politically rehearsed answer that I'm giving you.
It's just my personal deep feelings.
They're intimate.
They're my own.
But I think that if we were to all do that and be humble in that sense, that the world would be a much, much, much better place.
If I could just give you a sort of bumper sticker, maybe more simplistic political answer on that, which is that I agree actually, begrudgingly, I've come to this over the years, that liberalism in and of itself cannot defend itself.
And I think that that's what the progressives realized.
They realized that the soft underbelly of tolerance that liberals tend to put at the top of the hierarchy was going to be the easiest way to usher in all of the bad things.
And that really explains the alliance between the progressives and the Islamists.
You have the people who are the most, you know, quote-unquote progressive, allying with the least progressive people.
And in all of their minds, it seems to make sense.
And it's obviously because the Islamists are using the progressives to get into the system.
So the bumper sticker version of it would be: to me, liberals need conservatives to guard the door.
Liberals need conservatives to guard the things that are eternal so that the whims of the day, the crazier whims of the day things, can be pushed aside.
And unfortunately, liberals from an American perspective, I think, and many of them I think regret it.
I think if you were to talk to Bill Maher, was he probably too harsh on George W. Bush or on some of the kind of middle-of-the-road Republicans over the years for maybe some of their beliefs on social issues or on religion or something like that?
I think the decent liberals would probably say yes, because the decent liberals aren't the ones that want to have to defend the borders and make some hard decisions on things.
And that maybe is a critique of liberalism that took me a long time to realize.
But I would also say it's also an argument for Trump again, because Trump really, I think, has defended both conservatism and liberalism at the highest level that you can do it as an American politician.
You know, he's a conservative for obvious reasons.
Let's say putting justices on the Supreme Court who reversed Roe v. Wade.
That's obvious.
He's a conservative in that he's defended the border.
But does Trump, does Trump, the private man, do you think he's radically against abortion?
The answer probably is no.
Donald Trump was the first incoming first-time president to be for marriage equality.
Not even Barack Obama was.
That's not even an issue in America.
So Donald Trump has done this incredible dance to bring together all of these people.
And the real question for the future of American politics is: will anyone be able to do that again?
The great Maurice Glassman, just to your point, British Labour Pierce, says the one word you never want to hear in an oncologist's office is progression.
Why should it be the case in politics that we do want to hear it?
Ladies and gentlemen, it's now time for you, who have had an hour to think up wonderful questions for our brilliant duopri, to put those questions.
So I think, and I hope we have a microphone somewhere that shall be circulating.
And I shall begin with the lady gesturing vociferously at the top here, and then move down to the left because we never like to be at the left, and let's move to the right after that.
Thank you, Melissa, for this wonderful Danube Institute.
God bless you.
My name is Mona Zaki.
I'm a professor of strategic thinking.
I'm Copt Orthodox Egyptian.
I live in Cairo, and I am really impressed by Eva.
God bless you.
I have to tell you that the panel is impressive because as an Egyptian myself, we live in the middle of the crisis surrounded by crazy neighbors.
So you can imagine the fire we go through around, starting Gaza, Libya, Syria.
Please have Syria in your mind.
Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, all this area it's crazy around.
So my question here, when you said, do we really need God?
This is our only way to survive.
I always say safety is not in the absence of danger.
It's in the presence of God.
This is what made Copts live up till now.
with the head high, with a very strong martyr history, including the 2015 20 Egyptian martyrs in Libya who insisted on sticking to the religion, sticking to Christianity, and really losing their lives after the terrible torture in modern history.
So my question is, Trump is doing a great job trying to save the world against Islamists.
He's doing a great job trying to save his own country.
But what about the victims of the wars?
What about those, the Christians in Iran, the converted Christians in Iran?
What about the Christians in Syria who are really slaughtered down and Syria is moving into this problem like Taliban and Afghanistan?
Syria is in a really bad shape.
What about the Christians in the Middle East?
So the Christians in Sudan, so the Christian in Gaza.
So this is as a Christian myself with a Catholic education of Orthodox origin as a real, real authentic Copt who comes from the ancient Egyptians that was originally a Coptic country before the Arabs' intervention.
So what about those Christians around the Middle East?
Are they in the minds and the prayers of the politics, the high leaders' politics?
Well, first I would say that the, I've been to Cairo once, it was 1997, so it was a long time ago, and I visited the Coptic quarter over there.
And as you point out, I mean, there were a tremendous amount of Coptic Christians in Egypt, and there's almost nobody left, at least in a functioning sense, anymore.
And I would say Europeans might want to take that as a warning, that what will happen as you import more people who will bring in an ideology and a religion that will subjugate you and ultimately either kill you or force you to leave.
So from a political perspective, everything you said about Trump and I think his vision is completely right.
There isn't a great discussion about that happening nationally at the moment.
A little bit with what happened in Sudan over the last month or two, leaked into the mainstream media.
There's a little bit, mostly because Tucker Carlson actually completely lied about the Christian situation in Israel and said that they were diminishing in Israel, which was a 100% lie.
It's the only place in the Middle East that Christian numbers are actually going up.
Mostly because he did that, it did shine a light on some Christian communities in the Middle East.
But no, unfortunately, it's not top of mind what's happening across the board.
Can I add something about the European establishment, obviously, to the question of the woman in the back?
Sadly, here in Europe, our establishment doesn't even care about the Christians here.
So, you know, and you know this.
So this is the biggest issue is that they are the ones actively also in the documentation of the European Union in defining what it means to be European.
They wrote that out.
That's why earlier I made a joke about the Enlightenment.
They named the Enlightenment.
They talk about that.
They talk about liberalism.
They talk about freedom.
They talk about equality.
Christianity was never mentioned once.
It's the foundation of this continent.
So that shows you again, that shows you their intent, right?
If you take that out, who do you stand for then instead?
Andrei Kolarik, Ladislav Hannus Institute, Slovakia.
My question is more specifically to Eva.
You are speaking much about remigration.
My question is, if there is a genuine person who is from a different continent, wants to come to the Netherlands and become Dutch, or wants to come to some other country and become genuinely, I don't know, Frenchman, German, whatever.
The current governments don't define it.
What would it take for a citizen of, let's say, Oman to become a Dutchman, to be accepted by you as a Dutchman?
I appreciate that question because there is a lot of debate about this going on right now.
Because it's a tricky question for the obvious reason that the debate right now about what it means to be a Dutchman or what it means to be a Brit, we've seen it especially now with Restore Britain, with Rupert Lowe.
There are different opinions on that, whether that should be only a cultural question.
Of course, then you come into the sphere, let's say, of the civic nationalists, or if there is also a component of ethnicity, of your ancestry, right?
And now that debate has been shunned for as long as we can remember, because if you even dared to suggest that, yes, also ethnicity is a part of that equation, then you were branded a white supremacist.
Now, obviously, no one is saying that, or I am at least not saying, that if you are white, that you are superior to any other person of any other ethnic background.
I am a Christian.
I believe that we are all made in the image of God.
So therefore, I would never say something like that or believe it or think it.
To the question of what it means, though, to be a Dutchman or a Frenchman or a German, can you become Dutch coming from Oman?
I mean, I think if we would turn the question around, and you know, I would like you to think about that maybe as well.
I am, I am, for example, I'm married to the most wonderful Italian man who's sitting right here.
I could say that I integrate it quite well into Italian society.
I speak the language.
I know all of their gestures.
I will not incriminate myself now, but I know a thing or two about Italian culture, let's say.
But I wouldn't call myself Italian because I'm not.
I'm Dutch.
I was born in the Netherlands.
I have ethnically Dutch ancestry for as long as you could probably go back.
We know that.
Therefore, I'm Dutch.
Does that mean that I should be treated badly or differently in Italy?
No.
Not if I adapt myself to that society.
So of course, to answer your question once again, there absolutely can be immigration possible from other parts of the world if the people that come choose your society, adapt themselves, and are of benefit to the hostland.
And the latter is basically not happening with the immigration that we have right now.
The doctors and the engineers are not coming.
Sorry.
You know, so that's the thing.
We can have discussions all we want about integration, but it's too late for that.
It's too late for that because we let too many people in.
And that's why now we are forced, which, you know, if didn't happen, I would have never had to and I would have never wanted to, but now we are forced to go back to the question, what does it mean to be European?
What does it mean to be French?
What does it mean to be German?
And I do think that your ethnicity plays a role in that.
And that we also, as the native people of Europe, and that's why I constantly, you know, reiterate that, have a right to remain the majority in our own country.
Because you cannot just magically separate the two completely.
I would just add in 10 seconds, I would say three words to that person.
Not right now.
These countries have to deal with all of their internal issues and let them deal with that first, as Ava just pointed out, and then there can be that discussion.
I'm going to guess that you're not an anti-Semite, but I suspect you question Israel.
So you can have, of course, you can have legitimate questions about any nation state and any leader or anything else.
Tucker has done something completely, completely different to go to Israel and not get off the plane and ask Mike Huckabee, an evangelical Christian, why Israelis shouldn't, like Bibi Netanyahu, shouldn't have DNA tests.
There's something that maybe is a little anti-Semitic about that.
You know, he does a lot of trickery.
Almost everything Tucker does has become some sort of verbal trickery.
One of the things he does when he's criticizing Israel from one side is he'll say the secular state of Israel, implying that it's not a religious state, which it blends both religious nature and secularism.
So he'll attack it on one side for being secular, in that somehow that it shouldn't have this land, because if it's a secular state, they shouldn't be in this place that was promised in the Bible.
And then quite literally, two weeks ago on his show, he said that Chabad, which is basically just a Jewish outreach program, he made it, he basically called them akin to a terrorist organization that was going to blow up Al-Aqsa Mosque to build the third temple.
So he wants to hit it from the secular side and the religious side.
So it's one of those things that it's why anti-Semitism is the oldest hatred, I would say.
When Jews have power, people say, oh, we hate them because they have power.
When they don't have power, oh, look at them.
They're less than they're pathetic.
So it's a constant shell game that he is playing.
But believe me, you can criticize Israel.
I've been there many times.
There's no one that criticizes Israel more than Israelis.
But in the United States, when the first thing you say to them, you start questioning Israel, all of a sudden, out of the woodwork comes everybody piling up.
Sure, well, I can't speak to that comment specifically because I didn't see his show about that.
But I would say if you want to criticize Kent, what people should be doing, which we shot my show in this very room this morning, what you should be criticizing is that like, putting aside that he has completely flip-flopped all his positions on Iran over the years, because he was completely behind Trump doing military action in Iran as much as two years ago or as little as two years ago, that's one thing.
But what people should be criticizing him is he likely was a leaker who has been kicked out of White House meetings for months.
Yeah, well, you know, the thing is, this is a very tricky one.
And to that, I will agree with you.
I personally know this, for example, because I'm simultaneously called a Zionist and an anti-Semite all the time.
This is true.
And I'm not somebody who's particularly outspoken, for example, about that region of the world, because as I've told you basically the entire time that we've been talking, I'm someone who focuses on Europe first and on the issues that I actually know a lot about, that I have historical ties to.
But I do agree with you that it's an extremely explosive subject that also, maybe more so maybe in Europe than in America.
There are very strong reactions to criticism of even the government of Israel, which I think should be allowed and shouldn't be equated to anti-Semitism.
Of course, you know, this goes absolutely both ways.
I see rampant anti-Semitism in Europe, and it comes predominantly from people that we have let in in very, very, very large numbers.
It doesn't come from someone like me, yet I also get called an anti-Semite by people on the left or people more so in the center.
And that is something that I find problematic.
As to Tucker Carlson personally, he is someone that I've known for many years.
I think loyalty is something that is incredibly important in my personal life.
I stand by that all the time.
So you will never hear me say anything bad about him as a man.
I think that he has done incredible work also for the conservative movement in America.
And that on this subject, you know, you can have, he has strong opinions and you can differ with him.
But that's the beauty of, I think, American society is that you have that right and it's enshrined in your constitution much more than it is here.