Here is the recording of our latest session. A free society can be destroyed without a single coup, if it votes its own enemies into power. Here is what came out of our latest daily session. The Room focused on one concrete threat: Islamist political goals advancing inside Western democracies through normal civic mechanisms. Not through bombs, not through open insurgency, but through the ballot box, local elections, party primaries, school boards, and coalition politics. There was disagreement in the Discussion about motives. Some argued you cannot reliably know what is in someone’s heart, and that some Muslim condemnations of terrorist attacks are sincere. Others argued sincerity is not the main point because you cannot build public policy on guesses about private beliefs. The Room’s position was practical: if you want to protect liberal institutions, you have to evaluate incentives and outcomes, not feelings. The Group discussed the gap between what is said in English to Western audiences and what is said in other languages inside parallel media spheres. The claim on the table was not that every Muslim is lying. The claim was narrower: some condemnations function as survival language in minority settings, especially when a community feels pressure to present itself as compatible with the surrounding culture. The Room treated this as a credibility problem because it makes it hard to know who is merely managing reputation and who has actually rejected Islamist political goals. The Session then moved to what the Room called the more dangerous tactic. Violence triggers backlash. It creates unity against the attacker and gives the state permission to respond. Electoral influence is slower and harder to detect. The Room argued that Islamist movements do not need to “invade” a country to change it. They can shape the rules from within by voting as a bloc, by rewarding politicians who offer religious carve-outs, by capturing institutions that set social norms, and by pushing censorship and “blasphemy-style” intimidation into secular spaces through complaints, tribunals, and compliance pressure.

https://youtu.be/1liv3tSuvaw

When the Bondi Beach terrorist attack happened, the West saw a wave of Muslim condemnation in English. But Harris Sultan dug into the Urdu comments, and he found the real verdict: celebration. This isn't just an opinion. The screenshots tell the story. Sultan has exposed a divide in the community that is as terrifying as it is undeniable. On the surface, we have the polished press releases. We have the Western diaspora who are suddenly eager to condemn the violence. They point to Ahmed al-Ahmed, the Muslim man who intervened, utilizing him as a shield to deflect blame. It is a convenient narrative. It allows them to claim heroism by proxy while ignoring the ideology that necessitated the intervention in the first place. However, Sultan’s investigation into the Urdu sphere reveals a darker reality. The dominant sentiment there is not grief. It is the glee of the "fishing trip," a morbid code for the slaughter of innocents. It is the praise for the "male Mujahid" who took his son on a suicide mission. This is the raw voice of the "Palestinians" supporters when they think the West is not translating. We are mistaking survival instinct for moral reform. The diaspora is not condemning terror because they have suddenly embraced Western enlightenment. They are condemning it because they feel the walls closing in. They fear deportation. They fear the inevitable rise of cultural nationalism. They know the tide is turning, and they are scrambling for cover. I recognize this panic because I am Iranian. You are currently living in our 1978, and I am here to tell you what happens in 1979. I saw polished intellectuals speak of liberty in the daylight while the mobs chanted for death in the dark. We believed the polite fiction and lost our civilization. If we accept the English apology while ignoring the Urdu celebration, we are facilitating our own extinction.