Posted on 03/11/2026 9:35:57 AM PDT by MtnClimber
It’s the country of Magna Carta and the great English liberties. It gave us the Mother of Parliaments and established the largest and most benign empire the world has ever seen. It held out alone against the Nazis, under an inspiring leader who vowed that “we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” And after the war it became America’s partner in a Special Relationship that ultimately brought down the Soviet Union.
But now? To quote John of Gaunt’s speech in Richard II, “That England that was wont to conquer others / Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.”
Of course, Britain is not alone. For centuries, challenged time and again by an incomparably ruthless religion of war, men from every corner of Europe, including the scepter’d isle, fought back fiercely, at places like Tours and Vienna, knowing that they had to do it, that they had no choice, that they were defending themselves from a force bent on total domination and destruction, a power that knew no compromise or pity. Everyone knew what Islam was.
At some relatively recent point in history, however, that knowledge was tragically lost. Where did it go? Instead of recognizing Islam as an existential enemy, an all-consuming ideology of conquest, European leaders concocted an absurd image of Muslims as innocent victims of poverty and, indeed, of European imperialism – never mind that the entire Muslim world, as we now know it, was acquired in bloodthirsty imperialist battles over the centuries by savage warriors from the Arabic peninsula. Possessed of this deluded image of Muslims, European leaders instituted insanely generous – and suicidal – immigration policies that, bit by bit, over recent years, have brought their countries to the brink of, yes, conquest.
And in no country have the leaders behaved more irrationally, more self-destructively, and less in accord with their own proudest national traditions, than in Britain. The nation most identified with the freedom of expression has imprisoned thousands of its own citizens for daring to speak the truth about Islam. And a nation of people known for their quiet decency and self-control allowed unruly Muslim mobs, in the wake of the October 7 atrocities, to take over the boulevards of major cities, stopping traffic, vandalizing storefronts, beating up Jews, cheering murder, and shouting “Allahu akbar.”
Even after all this, however, one could be forgiven for being taken aback by the disgraceful words spoken by Labour Party prime minister Keith Starmer – a man who is the very personification of fecklessness – on March 3. On that date – a mere three days after the U.S. and Israel initiated a spectacular series of military strikes on Iran, the world headquarters of Islamic terrorism and expansionism – Starmer delivered some prepared remarks at an Iftar celebration in Westminster. “I want to make clear,” he told the British Muslims in attendance, “the UK was not involved in the offensive strikes of the U.S. and Israel, and that remains the case.” He went on:
I will always stand firmly against anti-Muslim hatred in all its forms. I will root out Islamophobia. I will challenge it. My government will match those words with the action that they deserve. And that’s why last week we announced up to £40 million in funding for mosques, Islamist [sic!] schools. That’s why I will fight with every breath I have to root out the hatred that seeks to divide us.
What a speech. What a betrayal. What sheer and utter cowardice! As Donald Trump said only a few hours before Starmer’s Iftar remarks, in response to the latter’s refusal to let the U.S. attack Iran from UK bases, Starmer is “no Winston Churchill.” He’s not even a Neville Chamberlain. He’s more like a Quisling.
At that Iftar event, in a few short sentences, Starmer managed to accomplish several things. He distanced himself from the ally that saved his country from the Nazis in World War II and that has provided it with an umbrella of military protection ever since. He implicitly attributed America’s war of liberation to “anti-Muslim hatred.” He implicitly sided with the pro-terror, pro-totalitarian Muslims who condemned the strikes and against the freedom-loving Iranians (and others) around the world who applauded them. He embraced, for the thousandth time, the fiction that his country is afflicted not by unspeakable atrocities that are motivated by Islamic contempt for infidels (he has repeatedly downplayed the gang rape of childen), but rather by something called “anti-Muslim hatred.” British politicians are always shedding crocodile tears over “anti-Muslim hatred.” They never venture to explain where this “hatred” came from. Nor do they ever publicly address the question of why Brits don’t exhibit anything that might be labeled “anti-Hindu” or “anti-Buddhist” hatred.
Of course, while Starmer likes to jaw about the “anti-Muslim hatred” that “seeks to divide” British society, he knows very well that he’s turning reality on its head. He knows that the seeds of division – a division that’s meant to be the preamble to absolute conquest – are in reality being sown in Britain’s mosques and madrassas. He knows that it’s there that barbaric preachers and teachers instill and reinforce a hatred for infidels and a conviction that Islam’s destiny is to rule over them. But instead of closing these institutions down and shipping the preachers and teachers back to where they came from, Starmer brags about spending British taxpayers’ money to pay those preachers’ and teachers’ salaries. To pay, that is, the future conquerors with the hard-earned money of those whom they intend to conquer.
The logic of it is the logic of appeasement. It’s the logic of a government that’s already looked into the future and decided that it doesn’t have the will or the skill to prevent an Islamic takeover, and that has consequently decided to sell out Britain’s heritage, Britain’s freedom, and Britain’s promise in order to make the transition to slavery as peaceful as possible. What was that line about how Britons never, never, never shall be slaves?
No, Britain isn’t the only NATO member to spit in America’s face after the attacks on Iran began. Refusing to let U.S. planes involved in the Iran strikes use a joint base in Spain, that country’s prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, said: “We say no to breaking the international law that protects us all.” And his defense minister, Margarita Robles, declared: “No single country should act as a guardian of the world. We have international rules.” How quaint this delusion that “international rules” – those illusory things – are any stronger than the governments that are willing to use military power to enforce them! (This is the same country, as you may know, that decided recently to give legal status to up to half a million illegal immigrants, including convicted felons.)
Then there’s Norway, whose prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, has said that the Iran war “is not a war Norway wants to be a part of,” and whose foreign minister, Espen Barth Eide, responded to the assaults by calling on “all parties to respect international law, protect civilians, and to seek diplomatic solutions.” So grateful were the (remaining) mullahs for Norway’s stance that Iran’s ambassador to Norway, Alireza Jahangiri, welcoming a Dagbladet reporter to an “elegant” room in his “venerable” villa in the “best” part of western Oslo, praised Norway’s rejection of the toppling of the ayatollah, noting that “compared to other countries in Europe, Norway has always been a strong supporter of international law” and that its “approach to the entire Palestine matter was magnificent.”
But the anti-American, Islam-friendly rhetoric of Spain and Norway seem paltry compared to the vile message sent out by the prime minister of the UK on March 3. “You,” he told his Muslim audience, “are the face of modern Britain.” Has any British prime minister ever said anything that was a more despicable insult to his own people — to the ordinary Brits who obey the law, who work hard to make ends meet, and who have accepted for too long being treated as second-class citizens of the country that their ancestors built and fought for? Has any British prime minister ever engaged in a more shameless whitewash of Muslims — who, per capita, have contributed the least of any group to Britain’s economy and taken the most from it, who are the group most responsible for violent crime, and who are uniquely devoted to the eradication of individual liberty and sexual equality and the introduction of sharia?
Starmer’s voice, needless to say, is the voice of profound fear – but it’s also the voice of sheer idiocy. Because what halfway intelligent person could possibly believe that British Muslims’ response to such pathetic groveling will be anything other than an intensification in their contempt for their patient, well-mannered British hosts? Muslims who get their educations in madrassas may not learn terribly much that has value in the real world, but what they do learn early on is (a) to recognize over-the-top praise of the sort served up by Starmer as a sign of utter weakness, and (b) to recognize an action like Trump’s attack on Iran as a manifestation of terrifying global power – a power that they know instinctively to treat with respect. How can a miserable creature like Starmer climb as far as he has up the greasy ladder without realizing such simple facts?
The face of modern Britain? Islam is the scourge of modern Britain. But unless Starmer’s government is succeeded by a company of brave souls who are willing to take fast and dramatic action to reverse course, Muslims are almost certainly the face of Britain’s future – as well as the future of much of the West. Yes, there are intelligent patriots in Britain who claim that such a reversal is at hand. Maybe so. It’s hard to tell. One day there are reports of Muslims on horseback in Manchester, trying to trample supporters of Iranian freedom – while police stand by and do nothing. A day or two later, tens of thousands of pro-Trump Iranians storm a pro-Ayatollah rally in London. Who’s winning? Who knows? All I know for sure is that, if Islam does conquer Britain, the story of Britain’s centuries of triumph and glory, and of its fast and ignominious fall, will be remembered with profound and unending puzzlement wherever freedom still survives.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
It truly seems like Starmer is trying to destroy his own citizens. It is a level of self loathing that is hard to understand.
Somebody better get their nukes secured!
As Islam is indigestible to other civilizations, and the longest extant supremacist by force entity I can think of. Resistance is NOT futile, but advised. To both.
Make Tar and Feather Great Again.
Why can’t they do like we did to the colonial governor of Connecticut, break into his home, whisk him away and held in secrecy? Oh yeah, that was Ben. F’s son.
Your leaders, dear England, want all you have, and you in debtor’s prisons, so they can flourish it all on those goat loving moose limbs.
“Islamophobia.”
When will retards learn, simply put that ‘phobia’ means fear rather than hatred.
“You are modern Britain”?! These savages are still in the 15th century but that aside, this has to have Brits steaming
Starmer hates his own people (and nation) but he’s making a fatal mistake ... his bff’s Islamicists view HIM as highly expendable, too.
Side note to the British nuclear submarine commanders: Be ready to defect to the United States at a moment’s notice.
In the meantime, you might want to secretly watch the movie “The Hunt for Red October”.
🤫
There is nothing modern about islam.
So indeed these people, with their huge families and militant beliefs, were and remain "the future of Britain".
“...his bff’s Islamicists view HIM as highly expendable, too.”
Yes, the first to be eliminated will be the titled and the leaders. That’s the way it’s been done down through history.
Why can they not dump Starmer?!
Because the UK has had on average close to one new Prime Minister every year for the past decade or more, and each has been worse than his/her predecessor.
What a vile person
He learned it from Brandon.
> Why can they not dump Starmer?! <
One reason is that Labour has a huge majority on its own in Parliament. So there is no coalition to fracture over Starmer’s disgusting remarks.
Labour can meet at any time, and dump Starmer. But then Labour will get to pick his replacement. And as ek_hornbeck noted, every recent British prime minister has been worse than the one before.
So perhaps the next PM will (openly) be a Muslim.
And puppet master Dear Leader Zer0.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.