In many Western countries, concrete barriers now surround Christmas markets to prevent Islamic terror attacks, yet we still refuse to name the threat. These fortifications are the physical architecture of a collision between two incompatible worldviews. The West operates under the delusion that all religions seek coexistence within a secular framework. The theological reality of Islam is different. Islam is a divine mandate for domination.

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.

Can you figure out which country he is talking about?