The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1370

Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Road Seaters episode 1,370 for Monday the 9th

of March 2026. I'm your host Luke, joined today by Josh, and Ferris, 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 Rami

and his plans for it, we're then going to be talking about the American murder paradox,

which I've dubbed it. It's 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's interesting, I guess. I'm going to break it

down because it seems paradoxical. Mm, pot thickens. And then we're going to be talking about

Britain's new anti-Muslim hate czar. Yeah, they couldn't call it a Islamophobia czar,

but it's a Islamophobia czar, 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,

gutty. I'm surprised they called it a czar, isn't that quite sort of imperial? It is, it is,

but technically the Ottoman caliph called himself the czar. Of some sort. So, yeah.

Okay, and we have several announcements for you actually before we begin, ladies and gentlemen.

First of all, at three o'clock, theorists will be presenting a freemium episode of Real

Polytique talking all about, I don't know, some Iran stuff. Something going on. I mean,

the question is, has anybody thought about this war before actually committing to it?

The answer seems to be no. Right, excellent. Well, if you want the theorist's further insights

on all of that, you can catch that at three 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, 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, I've

praised Harry's, you know, progression through time, through his hair and facial hair. Yes.

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 Gibbs 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 seven till 10. There will also be VIP tickets available

as well, which will give you extra access to a 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 razz 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, so shall we start talking about British justice and what it all means? Because there is,

there just 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 Lamy first announced that he was going

to be scrapping a huge part of the jewelry trials and this probably serves to talk about the three

distinctions of types of crime that are categorised here in Britain. So we have the summary only,

which are very, very minor offences, which are all handled by a single magistrate and the magistrate's

court. Then we have the indictable only, which are the very, very serious murders and these are the

ones, sorry, 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 sees 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, you know, obviously, they've received

going to be prosecuted on need defense in Britain that Lamy 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 percent, they have a 60 percent, sorry, they have a 60 percent

conviction rate as opposed to an 80 percent 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

while it's continually contributing to its relevance. So that's an excellent way of putting it.

So 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 percent of the British, you know, convictions are actually really tried on.

So it's not even a huge section of a trial. So the idea that this has been done for expediency

and that this is going to, you know, 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 percent and then say, well, it was a stellar success. Let's expand it further.

That's all things in the British state seem to expand is that 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, Mastermind. Mastermind. Well, he proved that he wasn't. Type of bleach, red, red lester.

I mean, him after Henry the seventh. 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 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,

the 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 it's

just a worthless tradition. No, it existed for a very clear purpose and it's not stayed around because

of 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,

buying large from the British public to jury trials, they have caused 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 preference. Do you have a procedure to

convict their own? Yes, essentially. Which is something that will 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 you know, 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

chapter Stuart Wallace is 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 an international

human rights law prior to joining the faculty at Leeds. He worked as a lecturer and director of

studies at Hometon 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 you know the sort of

progressive quote-unquote values that are obviously mangling Britain. However, Stuart like many

many other voices from within those institutions have absolutely come out against us and so it's not

just that he's Rami and you know, starma by putting this forward have annoyed the really really

radical left like Corbin, you know, hated this as well, and does 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 a 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 a 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. Yes. I mean, it's

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. Yes.

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

Carter. We can, you know, appeal to all of the things that we do when we talk about a defensive

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 in its own morals and standards, one could say. It's old value system,

right? The actual older British values used to make this a very safe and secure place,

you know, contributed to our own prosperity. But you can see here, again, so this is from

just last month as well. This, uh, particular, um, subset was from the Black current, which is just

one that goes talks entirely about Black affairs, and they talk about the fact that for their

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, um, to, 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. Happens a lot in the United States, doesn't it? Like, there are a few, uh, prominent

cases. I know in the Derek Chauvin trial, there are a few people that were provable, uh, supporters

of Black Lives Matter, who I feel like would not be impartial. Right. Um, but it is enough to sway

conviction. So I think that that might be part of the reason here they underwent. But forget the

old judicial trial, right? Well, of course, yeah, very infamous. One of the best examples of it

going really. Yep. And sorry, you were just about to out. No, no, no, you can't. All right,

okay. Uh, and so we end up in a position now where, uh, jug-johnley trials in England and Wales

will not wipe out the crown court backlog, which, and this is coming from, uh, the Institute for

Government as well. And all of the, the, you know, 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 Lamy has just said, well, we, you know, we've looked at it all ourselves and we're,

we're pretty confident that it will because every time we look, the government looks at things,

we always diagnose it exactly right. And, uh, 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. There was one stood right behind him. Um, proper Panto moment. It's behind

you. Um, and so we get to, uh, yeah, the Institute for Government says, uh, the proposed plans,

which will slash the number of jury trials will produce marginal gains of less than 2% of

the time saved. Uh, against David Lamy's claim that it will be 20%. Uh, the, uh, adjust 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. Mm, and just a point that David Lamy will never understand. Yes. And, and by talking about

efficiency, all you do is a road justice in the true sense of the word. And also as well, um,

it goes on. There was a point, uh, made where they, 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. But so it's all built on these preconceived ideas of

just rushing people through just, and obviously, and none of the, sorry, first, 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 brings completely hollow when it comes from

the labor party because they are cover up of the rape gang. Yes. Yes. The, 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. Uh, there's no mandate and it's all done by an entirely

illegitimate government, which is only in power because the Tory party collapsed. Yes.

I never had a mandate to do this in the first place. And going further through the Guardian article

here, it says that, um, it said, while the number of juror trials would fall by about 50%

under the proposed measures, there would probably be about, uh, be only a seven to ten percent

reduction in total time taken in the courtroom as a result of the entire package of changes

with jugger only trials contributing to a fraction of that. And Cassia Rowland, uh, who authored

the report, said, the government's proposed reforms to juror trials will not fix the problems

in the crown court and goes on to mention, you know, the statistic about 2%. Uh, and it goes on

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 labor

MPs and peers from across the upper chamber who are going to rebel against this, right? They,

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

electorability for some reason, you know, whatever it may be, they do have grievances with it.

You also have the criminal bar, which is a strong association, uh, in terms of, you know, the

consolation of its voice, you know, and what it projects out into, uh, into parliament. And

obviously it's not in favor of these either. It said that it'll oppose the government's plan.

It says a proposal for juror general trials has been misled on the false promises swifter justice,

and it does nothing of the kind, the government's own impact assessment, grosses 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. Well, that this will

do the thing that they claim it will do. They've been caught in a sort of pints, really, from both

sides of the political aisle, the sort of left of the Starmer government. And, you know, 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. It does 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 Chegos, 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 attacked. It 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 this Magistrate Courts Act 1980, to remove the right to erect 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.

So 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 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, amid 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 trans and children.

This is really among other things. This is really, really dark.

This is quite radical. Yes, this is very exciting. And notice how dear you, but all of the light has

been on jury trials, jury trials, and so they've tried to sneak stuff from like this through.

That's evil. 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 will 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 life 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.

Paired with the extremism definition. Right. You know, and so it's leading to your child certain

books can become a crime. Well, it's basically saying children belong to the state. Yes,

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 constant tribunals bill

will institutionalizing justice in the magistrate's court as well. And this is worth just showing

you here. The constant tribunals bill will abolish the right of appeal from the magistrate's court.

Instead of the proposal, instead the proposal is that anyone wishing to appeal against either

conviction or sentence will have to applying writing for permission to appeal from the crown court

judge. Perspective 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 the position, sorry, that mirrors the enforcement playset. That mirrors the

position 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, um, appealing against convictions. That's insane. And they've got to appeal to a

higher court as well, which presumably not 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 right additions 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 nice deeply evil. Yes. And it also makes sure that those who are in

these positions who are, you know, very much friendly to the institutions have more of a final

say on those verdicts and then the attempts at retrials and 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 Rami 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

in backbenches 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 a 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 backbenches.

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 backbenches

in all and their intuitions on what is moral and what is goodness or fair to basically abolish

the larger points that I've brought 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 backbenches. But it is still a great embarrassment to be

the justice secretary and to have these radical plans used to it. But for your own party,

to go, no, no, no, no, no, you know, when you have a license as big as you do. So yes,

another humiliation for David Rami and another episode of all the British people just hanging on

by the skin of our teeth as we watch our country and its way of life bastardised before our eyes.

I think there is 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 backbent revolt is

going to deliver a different leader. So that's the last point. It won't be Andy Burnham with it.

At least not him. I mean, there have been more U-turns from the Starmer government now. What

is it? 1516. It's like an Indian heavy goods driver and 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 returning your

U-turn. It's like you will be no better in government. And now, you know, so it surprises absolutely

no one. Apart from the Labour party, it seems. What's around them? That's a random name says,

what would someone whose ancestors, yes, would cannot read, but point taken random.

Opposite 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. Opponc, yeah, okay, all the points, right? Yeah, okay. Message received. And that's

a random name also. Spice without more inventions. That can't read them, but very amusing boys.

All right, okay, over to you, Josh. I don't. Okay, let's get to my segment. There we go.

I 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

though 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. Yeah, the COVID crime wave or the BLM crime wave. It was the BLM crime wave of just checking.

I wish I'd known about this. I'd have brought my dear stalker in out of she-all combed it for

a 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 too well. They're obviously hiding

the numbers aren't there. But actually there's a complex multilayered 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. And 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, you know, thing 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. It makes it easier to monitor people's movements, makes it easier to catch

them for crime. The CCTV pretty much everywhere. I know at one point Britain was the CCTV

capital of the world. It's been overtaken. Just like all were what I 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, United States. Yes. Wow. There's China in 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 lifality 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 the 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 they used to be. An 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 where the Japanese state doesn't bother the accuser 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.

Town? 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.

But video games, you could sort of express your violence in other ways and also be more socially

isolated. And if you have more of a drinking culture, well, no, that'll be much more crime.

Yeah. Well, alcohol consumption has gone down. I think that'll have more of an effect in Britain

than America because they're not quite as big drinkers and that I've seen Americans on our

high streets at night time. 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. It's not really as targeted as it

used to be because in the past, at least, you know, where I grew up and talking to people,

sort of 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 risk getting killed or killing. Whereas if you

were a normal person street, you didn't really have to worry because you weren't involved, unless

you were really unfortunate in the wrong place at the wrong time and in that 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 the past when the murder rate might have been higher, but it was more within certain

communities, let's say. And that's all changed as well by the fact that you're supposed to have

a normal human sort of fight or flight survival mechanism and all of it has been mutilated and

repressed by 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.

Yes, further make them anxious because of the uncertainty, because uncertainty maximises

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 Lefonts who was 68 he'd recently retired and liked visiting

the library in his spare time. He was charging his Tesla 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 by standards called an ambulance for him and then the ambulance arrives and he

starts getting treated for his injuries. Then another homeless person Nicholas 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 Lefonts 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 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 Lefonts 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. 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 it has happened in this case. And so the argument of the family, I understand,

but you know, that doesn't necessarily underlying issue, doesn't it?

Exactly. 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 free 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 something 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 to 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 merged 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. 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. Nature of crime is clearly getting worse.

Thanks for that. You're welcome. That mouse, if you don't mind.

I sure. Thank you.

Um, that's the 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 perperate

glance, whether the glove fits or not. You can't do that. You're on the roll out. You're today

random. And they've said again to summarize the crime levels maybe down on paper, but the new

patches become an open PVP zone. Finally, a comment that is okay to read about time. Thank you.

Well played, sir. Um, so first I want to remind you, please go and watch Harry's documentary.

It is amazing. It's very good. I also want to mention to you, there's going to be a real

politic in around an hour. Come and check it out. It is going to be a freemium this time.

Um, but now the question that must be asked, have you got a license to be Islamophobic, might?

Oh, yes, it's my English passport. You have no idea how qualified I am.

The labor government disagrees with you, because the labor government is going to appoint an

anti-Muslim hostility czar. Pick me, pick me. Because this is absolutely necessary, you see.

And they're reasoning for this actually betray something important, which is that the

Blareight 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 Blareight goals and they believe in the goals.

They simply can't achieve the goals because their goals are ridiculous. Exactly. Exactly.

And so, um, the telegraph got a leaked draft of this strategy, and it cites Islamic extremism as

the biggest threat to community cohesion. Good of guest. Good of guest. 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 czar. Yes. I mean, the two things are so contradictory. Yeah.

You would assume that there is going to be some kind of counter radicalizations or you would assume

that there is going to be changes to prevent, so that people who retalk in aren't at risk of

having their children taken away, which seems to be the plan in the in the jury trial bill.

But no, no. The answer is to appoint an anti-Muslim hostility czar. It's sort of like that

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

abandoning 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 Saint George as tools

of hate. How will they know that? They never talk tools. They never ask us what are reasons for

waving the flag out. 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 native us or the enemy. Well, this comes

back to in the recent bi-election, doesn't it, where what's 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

on that, they wouldn't do this sort of thing. So 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

that your community cohesion might actually improve. Shockingly enough. If you tried to have this

problem, if 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 Muhammad 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 that you will terror. You will terrorize. You will frighten and terrorize the Adhu Allah.

The enemy of God. Is the enemies of Allah and your enemies? I will, Subhanallah. I will put fear and terror

in the hearts of the enemy. So, ulki fi kulubilladina, kafar or rot, or rot, terror. Fahd-tribu

fauq al-Anaqi. 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 the implication with the

news are, which again to come back to, it's 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

reject your 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 are 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

Tsar? What I find interesting about what you said here for some of these 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? That's immigration.

Oh, yes. But then I'm going to point that. They mentioned it. But the problem is your reaction

to mass immigration. 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 an entirely

a problem with 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 sizes ever going to take that away from you.

Nope. Nope. Here they are.

Right. Yeah.

And you're supposed to go, oh, this isn't a threat to my entire situation. Now I'll just carry on,

you know, going to Marx and Spencer's away for a few days. Obviously not. Exactly.

Obviously not. Exactly. Exactly. And it just keeps on repeating. And you see that the Muslims

are organising 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 say

they're all pushing open doors anyway. And they're pushing at open doors anyway. And you're

supposed to say that no, no, no, no, no. It's, 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 that the far right and not Islam, even though

the vast majority over 95% of terror related fatalities since 2005 have been due to Islam.

Exactly. And you sort of see them protesting and saying world war three is near,

are the Imam Mahdi soldiers preparing?

It seems like a problem. It seems like a bit of a problem that they think that they're going

into world war three. 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 say. And you, British person, just watching your country,

your entire civilization, everything that you love just slowly in this hourglass of 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. That is not going to, you know,

get rid of anyone's anxieties on the situation. And after Gemini 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. They just chase someone with an horse.

They just chase people with horses. And they part a great amount just to please.

How come they're not being made for chasing and people with all she's done.

Oh, it's just been chasing people with all she's officer.

So according to the British government, the person who took this video is the problem.

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 and the face of adversity is now

under threat. But the threat is people on social media, not, 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, in 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 labor government, making that observation

is what's breaking social cohesion. I mean, they sort of mentioned 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 fricking community. 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 all's

parliamentarians. We're all sat in in Westminster and it's just happening outside to ordinary people.

And we're just not as aware of it as they are because the 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 camp down on online censorship more. Exactly. And who can remember, who can

forget Lindsey 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. The 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. 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 the 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's

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 all of this, sorry, and just to say all of this sudden values of diversity and

tolerance will be quite immaterial and I imagine we get much leeway on those things once we are

a minority. I doubt the 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 gin 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 that 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 Muhammad, hijab, it's like, okay, the government are going to put forward these anti-Muslim hate

sars 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 state of goal, 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 taking out 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? Exactly. We could just remove the most,

like if Muhammad hijab was just departed, like if the killer who, you know, David Ames was just

of it, you know, and so on and so forth, just all the worst people, you know, just some 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, it's never the concession either. And obviously, I don't want the concession,

I want, I want proper remigration. Well, they're untis. Sorry, just to say that they never

give an inch, 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 that 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 into save it. And to just add to that, from Muhammad hijab's perspective,

appointing an anti-Muslim hate czar or anti-Muslim hostility czar 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 moujahid 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 it. This sounds like one of those stupid AI models that have

been made to woke, which is better to be racist to one Muslim or to risk the lives of tens of

children. No, no, no, no, 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 Chaudhary's right-hand man is out of jail. And he says that, no, we should have all of

Britain submitted to Sharia law. And this is a guy who's probably born in Britain. And according

to reform is just as British as everyone else. No one in with British citizenship can be questioned.

But explain how is 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 is, 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 block, what does

that say about the voter block? Exactly, exactly, 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

bragging, demanding that this not be considered extremism, that there should be more respect for

Muslims, that actually there's nothing wrong with non-stand slaughter. There's nothing wrong with

calling for as you heard. Actually, as you heard, there's 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 labor 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 is 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, they're on welfare.

And the government's reaction to noticing this is, well, you're using social media to

so hatred and expand communal divisions that 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

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 didn't 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 whole place, 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 who are losing the Muslim vote 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 that the analogy is like, yes, if you make concessions

you're like Chamberlain, we've got to be strong. Exactly. Exactly. We can't have foreign influence.

Can we in Britain? No, it's all the foreign schools we've brought in. And this is Pakistani or

Bangladesh or Indian or it's me laugh when they say that. It's like really.

And they keep saying we're here, we are here to take over. We are here to take over. Leave them.

And then they say, well, more Pakistanis should be in politics, that should be in the highest

positions of politics. And you have labor leader in Scotland and a sad war at a conference

pierced 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 labor government? It is to acknowledge that this might be a problem,

but to say that the so-called far right isn't even a bigger problem.

I mean, there is no argument here, but the far right is, I mean, just going by the polls as well,

they will characterize reform. Exactly. So the far right is just the majority of British people

at this point. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Preacher in the UK, speaking on 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 the 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 had hate crime convictions

that have not been spent yet or been whatever allowed to roam. But the definition will, however,

still condemn the traditional stereotyping of Muslims as part of a collective group with

set characteristics to stare 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 not under no obligation to ignore what we know and what we can see

just because some guy is Ahmady 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. 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.

The Christianity, the Judaism, the 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 will bend over backwards. There'll be a mosque on every corner, but you go to an Islamic

country. Exactly. You might find a church. Then the government document pretends that,

you know, this, 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 the prosecutor, 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, 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 this guy as well? Wasn't

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. Fiktegis 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. GLE, triple seven, four feet ass, those pro IRGC horse riders, are they Shia lunatics

or Shia 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 Islamophob or Muslim phob. Islam and Muslims made me that way.

It's a silly word as well, like he's 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. Yeah, pretty much.

Well, Paul, do not fall for the demoralization. The invaders are the weakest people in earth.

They only target the vulnerable and only ever attack when great numbers. The traitors are the real

nature. 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 let's look at the video comments. Let's look at the video comments.

A short quote from layman's brute. I'll just turn it up a bit. Please, some 790 and 1215

of England. They came and they

Thanks, son.

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 are coming. No, that was very interesting. I love these sorts of things. Is that all the video

comments? Is it Samson? All right, okay. I'll go through some comments from my segment.

As Esther King says, Luca, you mentioned the importance of magnicata and jurid trials,

but that importance is denied by leftists. There's a book by two blareites all about the myths

that shape English identity, one being magnicata 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, Esther. I think 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 run. 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. I don't think enough has been said about how

incredibly subversive that is to the point of almost an absurd degree. I can't think of anything

more to it. 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. Yeah, Stonewall. Stonewall. Yeah. Go watch Harry's documentary.

I want to watch Harry's work on the culture of critique. It 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 in

state of the policy of very short prison sentences with very hard work. The slogan was hard labor,

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 a 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 dark more in rough harsh conditions, even though we've

got technology to do it. But, you know, the process is the punishment. Getting 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 cleaning the graffiti. And, you know,

if people were proven to cooperate and there's 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 behavior that also habituates them breaking out of the cycle of bad behavioral

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 Derebelbosol says from my segment, liberal practicality 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 lathaker 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 behavior.

Damgot motivator, if ever I saw one. I'm going to go out of the way. It's an arm-chest psychologist

and saying 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 Sloan? Is that right? Luca, you might recognize that. I wish, isn't it?

I can't help you. 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. 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 czar 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 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 being

jazir and will again make them double down. So everything the labor 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. Regime, 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?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Michael Trebelberg says, study 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, so Michael, all right, then. Well, you can join Ferris back here in half an hour.

Do remember it is a freemium. So any of you are more than welcome to come join here, what you

have to say. And I'd 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. And if

don't see you, look forward to seeing you again tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen, take care.