The Centre For Social Cohesion

Thank you for participating Palladio and I hope we will hear from you again. Despite its recent blunder of invading Iraq, America is still the hope of the world and as I keep reminding people, if there has to be one superpower thank goodness it is the US and not Russia, China, Germany or France etc. So, God bless America!

Thank you kindly, William: I am delighted to have heard your views, and I thank Civitas for this forum.

You and your countrymen are in my thoughts and prayers.

Palladio

Yes, the Queen is a remarkable person. How many other people could hold in the top job for 50 years without reproach? Beyond that she and Prince Charles in particular have been reaching out and forming good relationships with Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus for about 20 years and are very well respected within those communities.

Prince Charles himself wants to have the title Defender of Faiths when he is crowned instead of Defender of Faith (the title given to Henry VIII by the Pope and for some peculiarly English reason inherited by his descendants). In that sense the monarchy has the potential to be a legitimate authority for these different faiths. The monarch is not an elected politician and so doesn't need to pander to a particular constituency. Instead they have the freedom and indeed duty to form good relations with all their subjects.

So how does this help with Islam? Well, the condition upon which Jews were allowed to open synagogues and settle in this country was that they pray for the monarch. They did and that was enough to prove their loyalty. I think that Muslims should be expected to do the same. If they do, and there ought to be no reason why they shouldn't, I think this would be a good way for them to be integrated into the political community.

William,
Thanks.

My relatives came over to the US from England, Ireland and Scotland circa 1800.So they are too distant, that is too long dead, to have influenced me even a little bit partially.

But I have always been enamored of Eng. lit. and the English, in the case of the latter because of the warm reception I have always gotten from them. So, I have never troubled myself over their system of government. If the culture and people are the way they are, something must be deeply and permanently right about their political arrangements.

Tell me, therefore, if you will, why the Monarchy might be a cause for hope in 'all our woe' in Islam and Islamo-facism and Muslim immigration?

I must say that the Queen speaks as if the special relationship will continue. She is the only world leader I saw shed a tear for the victims of 9/11.

All the very best to all.

Palladio

Palladio, I agree with your analysis of France. What Muslims have done there is blown apart the tensions in the revolutionary settlement which sought to make citizenship the primary or even sole identity of Frenchmen relegating religion, class or region to a lower level if they couldn't be obliterated.

In Britain citizenship for historical reasons has never featured highly in our identity and self-understanding. Instead loyalty to the monarch has remained the defining basis of our political community. Fortunately loyalty to the monarch does not involve subscribing to any particular ideology or religion in the way that citizenship does. The monarchy is probably the only institution that is still respected almost universally except by the Guardianistas. I think it has the potential to play a very important role again in community cohesion.

William,
All points (to anon.) well taken.

One other worry is the French example. With a sizable number of immigrants from the Magreb and ME, France has shown itself extremely deft at deflecting internal and external criticism of its Muslim problem and, especially, of its deal making with terrorists, going at least as far back as the 1980s. Should England, or U. K. politicians, grow as complacent, streets will burn as they did two years back outside of Paris and the Tube will explode as the Metro did twenty years back.

I bring this up because the term "social cohesion" bears scrutiny. The French have less of it than they would have us believe. The word "social" already derives from the Latin word for bond or link (Cicero uses it--societas quaedam--as a key to understanding love, friendship, the family, and state), so that if, as it is, social cohesion is redundant, something is already drastically wrong and the terms of debate need changing for proper action to take place.

I think intelligent use of the internet makes a difference--as American politicians (those bums) now see--and that if there were more places like Civitas to sponsor such fora as this one, right reason could collect and galvinize more quickly and effectively. (I once had hope for BBC message boards, because some of the BBC programming is serious: but these are just chat rooms, so far as I can tell.)

Traditional media see the power of all this and attempt to co-opt it.

(There actually is a website called Right Reason--without which I would never have found out about left-wing Baptists and congressmen who gathered at the steps of our Capitol to quote from a speech (circa 1920) filled with hatred for Catholics and all but called for their eradication.)

If Muslims in any regard show themselves unworthy links in the chain of the nation hold them legally accountable, keep their feet to the fire in the media, and never cease to use the internet for what good it may do a great and essential cause.

I pray for a return to the historic strengths of your institutions, and for every blessing to be yours.

anon. How can one keep religion out of it since the Christian religion is the well spring of our culture and the decline of religion the main cause of our country's moral degradation? The word "culture" itself comes from the 'cult', the worship of the divine, from which come music, dance, diet, festivals, literature, philosophy, architecture, art etc.

Religion has never been about private spiritual belief. Our entire constitution from the Queen to the parish council is interpenetrated by the Church. There is no separation of Church and State. To ignore this is to fail to understand England.

Cohesive groups? We already have politcal parties. But what is required is a cultural revival involving millions and that only comes about through religious rivals such as transformed and renewed our country in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. And this found expression in the great political and legislative reforms of the 19th century when gambling, alcoholism and other vices were legislated against. And it wasn't Muslims who repealed this legislation.

There was an Islamic scholar of the 19th century, Muhammad Abdo who wrote that when he visited the West he found Islam but no Muslims and upon his return to the Arab world he countenanced many Muslims but no Islam.

Unfortunately Muslims living in Britain today can no longer see Islam here because of our country's spiritual and moral decline. And this is one of the reasons they are so frustrated and angry. And unfortunately they end up commiting terrorist outrages because they have been wrongly taught that that is the Muslim thing to do.

And I think it is good that the C of E has finally, decades too late, got around to talking to these immigrant communities. But I fear that the C of E no longer has the spiritual authority to change them in the way that they need to be changed.

Mike, I am sure everyone here is involved in different things already. I know I am. But I also think that talking about these things is important so as to clarify the issues.

anon: I was drawn to Civitas by chance and read it on principle: if there were a fund to contribute to to keep liberal democracy safe in England, and to promote English culture, I would contribute to it. If only I had the financial acumen of some people, I would create a fund backed by rich Americans who share my values.

William: I don't, then, see what institution is strong enough (I realize the RCC has not been a force since Edward VI) to effect change.
Regards.

Thanks to Pallidio and Anon for your replies.

It is sad to see an element of your own social fabric displaced by a culture that is at best alien to the values you have come to cherish, and at worst would aspire to destroy your way of life.
But we have ourselves to blame. We have betrayed with our cowardice those who made the ultimate sacrifice to uphold our freedoms.

William, regardless of whether you are right or wrong regarding the influence of the C of E, the decline in UK moral values, etc - and these are immense topics in themselves on which I have strong views - I think we should try to keep religion out of the issue that I think is exercising many of us on this blog - namley how to prevent degradation of our culture and values by a fundamentally foreign and hostile culture. If you introduce religion it will soon be reduced to a Muslims vs Christians crusade. I don't think it is fundamentally about private spiritual belief - it is about the quest for political power (in particular, domination of the West), no matter how achieved, by a particular type of Islamist. I think it is true that the weak spiritual / social dimension in many Western communities, allied with cowardly and traitorous politicians, means that many such communities are very prone to gradual erosion by well-organised and cohesive Islamist incomers. You can only stop this by organising yourself into cohesive groups in response, and using that group cohesion to effect political / legislative change. But it would be foolish to wait for the fluffy old C of E to do that for you - they are more likely to spend their time twittering away about 'inter-faith dialogues' - while the 'faithful' laugh in their beards all the way to the next mosque.

Mike, regarding your home truths post, and Palladio's surprise at the lack of response: the fact is, most people know of the creeping Islamification to which Mike alludes, and therefore his story is not surprising. The feelings of sadness, disgust and fury it engenders are not new, and there seems little point in reiterating them on this post. The point is, what can be actually done? What actions shall you take?

More words. Many of them good words. But just words. The point I have been trying to make is that the future is not pre-determined, the degradation of our society is not a given, the success of those who invade from without and betray from within is not assured. Unless, that is, words are favoured over action by those who value our people, culture and society. Please, everybody, get involved in some way beyond airing your frustrations on a blog. Palladio, if we in the UK set up a group Campaign for Real England?), perhaps you would run the US fund-raising activities? OK, that's a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I am sure you all get the idea - something has to be done beyond mere talk. Otherwise, bend your ears to the counsels of despair and consign your country to a gradual descent into an Islamic third world.

Palladio, I agree that ideological multi-culturalism is an evil idea thought up by people who loath their own country and culture and want to pretend that they are no better than any other and so should not be privileged and transmitted to the next generation.

But the reality is also that there are significant minorities living in this country. It is wrong to allow them to determine the agenda and demand special treatment as they try to Islamify our country. On the contrary, we should be actively trying to Anglicise them. But to do that we need to be a people who can do that as we have done it in the past. And that is where we are wanting.

Yes, the C of E is in a lamentable state. It has not upheld traditional Biblical morality and so isn't capable of a robust engagement with Islam. But Roman Catholics until recently were seen in much the same way as Muslims are seen today and so they are not an authentic source for the restoration of England.

Mike, I agree with you. But I can't see how one can turn back the clock. I remember living in Manchester and travelling around those Lancs mill towns in the 80s and realising at the time that my trips were like that of an industrial archaeologist. Now I live in London where about 1/4 -1/3 of the population are of immigrant descent. It is sad but I think we have no one to blame but ourselves. It isn't Muslims and immigrants who have caused the meltdown of the traditional English family, so that most children are now born outside marriage and that most marriages end in divorce or that so few English people have children at all.

Mike,
I appreciate your eloquent post, and I am surprised to have found so little from your countrymen in reply, even more to find such a silly correction offered on such a serious topic, which is why I set straight what I did.

My neighborhood--vital and colorful in a good-sized city--is no more, not a battleground but a wasteland with the church I attended boarded up, the lawns overgrown with weeds, the stores fled, the homes empty. So, for reasons separate from the ones we are discussing, I can well imagine the scene you are describing and the feelings you might be feeling.

I'll add that it is no small matter to see--what you mention--the pubs go: a sphere of degrees of sociability all essential to civilized people and to civilization. It is a huge matter. Social capital--earned and shored up by people who know how to be with one another despite differences--accrues and attaches itself to help us all to flourish. Were the pubs replaced with something as useful, that would be one thing. But to find them gone is more than symbolic. It is proof of actual loss, cause of grief for grievance.

The conversation is drifting. I have set out below my real life experience, in the hope that there would be some real life feed back, and not an academic game of one upmanship.

Pathetic. If you say so. However, it was not pedantic as the common usage derives, of course, from Matthew Arnold, not from Swift. Why insult people who already agree with you?

It all seems a bit pathetic waffling on about "sweetness and light",which, incidentally,was coined by that most excellent Irish writer Jonathan Swift in his work "The Battle of the Books" 1707.
We are living in the dawn of a new Dark Age and as Western morale leaches away our ancestral enemies encircle and even now colonise us.
Unless we see the world in these terms, we might as well capitulate to the legion of treacherous, liberal multiculturalists here and abandon our traditions, our culture and our bloodlines.
For my part I will read again Gilbert Keith Chesterton's poem "Lepanto" and rejoice that there may yet be in the bones of the people another Don John of Austria.

" A Mosque on every village green"
Some home truths.
As a school boy growing up in my northen mill town, walking to school the landscape was filled with pubs, cotton mills, and churches: a familiar friendly and reassuring scape. Slowly but surely that view has now changed.
The mills were bull-dozed over a period of two decades due to economic reasons, the pubs, and there was one every few hundred yards, are somwhat thinner on the ground for various reasons one of which is relevant to the conversation, and the churches: well, one or two spires can be seen on the skyline, where once they were numerous.

What is symbolic to me is the increasing number of Mosques that have materialised over the years, even a number of churches have been converted into Mosques.
As is well known, Islam and alcohol do not mix, once a mosque has been established inevitably Muslims move into the vicinity, and the white population leave in dribs and drabs. This now affects the local publican whose clientele diminishes in numbers until the the pub is forced to close or the now local Asian community buy the premises and shut it down for good. Thus a part of my not so very valued culture is lost forever.

Creeping Islamification is an apt term for this process, whichIi have seen repeated many times throughout the town.

Some would say "so what?". I say I am not happy to see my culture,my traditions, disappear from large parts of the landscape.
To be replaced with a communitywith which I have no empathy, and a culture that I find both alien and a challenge to my way of life.

anon and Anonymous: thanks to you both for generous replies, to which I cannot fully respond.

I am a thinker not a doer--and I live in mere New England--but most of my ancestors came from England, Scotland, and Ireland, no later than 1800. I love England and G. B., having studied and written about its literature my entire adult life. I do think thought must be deep before action can be effective, and I value greatly the opportunities this venue affords for frank and civil conversation. I have no delusions of grandeur about the value of what I have to say, though the experience of your American cousins seems to me now to be of value, and I offer a small part of it for what it may be worth. Even so, I am always for English for the English, not in an ethnic sense, but in a spiritual and cultural sense. Or senses: there would be much to debate and historians already do so, with mixed results, about what those senses could be. However, if, as I do, I love England, that is because I know Her and want Her to survive intact with power to give the Herself and the world what She has given for centuries... So with G. B. generally.

There is a literary frame to your posts. Village green image, anon., puts me in mind of the famous William Blake poem by the same title, whose words capture the spirit of such a central and sacred place. What you write therefore frightens me all the more.

Sweetness and light, Anonymous, comes not from a poem but from prose, by Matthew Arnold, surely one of the very most eminent members of the C of E. So I am still with you.

However, as in America, so in England: there is a deeper crisis of values, perhaps, which allows the unthinking acceptance of unacceptable ways from minority groups, your largest being Muslims. Its causes are complex. Still, I cannot help but notice how quick both here and in G. B. one cause has taken root and spread: multiculturalism, soft or hard.

Championed by the Left, the hard kind is the equation of all cultures, even sub-cultures, to the same plane of value, or none at all, value being a matter of random and radical individual choice, a Netherlandization of ethics and politics.

In America, this has meant bi-lingual schools at taxpayers' expense for Spanish-speaking children. Same-sex marriage gains ground, already allowed in a handful of states. Separation of church and state (which you have and don't have, I know) is being eroded--by the state.

The American lesson, in brief, is that hard mc does not work: Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., late member of the Old Left, wrote, not a defense of mc, but an attack on it: The Disuniting of America: the title says it all, and I could give hundred of examples of this atomization.

The questions remain: which values are your values, which are under threat, and how are you to perpetuate them for generations to come?

Anonymous: presumably King J S was, like Alfred, a Catholic. With utmost respect, and with a salute to what you say It has brought you, Anonymous, does the current C of E represent traditional values--values hard won and always hard to maintain--effectively enough to put off and destroy the threat to them?

Again, the American example is telling: the AEC is, if not on the brink of schism, fracturing itself and moving from the C of E. More broadly, American Protestant churches are losing more than they are gaining the hearts and minds of Americans, and plenty are completely supportive of hard multi-culturalism.

It hardly matters the U. S. assimilates more and faster than some other countries if it is so culturally soft and lazy and wrong that any given movement or group can encroach upon the values which have made it great and find themselves protected under and even favored by law.

Are Church and state in England strong enough to prevent Muslims from taking advantage of what liberal democracy now offers: liberty and licence? Already among you, the Muslims know you well and will take what they can get: where this is immoral, illegal, or improper, what culture from any quarter exists ready to fight for itself and defeat its foe?

There are signs beyond the C of E that such culture is lacking: for example, in academia, the vote against Israeli academics is, if political theater, political correctness in regalia and in action, and deeply informed by hard mc.

Multiculturalism is entropic, spastic, and know-nothing, a growing secular religion, and the first and last refuge of scoundrels. If it is or is becoming the norm, how will right reason and right government prevail?

Palladio: The 'mosque on every village green' vision was inspired by some of our charming local Muslims, who recently marched through the streets of a local town chanting "We're getting our mosque, we're getting our mosque" - this in response to objections from the local residents, of long standing, regarding the aforesaid mosque. The reason I keep asking about people's intended actions, is that without action as opposed to words, this phenomenon will continue and indeed grow. The balance of UK legislation favours minority freedoms at the expense of the majority's wishes, and without regard to the traditions, culture and heritage of the majority. Councils and similar bodies are bound by legislation, and so usually cannot prevent the self-interested behaviour of minority groups pursuing their own agendas no matter what the effect on cohesion of local communities. You cannot change this by complaining on blogs or in bars. You must attempt to bring about legislative change through a political process, whether by voting, lobbying or by formation of political pressure groups. Of these options, the latter seems likely to be most effective. Most people are just too busy to actively participate politically - they need a group to represent their voice and act for them. Existing political parties just don't seem to be adequately representing the wishes of the great majority of UK residents. A pressure group could make them sit up and listen. As always, organisation is the key - far more can be achieved through organised actions of groups than by actions of many individuals acting separately. Learn from the Muslim pressure groups in this country - they have been very effective in a short space of time.

Palladio,

WWII was merely a tidying up of the unfinished WWI business and it is the consequences of that war, far more than WWII, which are still being played out in the Middle East, Balkans and Russia.

Defeating Muslim armies in the field when they are invading is relatively easy although few managed it until recently. But force isn't much use against Muslims living in one midst unless one wants to round them up and exterminate them Nazi style. And that is definitely not the solution.

Alfred the Great, the Father of the English people, was a Christian. At the time England was being invaded by the pagan Vikings. After the cakes episode, Alfred defeated them on Salisbury Plain. He realised that the solution was neither to put them all to the sword, as his warriors wanted, nor drive out of the country as they or others of their ilk would come back. So instead he converted their leader Prince Guthrum and baptised the Viking army. He then allocated them a piece of the country to live in. In the end the Vikings all became Christians and English speakers. Thus England is one country and not two. The Scots and Welsh in contrast have never forgiven the English for coming which is why Britain has 3 nations living in it.

Other people who have come here over the centuries such as the Huguenots have also been Anglicised. The Jews who came here also made a conscious effort to Anglicise themselves.

'Sweetness and light'? I think it comes from a poem. It is a metaphor for love and truth with freedom. And I guess that is what the C of E is to me and I think that is what England is or was. Gentle, truthful and free. I would hope that these qualities might rub off on Muslims living in England if we can find a way to engage with them and make them want to be Anglicised.

William, I am sure I lack the wherewithal to make a commanding historical analogy, however much time I might devote to it. Still, far from being a passing phase, Nazism was long in the making and in the fighting. Its effects are still with us, and battles are still being fought, as justice remains to be done for countless victims, and as surviving Nazi leaders remain to be caught. Legalities aside, when will WWII be over? Not in my lifetime. So I would stick with my analogy for what it is worth suggesting the point was that the threat to civilization from Islam is as great, though, again, it may take other forms and cannot, at home, be challenged in the same or similar ways.

"Sweet and light as the C of E." I am genuinely interested in what your nice formulation means. Especially since Alfred the Great did not belong to it. Nor good King Jan, who apparently said after his great victory over the Turks: 'Veni, vidi, Deus vicit.'

Regards.

Thanks, anon. I wish I knew what to do. Your image of a mosque on every village green is one I will not forget--and one I hope never to live to see--a nightmare image of a world turned upside down.

Frank and open conversation has got to be had from the ground up. It is for the English to decide where to draw the lines and how to do it.

I don't know how to do justice to D.C.'s good piece and replied to just the part which alarmed me. I guess I would ask what special rights Muslims earn by being Muslims, assuming they are subjects of the Crown, and what their grievances could really amount to that a sovereign nation should take notice of, considering the threat they apparently pose.

Anon and Palladio,

The parallels with Nazi Germany don't work very well. Nazism was a passing phase whereas Islam has been around for 1400 years. The Nazis were all over there and containable. Muslims are over here and even if future immigration was halted and illegals deported there would still be millions of them here. Since the UK is a free country Muslims can prosletyse to their hearts content converting lots of Anglo-Saxons. Since Islam is much more vigorous in this regard than contemporary Christianity they will continue to grow. They also have a high birthrate.

One solution would be for English people to start having larger families again - unlikely as the English seem to be committing cultural and demographic suicide. The other would be for Christians to convert Muslims to Christianity - again unlikely considering the present state of Christianity.

So as Islam takes up the jihad where it left off after Jan Sobieski beat them what is to be done? While admitting that large scale immigration was a mistake it cannot be reversed.

So I suggest we take the approach of Alfred the Great after the Battle of Edington and Anglicise them. This would mean engaging in a vigorous and critical dialogue so as to foster the development of an English version of Islam which is as sweet and light as the C of E.

Palladio: Remember I said that "much" of what has been said is uncontentious - not all.

I agree that we should not placate or in any way appease those who threaten us with violence or who wish to Islamify our country by stealth or force. Your Nazi analogy is on the button rather than low. However, I think you may be a little harsh on David Conway - we could address justifiable concerns of Muslims at home or abroad, within the confines of our laws and traditions, without placating / appeasing. The question remains - what do you intend to do, if you reject placating and appeasing? Simply mutter 'tut tut' as mosques are erected on every village green?

Anon. Dire du bien pour dire du mal. I for one did contend, not with what most people already know, whatever that may be, but with the author of the essay, and so I was contentious.

Before taking action it is good to know the terrain. In confusing, as I still believe, the kind of problems most urgently to be faced and their likeliest solutions, David Conway has yet, I fear, to see the terrain. His final position, as far as I can see, is placating Muslims at home and abroad. Considering the devastation they have already wrought, the undeniable and multifarious devastation they still threaten, placating them seems to me about as sensible as appeasing Germany was in the 1930s. I am sorry if that seems like a low blow, but I do see the threat from Islam as every bit as dangerous, even if the threat takes forms that differ from those of the Nazis. Muslims have a religious and a political ideology, the latter of which, in Bathism and some other isms, directly aped Nazi ideology in the 1940s, of world domination which makes them an implacable foe to the virtues and liberties the West holds dear.

Some good points in your article especiallly towards the end. There were a few things I disageed with:

You say, "That it [the war on Iraq] was undertaken as part of a wider war against a form of militant Islam that was seen as a threat to the security of the West cannot [be debated]." I disagree. Iraq under Saddam had nothing to do with militant Islam.

You say, "Now that there are two million Muslims living in Britain, therefore, there can be no guarantee it could ever enjoy social cohesion, until all potential causes of Muslim hostility to and alienation from the host community have been removed. In the long term, however, nothing short of Britain's becoming Muslim, or a province of a worldwide caliphate, might do that." Again I disagree. If Parliament were to repeal the liberal legislation of the last 40 years which legalised abortion, homosexuality, divorce, gambling, 24 hour drinking, etc. I think you would find a lot of the sources of alienation and anti-western rhetoric would be removed.

I cannot conceive of US coming to replace Saudi oil by Iraqi oil. That a stable regime will appear in Iraq is a fantasy. How does one reassemble Humpty-Dumpty? Even if that happened China would take up the slack so it wouldn't make much difference to the funding of madrassas.

Anon: someone once said that elections change nothing. Thinking about it, there may well be some truth in that statement.
So, would a change of government strengthen our attitudes towards the creeping Islamification of the UK?
I think not, simply because all three of the major parties see the Muslim vote as crucial to gaining power. So, as you say, what are we going to do about i? I don't have the answer, but history tells us that if you push the Brits into a corner they stand and fight, but whether that attitude still prevails amongst the population a population that is forever changing due to mass immigration. Is that resolve still predominant, it is amongst the indigenous peoples but as for the immigrants, who now constitute a growing percentage of the nation, that is unknown.
So yes we have a problem, a problem engineered by our politicians.

Much of what has been said here is an uncontentious but perhaps slightly futile reiteration of what everybody knows. Yes, there are political issues abroad, and yes, there are 'social cohesion' problems at home, and yes, there is a common thread of Islamicism. That is all fairly uncontentious. Blathering on about how terrible it all is, and ranting about what the government should do, smacks of futility, in that it seems to be somewhat time-wasting and achieves nothing. If you believe the social fabric and institutions of your country are under threat, you could choose to do something about it. The alternative, I guess, is to passively observe the decline of your society and the hard-won freedoms it enjoys. So what am I doing, you ask? Er - writing to my MP - which I guess is pretty futile, time-wasting and guaranteed to achieve nothing. So I should shut up, really. But I would be interested to know if anybody else is translating their concerns into political pressure, and if so how.

Of all the eminently sensible foregoing I agree most heartily with Mike.
Muslims in the UK and indeed in the West at large must perceive a weakening of our morale and our resolve which they will accurately diagnose as the decline of the West.
After more than 1300 years of aggressive action against our European civilisation the Asiatics have achieved unprecedented bridgeheads within the body of Europe itself.
Think Lepanto and Vienna in the 16th and 17th C.Where today is Don John of Austria and King John 111 Sobieski of Poland?
Today is but a repeat of the same drama but with a diminished European cast.
As Col. Gadaffi, the Libyan leader, recently announced on Al Jazeera TV
"There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe, without guns, without swords, without conquests.The 50 million Muslims in Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent in three decades".
Destiny is in demography.As the populations of the Third World increase geometrically and resources decrease the starving billions will not submissively accept their fate but rallying behind a militant leadership will storm the citadels of the Western possessor nations.
One need not be blessed with the gift of prophesy to recognise who will lead the Coloured World Revolution.

If I follow, I can't help but think something is being seriously confused, as if policy alone could address the problems raised. I think it is a deep problem of political philosophy and effective govenment (call these right reason and right rule), not bureaucratic management or geopolitical vision, that is relevant here.

Surely whatever the cause of Islamic terrorism (you seem finally to avoid that hard reality for the soft one of "Islamic grievance"), the terrorism itself must be stopped first and last. This is a police and military and judicial matter. What that has to do with social cohesion escapes me, however.

Analogy: how sad for the Nazis to have seen their troops defeated. How sad for terrorist sympathizers to see the Jihadists captured, brought to justice, or killed. There are still Nazis sixty years on and there will still be Islamo-Facists in our lifetimes, but the casualities at home and abroad have to be kept low, and innocents safe. A war has to be waged and won. Take a hard look at whether Islam in any form really and truly can flourish in the West--without the West submitting to moral degradation, persecution, and death.

The situation in Britain pertains to Britain: if it is a state of soveraign law, all of its subjects must be brought to follow its rule all of the time. If such a large proportion of it subjects are Muslims, and those subjects fail to observe the rule of law in any regard, every effort must be made to bring them under its sway in every regard.

If Sharia law intereferes with the rule of law, the former has to be corrected and its believers punished.

There are limits to tolerance, which is an absolute right guaranteed to nobody on earth.

G. B. would be foolish to act (or to dither) waiting upon the foreign policy of the U. S. Equally to abandon its protection. It may have to live with the unforeseen consequences of empire with its many Muslims, but it should do so not meekly retreating from but robustly enforcing the values and supporting the institutions of liberal democracy.

A Labour government in 1947 accepted Jinnah's thesis that :

"Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs and literature... It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes... To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state."

The 1947 Labour Government agreed with this Two-Nation Theory and partitioned India.

What I can't understand is this. A Labour government agreed in 1947 that it was impossible for an Indian state to survive with a large Muslim minority. Let sixty years later anyone who questions whether a British state can survive with a large Muslim minority is declared by a Labour government to be a swivel-eyed Nazi.

Can anyone explain this historical conundrum ?

PS - any chance of "English national self-determination within some part of the historic homeland of the English people" ?

Islam is a political as well as a religous belief.
I personally can't see there being peace either locally or internationally until Muslims have achieved their political objective: world domination.

Muslims see themselves as being in a position of strength, especially in the UK, due to a history of politically correct dogma, and a willingness to bend over backwards to accommodate Islamists which has culminated in weak governance.
Muslims have seized the moment, and are enjoying their new found status as a protected species.