I have written essays for my magazine, the Meditator, and it has been suggested to me that I could also make a podcast or audio and video recording of the same essays. That is what I now intend to do. In some of my essays, I have mentioned the religion of Islam. I intend to examine Islam, and our country’s dangerous situation vis a vis this foreign and harmful ideology, by reference to a parallel discussion of something else, something which is probably the most important thing about English and Western European cultural, namely, the religion of individuality and selfhood, which is properly known as Christianity. When I say the individual, I mean, the self. And politically speaking, its complement, namely, liberty and liberalism. And its religious root, in the truth of Christianity.
I am cautious about allowing that Islam is a religion, because it has such significant differences from Christianity, that the two could be said to be so different, that they cannot be given the same designation, or be spoken of as if they were a type of the same thing. What they have in common is, that following Christ and following Mohammed, which is what they respectively do, also involves having an idea of God, and this implicates a relationship with God in the follower. But after that, the differences proliferate.
I think that the Romans had at least two words for interaction with God, namely religio and superstitio. Religio is a matter of obeying rules, and of being bound to a code of behaviour and obedience. Superstitio has to do with honouring the shades of the dead, the household lares, the deities of a place, and paying them their respects. I don’t think of Christianity as either a set of rules, nor particularly a superstitio. Rather, with its insistence on individual self perfection, so as to attain to theosis or divine brotherhood with God or Christ, it has more qualities in common with the love of wisdom, or philosophy. It is the meaning of life, and the truth, more than a religion, as I see it. Islam has the quality of being a traditional religion, of commandments and obedience to a supernatural spirit.
It is this individualistic heart of Christianity which has led foreigners to think, that the English have no religion, by and large. And it has been said by contemporary materialists, that they are the direct heirs of Christianity in England, since God and his Son died on the Cross, leaving on their third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Zizek, for instance, has said that the Holy Spirit has become or should become a revolutionary political party of liberty and liberation. And by and large, I regret to say, that this is what Christianity has turned in to for the most part of the people. They live as if God were dead. Liberalism, which is their philosophy, is a direct consequence of Christianity, and is a form of it.
All that said, it is clear that the notion that God died is a mistake; as everyone, even the most obscure and unthinking person in England knows, that Christ resurrected from the dead. And he gave the blessing to human beings to become divine and to have eternal life. Whether in the form of Liberalism, or Orthodox Christianity, English people have before them the truth of their situation: God wants us to be a self, and to lead our lives in such a way as to become individually perfect and philosophical, free, self-realised.
I intend to go about my discussion of Islam, because I have elsewhere merely claimed that Islam should be banned in England, and said that I prefer not to give my reasons. I did that only for the sake of saving time. My reasons for wanting it banned may be controversial, but they are not impossible to give. I will do so in three stages. First, by explaining the English religion, or what we take to be the truth; and how this is related to Christ in a fairly obvious way. Second, I will explain why the religion of Islam is different from this, so much so that it must be banned. And Third, I will explain how this should be achieved.
The self is rightly claimed not really to exist as a fixed entity. It is not fixed, it is not something which a science, such as biology, could study objectively. The self doesn’t exist like that. Psychoanalysis does not consider that people have a fixed definitive self; they change and they are always split. On the contrary, it is not a real existing thing. Rather, it has to be made, it has to be created by us. When it comes to the reality of the self, what it really is, it is clear that, because it is so weak, distracted, evanescent, it must be cultivated, developed, grown, over time.
There is a single simple core of selfhood, namely, the body. I know that there is a unitary being which is ‘me’, because of the body. Like the personality and self of a man, the body changes, falls apart, replaces itself over long periods, so that like a patched coat belonging to a poor man, eventually no single part belongs to the original coat. Still, roughly speaking, the body is a coherent thing; it is one single thing and not another.
Higher than this, the self can be said to be real, because it has a memory of its past life. But this again is pretty rough, and memory is feeble. And given these weak foundations for a belief in our self, we must then resort to making our selves real, by nurturing the idea of our self. We compare it to other people. We develop and discipline and push our self to become someone with an identity.
The project of becoming a self and why this should be necessary is perhaps the deepest of philosophical questions. It is necessary for a man to have an identity, but it is equally clear that he can rub along in life while breaking all his own rules, disrespecting himself, not taking himself seriously in the least.
But most people have principles. They say: the type of person I am does not do that. I am the person who does this. Such rules are also subject to unintended failure and revolution inside the self, of course.
But when a man has developed a sense of who he is, and what he is, his principles become important. So much so that to go against principle is sometimes almost more painful than death. Imagine a man who has worked hard to become a self, and to become as good as he can be, and then that man deciding to break his own rules. All the effort of a lifetime’s work is lost in a simple decision, a compromise, a defeat. He loses himself at that moment.
The sense of a consistent self is referred to like this: having a soul. It does not mean that a man has a personality, which is a thing for social occasions. A self is something private, and work at becoming a self is the same thing as having a soul. So it is rightly said, and it does feel as if it is the case, that when a man goes against his principles because of some benefit, or some coercion, than he loses his soul. He sells his soul. A humiliation of that kind can break a man.
There are types of occupation which demand that a person sells his soul, or discards all of his integrity. I believe that secret service work, spying, and that kind of elite level military work is such a case. Shakespeare certainly was aware that a man can lose himself, can be compromised so badly, that after losing his soul, or losing his self, he is worthless.
I suppose that in Shakespeare, the principles of self-develoment and self-awareness, are loosely based around honour, as it was in the Greek philosophy and culture. But by and large, there are also principles of an Christian kind, so that when a man does not follow his principles, he is said to sin. Regardless, a man has a soul, whether it is bound by honour or loyalty to God.
As we know, the self should aim at eternity and eternal life. God wants men to find their self as an eternal self. So, with the aim of building and finding and creating himself, the movement should be toward recognising and relating to yourself as something which is eternal, and which will never die. The highest possible type of self-creation, is to recognise your self as having been created to live forever. To achieve this, it is necessary to have the notion that God, whom we already recognise as watching us, is a person himself. He is a self.
But equally, there is always someone watching, whether it is our ancestors, or our conscience. The self is split like that, as the psychoanalysts have described. There are layers of self-awareness, and layers of personality, so that a man often works against himself, and unconscious desires work inside him to go against conscious ones. And there are commands and instructions inside his head which bring about a conflict with himself. Zizek, who we have already mentioned, maps out his shifting complex network of layers, abysses, commands and structures. The psychoanlysts, particularly Freud, troubled themselves to work out, why men, or selves, seem to work toward their own destruction; and why they follow their deseires in such circuitous ways.
But the main principle applies: you have to become a self. It is not a material scientific fact which one can lay out with a mathematical formula. You cannot measure the amount of soul, the intensity of the consciousness of a self. Rather, the self attracts and guides effort from potential to actuality.
Now, in order to avoid or overcome the morass of the troubled, dishonourable and sinful self, with its self-destruction, its failures and delusions about who it is, the means to truly become the ideal self are laid out in the Gospels, which are the story of an individual man, who was also God. Christianity is among other things, or essentially, a method of self-development and self-deification; it is a process of fulfilling the ideal of becoming yourself, by approaching God.
The Gospels describe Christ as a healer, who gives people back to themselves. He offers the Kingdom, and eternal life in the kingdom; he does so to other individuals. The people Christ chose to meet, and deal with, are sometimes soldiers or priests, but he deals with them as individual people, irrespective of their caste, or job. They are all equally valuable. And he has said that God loves the individual. It is noteworthy, that in contrast to the Jewish religion, where God is said to love his people, Christ says that, with him, God loves the individual, no matter their race, or their past.
Christ and the Christian who follows him, is said to be selfless. But our language is ready to make a simple but devastating error here. There is a difference between selfless toward other people, but having a self, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, having no self at all, and therefore being ‘self less’.
Christ is not selfless in that way. He is entirely aware from beginning to end, and St John is entirely convinced, that far from being selfless, he is the King of Heaven, the son of God, the beloved son. It is hard to imagine a higher sense of individual selfhood. Note also, that the people who have no self, no integrity, are frequently possessed by demons; they are like the drunken broken men we find in towns at night, who have had some awful descent into ruin. They are selfish in one way, lying, thieving, lechering; but inside, there is no self in them at all; as if they are possessed by evil and failure. We must be careful about the way language can mislead in these simple ways.
And here is also the royal road to building and finding a self: through non-attachment. The purified mind, the strong character, is silent, composed, concentrated, as we said. To follow principles of inner composure, it is the best thing for the self to remain untouched by the world. And so exercises in detachment are useful to self-building. That is what Christ does when he retires frequently into the hills or the desert, to pray. He goes to the masses of the ordinary people to speak with them and teach; but he also retires to a small circle, or entirely on his own, to meditate and commune with God.
The proper purpose and truth of life, is withdrawal from it. That is when the self can reach perfection, in the calm of self-relation and self-reflection. There are exercises to assist this, but also, the time in the desert, for fasting and self-examination, is one of them.
Having a self, or developing a self, is not an end in itself; one has finally to go higher, and be aware of himself as eternal. God made him like that, to live eternally in the temporal world, and in the afterlife. We aim to recognise that we are godlike, in that way. Western philosophers such as Leibniz, and Berkley, have said, that the self is not only the most important thing for us to consider, but that the entire world comes about only in the mind of a single individual. The world opens up into its play of Being because of the aware and concentrated individual. And selfhood is the point of life.
At the highest levels, it is speculated, that the man who has attained brotherhood with Christ, and is a true son of God, understands the existence as God does, and sees the past, the future, and into other men’s hearts. But this is only to highlight, that the most important thing on earth, is the self and its self-relation.
--
One could object, and say that the self is not everything; there are other people; there is a world out there. I have already shown that there is no world ‘out there’. I think it was a fasincating idea of Borges, that there is no time future or past, either, except in the mind or the sense of self of a person. What is past does not exist, and never existed in a linear progression, without the self who considers it in the present. Besides, everything which can be brought to our attention about things other than the self, can also be given no attention, and can be left behind. None of them is as eternal, or as impossible to avoid, as your own self.
But there are cases in which it is possbiel to have an identity by proxy. I cannot guesss how many people there are, whose identity is based on principles given to them by a group, and whose identity is to have fallen in love with an external order. Such people have a weak sense of self, and their lives depend on the mood and direction of the crowd, or some other organisation such as an army or a church, or an employer, or their class. I think it would likely, that for the most part, people find themselves in this kind of thing, and don’t put much effort into their distinct self, but rather they place all their effort into finding their ‘place’ in society, their niche in the world.
This is why, given that a society has a need for various grades, professions, and types, those roles eventually get filled in, even where the role requires somebody entirely give up their self, and descend or rise into ruin. The pressure of the group and the external order is easily powerful enough to make most people just forget their self and learn their place. Even if, as it is in England today, they insist that they are totally free and in control of their own lives.
I suppose that the romance of the effort and the isolation of the man who is making himself and finding his self, is the allure and the menaing of the philosophy of Nietzsche. The work of making your own principles, to know yourself, to aim to the nearly impossible task of making your own principles and therefore a unique self, is hwat his philosophy more or less is. That is what the Superman means to Nietzsche: it is the self which has made its own rules and is strong enough to follow them, and therefore to be a pure living individual. Such individuals are not usually welcome, and are easily broken against the rocks of the world, which is why he insisted on having the will and indifference to the world, required to be a self.
On the other hand, it is more typical for a self to belong to the Church, since Christ told you to be an individual and to find yourself. In the Church, your highest aim is already prefigured. The church is a group and organisation, which tells you to be yourself. And, to be one of the crowd only in the liturgy and public rituals. Church is, as it were, a break from the hard work of living and being a self. It is not an end in itself.
But as we have said, the highest rank is already held by God himself, and so the path to being an individual self, fully realised, and free before God in faith, is a matter of Christianity, Church, and the worship of God, who is also a self and a person.
To say it again, individual aware and conscious selfhood, concentrated and principled, in a single soul, for a self which recognises that it is eternal and before God, is the meaning of life. That is what Christianity means, and it is by and large what the English culture teaches, because it is a Christian culture.
The first thing to be said about my hatred of Islam, and your hatred of Islam if you chose, is that there is a distinction between the sin and the sinner. Islam is the sin, and the believer is the sinner. We are told to hate the sin, and not the sinner. We must hate Islam, not the individuals whom it has captured, or who belong to it.
That’s not to say that I have a generous attitude toward Muslims. I think that every one of them is wrong in his beliefs, particularly if they held and lived in England, and I have no interest in the notion that most Muslims are peaceful, which is said all the time. No, every Muslim in England is doing wrong and should be prevented from practicing that religion in this country. Nevertheless, it is the religion which hateful, not the individuals who follow it, and the individuals or people who follow its commands should be given the opportunity to stop following it.
The crime of Islam is, that it is a fully formed and unreconstructed foreign politics and religion, which cannot be separated from one another, at work inside England. It is an idea which demands belief and obedience, in the form of a kind of church which has global ambitions, and therefore is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution of England, and of the individual freedoms Christians require.
Romantically, Rudyard Kipling, and TE Lawrence, Richard Burton, and the like, admired Muslim societies, which were so strange and different and admirable. They found in Islamic countries and terittories, a male-dominated, violent, vengeful, primitive people, bound together by a religion of social cohesion and barbaric justice. But the qualities which they admired in Islam were admirable to men who were immovably Christian in their way of seeing things. To think that any of those Arabists from the past would have approved what is going on in England itself today is absurd. As I understand things, there are at the very least four million committed followers of islam in England today, and probably a lot more than that. Ten percent of the children in England today are followers of Mohammed, and this figure rises without any obstacle year on year. Whatever our culture is, these children are prevented from understanding or taking part in it.
I propose a ban on any expression of Islamic religion in England, for the integrity and future of our country, which will be undone and eventually destroyed by the presence of so many foreign elements. Such a prohibition could be carried out by restricting citizenship to those people who are prepared to do things which Muslims cannot do.
The criminalisation of Islam could be carried out gently, by demanding that any citizen of the nation must swear formal allegiance to the Creed, or similar articles of the Church, and to renounce any other faith. Some change in the Church of England would be made in advance, to ensure that the Church and Creed people are bound to swear to is Orthodox. Second allegiance to the monarch and constitution of our country must be sworn, and any allegiance to another foreign leader should be considered an act or expression of treason. Whatever benefits there are of citizenship, such as the right to work, to receive help from the state, to healthcare, to taxation, to owning property, and trading, would be taken away from non-citizens.
In this way, Islam and probably Islam alone among the religions, would be prevented in the country. It is a massive ambition, but not impossible. Precedents in English law, which restrict membership of the nation to Protestant Christians alone, were applicable until 1832. Until as recently as 1975, women did not have full citizenship rights, particularly borrowing money and the like. Restrictions on citizenship and the rights of people to be part of the nation because of religion and allegiance, first became necessary in the 1530s, and the history of England is in large part a history of ensuring that foreign religions do not have any influence in the country. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was the most recent and successful attempt to remove European or Roman Catholic political influence in our country.
It would seem regressive to bring back similar or the same restrictions, but that it would be regressive is no objection. Sometimes it is necessary to go backward. Additionally, it is common in our times to ban ideologies or ‘religions’ which pose a threat to the constitution and the functioning of government. That is why the British National Party is currently banned; why the Irish Republican Army was treated as a terrorist organisation in England and the United Kingdom in general. It was not the people who were banned; it was their ideology, and the same must apply to Islam, or the things contained and advised in Islam’s holy book, the Koran.
The reason that it must be banned relate to the things which I have already said about Christianity and the pursuit of self, which are at the heart of our culture in England. Notice that I do not say that Islam should be banned everywhere. That is not what I want, nor is that possible. But it should be banned in the United Kingdom.
1. Firstly, the people who follow the instructions of the Koran belong necessarily to a foreign political organisation, which as such, should not be operating inside the United Kingdom. The word ‘foreign’ means the same thing as it would for any ‘globalist’ organisation. Islam demands a global government by a religious leader. Therefore, it is not British.
2. Second, it does not allow the follower to properly distinguish between Church and State, secular and religious, as has been pointed out by Tom Holland. Therefore, it is a direct threat to the English constitution. Any religious leader must also be a political leader, and vice versa.
3. Because points one and two are at the centre of the Koran, and are expressed on every page explicitly or implicitly, then anyone who believes in that book, is both a foreigner in perpetuity, and also a threat to our constitution and way of life. And this is the third point, I do not want my country to be changed by foreigners or by attacks on the constitution.
4. My fourth point respects liberalism and liberty. Islam does not have a very well-defined notion of the individual, and does not encourage the individualism we have grown over thousands of years, to expect. It is well known, that Muslims, or in particular their religious clerics, do not recognise the individualistic activity of liberal people to be a ‘religious’. This because the Koran and the institution of Islam (to use a phrase which the CPS has tried to bring into law) more resembles a standing army, than a group of individual believers. When God sent his Son, he did not send him as a leader of an army, conquering countries and bringing people together for force or persuasion. That is how the Koran describes God. And, those who read the Koran unavoidably see the religious life as a matter of every member of the community obeying the laws and rules of Mohammed, and belonging to an extended family of people submissive to the religious law, with little or no sense of individual selfhood.
5. Finally, but not to exhaust my reason for wanting to see Islam banned as something practiced in England, Islam has arrived in England entirely through immigration. It has not gained any followers by persuasive force of what it is. It is not an attractive thing. And therefore, it is in the interests of Islam to either encourage more immigration, or to give birth to more children. And this is in fact what is happening, either by will or coincidence, or a mixture of both. Given the other points, this is a major or lethal threat to our way of life. And as I said, if people in Britain had wanted this to take place, they would not only have voted for it, but they would also have voluntarily started to believe that the Koran was true; but they have done neither. Therefore, it is a lethal danger to England which nobody wants to see.
For the sake of the future, the past, and the current pursuit of the Christian Protestant people, Islam must be banned. I say that English people are Christian, and this is so. It can be claimed that nobody follows God anymore in England; but this is to misunderstand Christianity as badly as we have also misunderstood Islam until now.
Christianity in the West has understood itself to be historical, unfolding over time. Because God presents himself as a Trinity, and in the nature of things since Christ was prefigured and foreseen by the Jews after the Exile, it has been common to look at time as a progress toward gradual improvement. It has also been possible to work out that one part of the Trinity takes precedence over the others. And, it has been the case, that when we saw Christ die, Protestants were also able to see, wrongly as it turns out, that God the Father also died on the Cross. In Hegel, only the Spirit, only the community of believers remained. And that is largely how Protestant Christians, who make up the active and progressive part of the imperialistic Europeans, have proceeded. The religion remains entirely active in this form.
This must be protected, and the people. On the other hand, I think we also misunderstood, that Islam is not capable of metamorphosing in that way. It cannot give up ‘Allah’, in favour of the Holy Spirit, because the Spirit is not part of the theology. It cannot, either, give up a religious demand to do away with the secular. Islam demands a religious government, because politics and theology are the same thing in Islam. Jesus submitted to Pilate and the Empire of the secular Roman government; but Mohammed never did that: he was the imperial government of the lands he tried to subdue and conquer. And there is nothing inherent in Islam which will allow this to change.
There are reasons why it has not already been prohibited in England. I don’t have time to go into them here; they are obvious anyway. We began by looking at individuality, selfhood, and liberalism. I mean to propose that Liberalism, as described by John Locke, is our secular political settlement, and that the individual’s right to life, liberty and property, are the essential elements of our politics in England. The state has the duty of only looking after property and legal liberty, and nothing else, in the name of the individual then looking after himself. There is no religious government here. There are no religious laws. That is because, a man must be free to develop himself in his integrity, to become a soul, and make his way toward highest, under his own recognisance.
Locke proposed that the reason why the government must not interfere in the life of the individual was, that the individual soul belongs not to the state, nor the nation, nor even in the end to himself, but to God. All that remains for the government to attend to preventing and punishing crimes under common law, and protecting the national and individual property.
On the other side, Islam has the strange property, noticed by Roger Scruton, and also by Oswald Spengler, but obvious to anyone who observes, that it offers to people two things which are despised by the English: membership of a large organisation, and government by God or God’s clerics. When Islamic invaders across Africa and Asia have claimed the territory as their own, they have offered this beniefits. A clear conscience before God, which is the reward of submitting to the rules of the Koran, and of the community. And, secondly, membership of a large tribe of people who are essenetially the same as the particular individual. Spengler described Muslim societies as living in a metaphorical great cave, overseen by God; a place of order and safety, where a harsh rule applies, but such that, following which, a man and his family can live in undisturbed, with a feeling of righteousness and no sin. Effectively, Islam takes away the burden of being a self from the people. Such a place or rather such a nation must necessarily have a religious leadership.
As I conclude this section, I would like to reflect on how the word of Christ spread around the world, and how the word of the Koran spread around the world. Christianity spread by means of men who owned nothing, for the most part. Through monks, ascetics, people who devoted thieir lives to their inner life, and spreading what they thought of as the truth and the meaning of life. The benefit of following Christ is eternal life, and individual salvation. Nobody was held at knife point and forced to submit to rules. Territories were not invaded by large armies led by religious men. The Word spread inside existing societies, where it was heard and believed by virtue of its obvious self-evident truth: God became man, a man of peace, with signs of his coming given by his Father in heaven. The purpose of life is to save your soul, build your inner life, refine your individuality, to meditate toward eternity, to become your self. By contrast, the spread of Islam has forever been done by invasions, threats, and subjection. It is not a true religion, and only if God were a war band leader and murderer of his opponents would it be said to be true. Converts to Islam by British people are rare. The most famous examples of men or women converting to islam by choice, are men in prison who convert in order to survive or thrive while in prison; or, disturbed or outcast females who want the protection of a large tribe of males, but such events are anecdotal and stupid.
To conclude, I would like you to imagine how it feels to live in England, and to be a follower of the Koran. That book says, and the past has shown, that subjection to a universal non-territorial law, written in the Koran, is the only way toward happiness. The book and history of its writer also say that one way or another, you must belong to a community of other submissive people, and that if you do not, then it is your job to make or find such a place. Britain does not offer, at first glance, such a place. Individualism, liberty, excess, and industry are the culture. I am sure, that to a Muslim, it looks as if there is no religion in England at all. And, I do expect such a person, who has no well-developed sense of himself because it is not required of him to have one, feels unrest, disgust, some anger. In order to live properly, he must join with other Muslims, and form what are dismissively called ghettos, or enclaves of other Muslims. Occasionally, a cleric gives a sermon where effort to convert the land, or the people, is made; and talk of historically justified violence against people who don’t want to convert. Meanwhile, the numbers of fellow Muslims increase, and that is the aim, it has to be the aim. There is no choice. I would suppose that this is how, out of the public space, the follower of Islam feels about Britain in general. Note also another benefit of following Islam: there is no well-defined notion of public and private, which is sometihign required for Christian life to function. In Islam, the happiness of life is, that there are no secrets between people, because there is little of an idea of selfhood, and personal choice in any matter if limited. So why would anyone need a private life, or what is the distinction between what you do in private and what you do in public?
I have not discussed the potential for unrest and civil war, as a result of a careless attitude toward immigration and particularly Islam. The fracturing of the country is certainly going to lead to civil strife, and finally to war inside the nation. My advice will be followed in the end, but only after the disaster has already occurred.
I have spoken as I have, on the chance that people currently follow Islam will voluntarily leave it behind, if they want to stay in the country and make it theirs. And I have proposed what I see as the only way of avoiding such trouble. People say that religion is the great cause of conflict over all history, but this is not so. Wars have most often been fought over territory, not religion. But between East and West, was certainly has been fought as a dispute between two religions, two ways of life. And we find ourselves in England, building those exact conditions for war, in our very country, in an absent minded way. The situation gets worse daily, and never relents or shows signs of attenuating. In France, the new generation of young followers of Islam is yet more enthusiastic about Islam than the previous one, and therefore less willing to become French. And the same applies in England, I imagine. It is a fact that these countries are being split right down the middle, along territorial and religious, cultural lines, and nothing can put an end to the destruction.
This week, I heard a discussion between Tucker Carlson, the American political commentator, and George Galloway, the emminent British politician and socialist, who has latterly come to prominence because of the popularity of his online TV station, and his opposition politics. In a time in which it is claimed that there is only one political party, namely, the government party, in England, he and people like him can claim to be the Opposition, so necessary to English culture.
Galloway explained to Carlson that he had been arrested and imprisoned for a while, on returning to the United Kingdom recently, because of his political views, and that the experience had affected him negatively. It had reduced his trust in the authorities in Britain, who these days cannot tolerate Opposition, but put any political dissenters through process and procedure, as punishment. Galloway is now living abroad, and does not currently wish to return to Britain. He also said in that discussion with Carlson, that while there is a problem with immigration in the United States, there is nothing like such a problem in the United Kingdom.
I think that everyone knows that he is wrong about this. Galloway said that British people still make up around 85% of the population, and he seems to believe it; he said that the experience of meeting foreign people is rare in England. Galloway is lying or avoiding the truth of the matter. There is reason to believe that around half of all children born in the United Kingdom last year were born to foreign mothers. Galloway is a Christian, he has said; and he sees no problem with Islam allowed permissively to grow in the midst of our culture. But when Galloway won his election at the time of the Rishi Sunak administration, it was due to large numbers of Islamic voters, who appreciated his position on Israel. And so, there are reasons why he is grateful to foreign influences in England, and to tell Carlson that things are not true, reasons to turn a blind eye to the situation which is developing.
Everyone else knows, that perhaps in another generation, the English people will be a minority in their own country. And, additionally, that the government has for perhaps two decades told them, that it is not even their country. Therefore, there are two bad things which must be done, and no alternatives. Firstly, to remove the dangerous culturally aggressive part of the foreign influence from the country as a matter of urgency, namely Islam, and then try to reform the country into a homogenous unit, despite foreign input. Or, to allow the foreign element to continue to grow, and hope for the best.
The English, broadly Protestants, are a unit, and to speak of them as a single political entity is right, as I have done. The pre-political consensus which gave rise to our monarchy and our constitution, was owing to a homogeneous population, and a shared relgion. And likewise, for reasons I have shown, it is right to think of Islam as a nation in its own right, and that it will be Islam which will predominate and wants to do so, and ultimately has to do so by its nature, in this land, unless it is stopped and banned.
If and when Islam is prohibited, this will mean a choice offered to the followers of the Koran and Mohammed: either stay and fight for your rights in the classic way described over history and in the holy texts. Or, depart to a country where Islam is not prohibited. There are two other choices, namely, to continue to live in Britain as a Muslim, but without any right to work, or to receive state help, or the other benefits of citizenship; and, one final option, which is the best one, to embrace Christianity, either in its degenerate Protestant form, or in the Orthodox form, and thereby ensure the nation survives and flourishes.
To make way to another country is obviously the most fitting, and should be encouraged where possible. But to stay, would mean converting to Christianity. This is also positive, and probably the ideal choice for everyone currently in the United Kingdom.
I conclude with a brief and probably not very good incentive for conversion, renunciation of Islam, and advice about how to become British.
The British way of life requires that a man be two-fold, and adaptable, subtle and alert to himself. An English man has a public life, and a separate private life into which the state or the religious authorities are not permitted to enter. This is a fundamental Christian right. An English man is not able to project onto his Church any of his human longing for power and glory, and belonging; rather, he must learn to love his nation, his people, as a country. He must love his country, not his tribe or his Ummah. The country is bounded by territorial markers, and only inside his country do the laws apply. The laws and customs change, but only with his consent. His people are national, not international; and because they are part of a territorially bounded place, they have good claim to be a family, a related race.
At the same time, he should think of himself as the most important human alive at any time; he is an individual, and his first love should be directed at God, and then at himself. The cultivation of his life and self, in a spiritual way, so as to become an individual, is a demand made by the Church, by God, and by the political settlement, which is characterised for the most part, and for the past four hundred years at least, as individual liberalism. Christianity enjoins him to be more important than any prophet. There was no ‘last prophet’. At the highest levels, after years of refinement and concentration, a man can hope to be the Son of God, the brother of Christ. This is an almost unattainable aim, barely even tried in England anymore, but this superb humility of joining the suffering servant, and to attain to the ultimate point of life, is on offer, and has been attempted by Western thinkers, and men of action since Christ’s time.
The basis of the laws in the West are not religious, except insofar as the English people are religious people. The law is designed to ensure that men are free, and that the state or the authorities cannot arbitrarily control them. In some creeds there is justification for murder; where men are just a crowd, or a group, their lives have little value. But in England, every individual is considered to have an eternal soul, and murder for any reason is prohibited, other than for this reason: to protect the nation against enemies, under instructions from a legitimate organised government.
Men should not lie; because in England, everything is above board in public, there is no reason to be deceitful as is the case in other countries, in most other countries. Debate and argument is usually sufficient to find out lies, and the British have a political constitution which allows opposition, debate, and decision based on consent.
Men must also work, and must not steal, or bribe, or use money for any purpose other than for an exchange of work done. They should not pay money to get offices, or jobs, because the public space should be orderly and clear in every way; men can please themselves in private, but in public they should be open and transparent in all their dealings. There is no religious pressure to do anything except what benefits the nation.
I think that, as a result of not cultivating a relationship with the eternal, many British politicians and socialists, have started trying to make the eternal and the impossible, and unnatural occur on earth. But the self should be known as the most Christian thing. The aim should be to become God, through ascetic practices, and devotion to silence, in private, and in Church.
It should be pointed out, that these values are the values celebrated in the medieval romances, and which were advised to the middle and elite classes in England before the modern era. The chivalrous knight is the combination of the public spirited man, who enforces the law and justice, who is also seeking eternity and is humble before God and beauty. That was the ideal of the men who used to fight Islam in the open field in Europe and Asia. It applies now. It is the ideal life spiritual and self-focused, of the individual going out to the world to work out his salvation for himself.
Temptation and sin are written into this way of life, sin and the possibility of failure to be a self, are part of the deal. Christ, who is the supreme individual went into the desert, and there met sin and temptation, and failure. He was offered total military power, command over the people of the world, the obedience of the people, and infinite riches. He denied them, as God requires us to deny them, in favour of what matters alone: the self relation and the honesty before God. The devil had offered military conquest and power, on condition that Christ give up God. The eternal self does not need political power, or wealth; they are a mere background to life, foreground objects, concealing the deeper meaning. Power, tribe, conquest, and the like are shadows on the cave wall. The Christian, a man alone, seeks to get out of the cave, by himself alone, if necessary.
In the story of Faust, we see how man is tempted, and submits himself to the devil, for a reward of power and wealth. Simultaneously, he loses his soul and goes to hell in the end. This temptation and distraction runs through British society, in the form of failure, sin, and temptation which looks like great success. But it is the natural consequence of having a self: sin and the anxiety and despair of having lost what matters the most. There is also a lot of wandering around as a crowd in England; but your task is to look after your self, and your family, in private, and not start hankering after some kind of spurious membership of a cult which will also consume your soul and diminish your self.
The state cannot trespass into the rights of the individual. It must protect his life, his liberty, and his property; and not really his life, for htat belongs to God. Because of this, the government has no power to do anything, except by consent. For a government by consent situation to work, the people need already to have consented. They should already have agreed in advance that they are prepared to work together, because they trust one another, and trust every British stranger they will ever come across.
You see how much damage it does to the British way of life, when foreigners arrive in such numbers, and with zero likelihood of joining the consensus. This undermines the constitution, and makes all politicians and officials at risk of becoming hated and useless. The law is merely the means of resolving disputes, and is practiced today in the same way as it was devised over hundreds of years by our ancestors. It has no greater meaning than that, and is unable to tell anyone how to behave.
That’s a basic description of liberalism, in a Christian society.
--
It is appropriate for us to hate Islam in England. It is a direct threat to our way of life, a lethal threat to it. Islam, unless something is done, will certainly increase in numbers, coinciding with a decline in the powers of natural resistance and health in the nation state. The one will encourage the other; the one will undermine the other. Islam must have no followers in England; as an ideology, it must be banned. And this means, than anyone who espouses it or practices it, must not be allowed the rights of citizenship. As an ideology which poses such a threat, it must be hated. Whether in the form of a non-committal belonging, as something more serious, or in its highest form as a terroristic fundamentalism, it has only one trajectory, which is to entirely destroy the English culture and English Christianity.
But there is a difference between sin and sinner, crime and criminal, Islam and the person. However, hatred of Islam, and a total intolerance and legal ban on it must happen sooner rather than later.
-----