Caliphate for the UK?

In December of last year, Gaza’s oldest mosque was largely destroyed by Israeli air-strikes. The Omari mosque dating back to the seventh century and named for Umar ibn al-Khattab, Islam’s second caliph, and so is much mourned. It is worth noting in passing that Islam does not separate religion and state as the West does, and so such a strike is against a target as much political as religious.

One act in the tragedy of war is the destruction of venerated architecture. Göring’s Luftwaffe tried desperately to bomb St. Paul’s Cathedral in London during World War II, the bombs falling all around the famous dome but never finding the target. The destruction of St. Paul’s would have adversely affected British morale, but both miraculously survived.

Now, another ancient and respected British institution is under attack; Parliament. Three events in England in the last month may have seemed singular viewed individually, but taken together they could permanently shift the tectonic plates of British government. First, intimidation by pro-Palestinian mobs, along with death threats made to Members of Parliament (MPs), may have altered the outcome of a Parliamentary vote on a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. A few days later, a local by-election was won by a veteran Islamist White politician who dedicated his win with the opening line of his victory speech; “This is for Gaza!”. Finally, the next week, a leading figure in the Conservative Party said in an unguarded interview moment that he believed that the London Mayor, Muslim Sadiq Khan, was under the control of Islamists in the nation’s capital. Within days, there was one word predominantly on the media’s lips; Islamophobia.

The term “Islamophobia”, which came into being around a century ago and has been, to use a modern term, weaponized by the Islamic lobby, is as potent as the word “racism”, and ultimately just as devoid of meaning. Words, however, do not have to have meaning nowadays, and some are increasingly purely performative, used not as descriptive but as accusatory. Muslims and their cheerleaders use the term to damn perceived opponents and critics, while those who challenge it point out that a “phobia” is an irrational fear, and there is nothing irrational about fearing Islam. As noted, meaning is not a priority in modern political linguistic usage.

The chain of political events that led to the word once again being prominent began at Westminster, when the Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, broke with Parliamentary precedent during a vote over a ceasefire in Gaza. As with any such proceedings, the details are intricate, but essentially the vote was allowed to take place in such an amended way that it would assist the opposition Labour Party and its leader, Sir Keir Starmer, to head off a major rebellion by their front-bench MPs. Equally important were the reasons Hoyle gave for his controversial decision, or rather one of them. He was, said the Speaker, concerned for the safety of MPs leaving the building after the vote. What could have been the threat outside the Mother of all Parliaments? Knife crime? Global warming?

The reason was a mob of pro-Palestinian supporters massed outside the House, who seemed to be looking to re-create the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, when men of Kent and Essex burnt many of London’s landmarks to the ground.

What happened that evening cannot be under-stated. If the outcome of a British Parliamentary vote can be swayed by the activism of a mob, then all bets are off. The pro-Palestine mobs that have infested London streets every Saturday since October 7 last year have been increasingly brazen as they realize they are not really being policed, and if thus emboldened they are unlikely to slacken, and will go from vocal to violent. In addition, the Gaza vote was extraordinary in that it will have registered little interest in Gaza itself, while it has become the focal point for a seismic shift in British politics taking place over 2,000 miles from Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Just over a week after Sir Lindsay kicked a hornets’ nest with his irregular constitutional decision, attention shifted to a local by-election in a regional seat made empty by the death of the incumbent Labour MP, and which has a good claim to be the dirtiest such ballot ever fought in Britain. Again, the relevance of the outcome to UK politics cannot be over-emphasized.

Rochdale is a northern English town famed during the industrial revolution for its cotton production. More recently, its fortunes have fallen, and it was one of the towns exposed as being home to largely Muslim “grooming gangs” who drugged and raped young White girls with impunity for many years. They were unhampered by the police and only briefly reported by the mainstream media, very late and even then, minimally and reluctantly. Peter McLoughlin’s book Easy Meat charts this industrial-scale rape, often of minors, perpetrated almost exclusively by men of Pakistani origin. He is clear on the political gain of a cover-up: “Thousands and thousands of schoolgirls were sacrificed so that the elite in Britain could make obeisance to their religion of multiculturalism”.

The rape epidemic — which is still going on — was blamed on culture rather than religion, the apologists seemingly failing to notice that, in the case of Islam, the two are inextricably linked.

The Rochdale by-election was dirty and chaotic. Two weeks before the ballot, Labour withdrew support for its candidate, Azhar Ali, over alleged anti-Semitic comments made on social media. For the opposition party not to field a candidate at a by-election in the UK is vanishingly rare. The ruling Conservative Party expected to be trounced anyway in a dress-rehearsal for their likely wipe-out in the General Election later this year, and the up-and coming Reform UK fielded a candidate who had only recently been accepted back into political life after a scandal involving texts sent to a teenage girl. Even an unknown independent candidate, campaigning on issues concerning Rochdale (as you would normally expect from any candidate), finished second above what are usually recognized as the three main parties in Britain. But the clear winner, with more votes than those three parties combined, was veteran maverick George Galloway.

Galloway is a chancer and a rogue, seeking election wherever he believes he can be backed by a Muslim voting bloc, and has now represented four different constituencies in Parliament, a record equaled only by Sir Winston Churchill. The fiery Scot converted to Islam over two decades ago, and has had four wives, each one a Muslima. He is staunchly pro-Islamic and thus pro-Palestinian, which was the centerpiece of his campaign.

Galloway is a superb rhetorician in the Aristotelean sense. “Rhetoric” has now come to mean words alone, but there is far more to it than that, Aristotle defining it as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion”. Rhetoric is a lot more than words, a fact Galloway knows very well indeed. He is a hero to many British Muslims, and infamously met with Saddam Hussein, telling the Butcher of Baghdad that he saluted his “indefatigability”. Galloway regularly laces his speeches with heavily accented Arabic words and phrases.

Galloway is also a consummate campaigner. His team delivered two versions of the party’s campaign leaflets with basically the same text, but featuring a slight amendment depending on the recipient. Muslim households received a leaflet saying that Galloway would fight specifically for Muslims, while kuffar residences received a missive stating that he would fight for the people of Rochdale. Again, the situation in Gaza is shaping and molding politics in the UK, even at grassroots level.

At a hustings in Rochdale (“hustings” are British campaign-trail events, like stump speeches in the US), every question from journalists concerned the conflict in Gaza. At another, Galloway asked Muslim voters what they would say to their maker on Judgment Day when he asked them what they did for Gaza. This is a powerful image for some Muslims, and shows Galloway’s astute understanding of the Islamic faith. At a press conference, he said intriguingly that “the next election will be all about Muslims”. The next election in Britain is the General Election.

Lee Anderson is one of those British politicians known as “enforcers”. This is unofficial, and nothing like the enforcement of the Chief Whip, who ensures voting solidarity among his party’s MPs. But Anderson is a bullish man who does not suffer fools gladly. He was, until recently, the Chairman of the Tory Party and, until even more recently, still in the party. Not anymore. His comments on Sadiq Khan started a media squabble which soon become political, and led to Anderson’s suspension from the Conservative Party on charges of racism and Islamophobia. There is no point in pointing out yet again that Islam is not a race, and so Anderson’s comment could not be racist but, as noted, words don’t mean what they used to mean.

Anderson stated during a TV interview that Khan was controlled by Islamists. This started a furious media squabble about language, an increasingly strong focal point this century with respect to political, or politicized, words and their usage. Every TV hack is suddenly a linguistics expert after a row over the latest contentious Tweet or post, and it often seems as though the media are hosting a semantics seminar rather than confining themselves to mere reportage. Free speech was arguably freer during the reign of Queen Elizabeth —the First, that is — than that of the ailing son of Queen Elizabeth the Second, and politicians in particular are under forensic scrutiny. It is hardly surprising that MPs do not flock enthusiastically to the cause of free speech when their own is the most policed in the country.

Anderson was accused by Khan of both Islamophobia and racism, a double tap for a man often suspected of being a Muslim fifth-columnist and likely to be re-elected to the London Mayorship later this year. Khan has been a great proponent of immigrants coming to London, and this is the clearest example of the deliberate importation of a ready-made voting bloc, as Khan knows perfectly well that the vast majority of immigrants are Muslims, sectarian differences notwithstanding.

For immigration to the UK is not simply a steady procession of arrivals on dinghies on the Kent coast who have to be housed and fed and provided with debit cards and telephones. It is also a part of the political system, and the arrival of ever more Muslims will be as pleasing to Muslim leaders as it is to business owners. Immigrants were (in)famously described as part of an “invasion” by then Tory Home Secretary Suella Braverman, connoting an invading army. That may be hyperbole, but the invaders of which she spoke could also be reservists in an army which is still at the stage of assembly.

A strong element in Britain’s self-deception about Islam since 9/11 is the tired homily telling us that “not all Muslims are terrorists” and “Islamists are just a handful of extremists and don’t represent Islam”. The first statement is literally true but not all Muslims need to be terrorists, and there will be plenty of smiling Muslim families — perhaps running your local shop, if you’re British — who will be quite happy that ISIS are doing the heavy lifting. There will be many DVDs of the Twin Towers in the collections of some Muslim households, right next to the video of Mohammed and Shamima’s wedding. Anything for the ummah, everything for Islam. And perhaps Islam is seeking to unite the British chapter of that ummah, and is eyeing a key caliphate in the new reconquista. This begins with alliance, forced or otherwise.

France is having the same problem as Britain with Muslim influence, and Michel Houellebecq, the French novelist who has been on the wrong side of Islam in the past, has one of his characters in the novel Submission suggest what could be about to happen in the UK (Houellebecq also predicted the current European farmers’ revolt in his novel Serotonin): “It’s true that Christianity and Islam have been at war for a very long time … but I think the time has come for accommodation, for an alliance”.

Islam is used to such alliances, provided the jizya is forthcoming — i.e., the tax occupying Muslims historically levy on their new subjects. The British wouldn’t even notice a new tax, currently being rinsed by the Internal Revenue at the highest rate since the end of World War II. As for Islamic shariah law, a lot of Brits would make a day of it if young offenders who have previously terrorized their neighborhoods were flogged in the town square, or more likely the car-park in today’s Britain. It would not surprise me if Galloway intends to turn Rochdale into a testing-ground for shariah courts, which already exist de facto in Britain.

The day after Galloway’s election, the British Prime Minister — fabulously rich Hindu Rishi Suna — made a speech outside Number 10 Downing Street in which he rehearsed themes that are becoming familiar to watchers of political semiotics. He conflated Islamism with the “far-Right”, an entity which does not exist in any meaningful sense, as I wrote about here at The Occidental Observer.  Sunak called Galloway’s election “beyond horrifying”, and he had a strange take on Anderson’s comments, saying that “the words were wrong”. There is something incantatory about this, as though Anderson were a sorcerer’s apprentice who had uttered the wrong summoning spell. Henry Bolton, the leader of Nigel Farage’s old outfit, the UK Independence Party, described Sunak’s speech as follows: “His words were good, but it wasn’t going anywhere”.

This extraordinary statement shows, as noted, that there is a deep crisis in contemporary English-language usage and it needs bringing to light. We used to have philosophers to do that sort of thing for us.

But it is not all political machination. Islam, metaphysically equipped to play the long game but not averse to hurrying things along a little, knows that violence, or at least rumors of violence, are powerful rhetorical tools too. Richard Tice is the leader of the Reform Party, who are being spoken of as the heirs to conservatism should the Tories expected General Election defeat be even worse than expected. Tice has yet to prove that he differs from the political class, but he has not shied away from severe criticism of the campaigning by representatives of both Islamist parties in Rochdale. He claims severe staff intimidation and threats, polling station harassment, and a sudden spike in postal voting. Simon Danczuk, Reform’s candidate at the Rochdale by-election, is more specific in his allegations here.

Islam has been establishing beachheads in the British political process for years, and they have received an accelerant. As in the European lowlands of Belgium and Holland, local Muslim political power grows in the UK, and towns and cities gradually become micro-caliphates which may one day join hands. The Omari mosque was destroyed by military means. The destruction of British democracy may take time, but not a shot need be fired (although the possibility cannot be discounted).

The dissident Right are often conflicted over the question of Islam. Muslims, it goes without saying, are animated by a hatred of Jewry, and so get a pass from many on the far Right. My enemy’s enemy and all that. But the leading two British parties are heading into a General Election which has just come astonishingly to life, as if envious of the gunfight at the OK Corral which the American Presidential Election looks likely to be. If the UK’s election follows the same lines, Islam is drawing its revolvers first. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his opposite number, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, are trying desperately to placate two bitterly opposed factions over Gaza. Muslim leaders and imams in Britain know this, perceive weakness in the leadership, and know how to mobilize in synchronicity. Islam is increasingly setting the political agenda because Islam is the political agenda.

Finally, the question every politician asks secretly in that little part of themselves where they think what they really mean. Is it good for the Jews? Anti-Semitic violence is increasing in Britain (although every identitarian group claims the same thing), and the first Jew to die at pro-Palestinian hands in the UK — should that happen — may strike a match to a situation every bit as potentially explosive as the stash of dynamite with which Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up Parliament in 1605. For decades, Jewish influence on British politics had been monopolistic and required no enforcement. With sufficient influence in business and the media, British Jewry felt no need to bring in the Stern Gang. This surety no longer exists, and British-Jewish interests are about to discover that there are different types of power and different ways to exert political influence than just money.

16 replies
  1. George LeRoumain
    George LeRoumain says:

    More and more regular French are admitting they are worried sick and that they plan to move together with friends to countryside. The country is primed for an inter-racial and religious war, which I believe it will start by the end of this year. It will spread like wildfire in all western Europe. One rogue general is all it takes.

    • K M Landis
      K M Landis says:

      I like your suggested scenario. We live in interesting times. France needs a nationalist revolution, in order to prevent its destruction. (Britain too.) The French are waking up at last, but only the regular French. The ruling classes enjoy the current nightmare, because they are traitors on the Jewish payroll.

      • Weaver
        Weaver says:

        If a resident isn’t of British descent, he should be deported to Palestine. The religion isn’t usually so important.

  2. George Jenatsch
    George Jenatsch says:

    A good analysis with one catastrophic error of judgement.

    Mr Galloway is sincere in his beliefs, with which one may of course disagree.

    He is one of the few patriots in UK politics today.

  3. K M Landis
    K M Landis says:

    Better Muslims than Jews. As in the US, the UK ruling class sucks up to the Jews and serves their interests, in exchange for money and approval. It’s kinda creepy. And the Jews set the cultural tone of decadence, like in the Weimar republic. All this would end, if Muslims were to replace Jews in Britain. The results of the recent Rochdale byelection are a sign of the future.

    However, I would hate it if Muslims got control. They don’t belong in England or any other White country. I have always opposed non-White immigration, including Muslims. Nevertheless, if they do set up a caliphate in Britain (with help from George Galloway), that would be an improvement over the current dystopia. It would be an end to the pozzified Jew-run culture.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      Yea, Islam is likely less dangerous. We’re supposed to support the decadence and condemn Islam while supporting foreign wars against Islam.

      I don’t like Islam, but we’re being used in others’ conflicts. It would be ideal to have a diversity of societies, not one Jewish identity ruling above a mass of unholy, untouchable Gentiles.

      We want pride and distinction throughout the world.

      A question of just who is white could be raised. How mixed are Brits? How mixed do they wish to become? Arabs are mostly white, as are many Turks and Latinos…

      Eventually, we’ll have trans humanism threatening identity to an even greater degree. So, I can’t even answer. My old answer was strength through purity.

      • Lady Strange
        Lady Strange says:

        Muslims white ??? Pakistanis white ??? 90 % of Arabs are negrified and Pakistanis are Dravidians.
        You must live in a very isolated rural area where you never see Muslims.
        Of course, Islam is a disaster, too, for the white race.

        • Weaver
          Weaver says:

          Lady Strange,

          Look up how the Buryats (Mongolian) live. They traditionally had arranged marriages and organised along kinship ties.

          If purity is to be preserved, that’s approximately how whites would need to organise.

          Presently, we live in a race mixing vat.

          The Amish don’t explicitly care about race. Whites aren’t organised to preserve race. A book on Kiryas Joel is also likely worth reading. I’ve only read about the book, but they organise well. Whites need to adapt or vanish. Kipling’s “Gods of the Copybook Headings” comes to my mind.

      • Mike Bennett
        Mike Bennett says:

        Islam is a very dangerous tolerates NO religion except Islam, and is the sworn enemy of Christianity! Islam is equivalent to Genghis scorched earth policy!

    • Lady Strange
      Lady Strange says:

      I think you know nothing of Islamic pestilence. As O. Spengler said, this is a fellah exhausted religion with no more ( if it had any ) civilization or cultural possibilities.
      It’s apparent ” vigor” is only due to its proliferation thanks to the white man modern medecine and industrial food.
      As in every western cities, Islamic dominance means : impoverished slums where nothing works, schools becoming madrasas where nothing of interest and useful is teached, horrible hygiene and diseases… Wait until whitey goes extinct and doesn’t artificially enable this third world proliferation…
      And this article doesn’t say enough about all of this being the result and only the result of Jewish activism. This Islamic plague is absolutely not natural, it’s a golem.
      Let them fight and destroy themselves.

  4. Devon
    Devon says:

    Once there are enough Muslims in the UK they’ll form an Islam party and abandon Labour completely, it’s only a matter of time.

  5. Alan
    Alan says:

    Reiterations of a bizarre deconstructive unfruitful cultural picture..a snap shot from the powers of Hell.”
    Throughout history there have been ,especially prior to the creation-appearance of America, a few really intelligent semitic Muslims but in the vast overall Muslims and Jews seem hell bent on being subsumed into super parasitical schismatic doomed nihilism….in our view catacylsmically ……primarily for matter how much money they hurl at “problems”…,because of their spectacular burning hatred of Jesus Christ and white people..for Muslims because they opt to try to lower Jesus,at least in their minds and writings.. to be less than the very whitish
    slave owner Jew ,Mohamed.We found good and bad Muslim people’s in many countries but at the end of the day…if a Muslim thinks the early morning monochromatic call to prayer is somehow superior to white European true culture..they will find only
    dark..dank..thunderous declension…self abnegating schizophrenia best only a base..terse..or perhaps preliminary measured and mediocre matter how many “wives”female indentured slaves ,captive females of lower intelligence..baci boys……or whatever they.. angrily..sanctiminiously..oppresively…subsist with””.
    Some folks sneer at Andrew Tate and his brother s tribulations over there in Romania..Rumania..a lot of Jews from there too in any case ..they in the Balkans and surrounding environ know all too well about beautiful Slavic white girls and womenfolk disappeared only to surface in sultan s harems..enough of that !Basta Cosi! For decades even before that war in ex Yugoslavia Muslims were destroying gorgeous Croat and Serb churches and building mosques where great cultural beauty previously shined.So George Galloway is a Scottish Muslim like drumpf a post Scottish post germanic Jew?.. We live in seditious perilous bizarre times…but as sunlight is ostensibly the best disinfectant cast a glaring angry spotlight ..please!…on the demon Jew Jamie raskin….a true surreptitious Jew cyborg if there ever was one…Rearm…all who will..all who can…””

  6. willem Nolan
    willem Nolan says:

    “Muslims, it goes without saying, are animated by a hatred of Jewry, and so get a pass from many on the far Right.” It seems to me that it is the left that not only gives Muslims a pass but actively supports its conquest of the West.

Comments are closed.