Integral Views

@afneil No Andrew. The 6.5% figure was as of 2021. That’s 5 years ago and prior to the Boriswave. You begin your criticism with outdated data. Then you’ve made the mistake of not acknowledging the impact of sectarian voting.

UK 20% Muslim by 2050 is highly unlikely. Only 6.5% at the moment. But even if it reached 20% in 25 years time, how would that make UK ‘Muslim-controlled’. I appreciate you probably have no better grasp of simple arithmetic than your President (ie none) but, come on, how does even an unlikely 20% = control?

Our own government is facilitating and funding barbarians to rape and pillage our nation.

@ukblok26 @PaulGrimshaw15 @Bazza73617427 @LBC Haha… Yes. I will quote them some Aristotle.

@Integral_Views @PaulGrimshaw15 @Bazza73617427 @LBC You should definitely tell the officers about the preeminence of philosophy next time you get arrested. 👍

'What part of this don't you get?' The reason we can't 'just send the migrants back to France' dawns on listener Wally mid-call.

Of course, the rubbish just gets left in the middle of the park for some other mug to clear up.

I've just confronted this man from Pakistan who was sitting in the children's play area of my local park drinking beer and filming young girls. I got him to leave. I will not share all photos as I do not have consent from others in the photos. I told him 'get the f*ck out of the children's play area right now'. 2 mothers were in the small children's play area which is cordoned off and contains swings, a climbing frame, etc. They had young girls with them. This is a small part of a very large park with plenty of empty space to sit in. Yet they always choose the children's play area. As there's an illegal migrant hotel 100m from this park and as it's now the new normal for these men to film and harass young girls in that park, I patrol the area during Spring and Summer. I went and sat on that bench next to him and asked him who he, where he's from and why he's drinking alcohol in the children's play area. The man could barely speak English and said 'who are you to say to me?'. He told me he's British but from Pakistan. Despite barely speaking English. The 2 mothers overhead the commotion and then walked around the metal fence to safety before backing me up. They said he'd been doing it for 30 minutes before I arrived and that they felt threatened. They were going to call their husbands. I'm not going to tolerate this. We must confront it and let these people know we're present and watching whenever we can. He pulled out the 'racist' card. Then told me he's going to get more bottles and bring his friends. I said 'go ahead, I'll be here when you get back and everyday'. He left saying 'it's my country and I'll do what I like'. Then I spoke to someone who works at the hotel and showed them the photos. Turns out he is an illegal migrant staying there. What a lying, nasty, dirty little rat of a man. I'll be releasing a video sharing more on this tomorrow.

All law is downstream of philosophy. Law is simply the enshrinement of cultural and preferably democratic philosophy. Notice how Kier Starmer gets this precisely backward. He has an almost faith based belief in the sanctity of law. But he lacks his own theory of mind and philosophy. This is why he lacks depth and vision and is ultimately just an administrator. Leadership requires vision which is based on philosophy. This is the point I was originally making in this thread and the follwong conversation which descended into interpretations of existing legislation only serves to prove my point.

@Integral_Views @PaulGrimshaw15 @Bazza73617427 @LBC You might think that Philosophy comes first.. but the Law always has the final word.

Yes, exactly. Liberalism inherently facilitates such distinctions being made. It is the malign influence of relativism that undermines differences being acknowledged. Forcing equal outcomes despite evidence. Liberalism = equality of opportunity Relativism = equality of outcome I would call for the implementation of liberal values restricted to nation state borders. We would not, for example; apply equality of opportunity (meritocracy) to the whole World such that we end up on a level playing field, competing for jobs in Britain against anyone around the World. The US Declaration of Independence implemented liberal values at the nation state level. It's when they then get extended beyond national borders that it goes very wrong as that subverts democracy and undermines cultural and national inheritance.

@Integral_Views @Con_Tomlinson Empiricism also leads to the conclusion that we aren't blank slates. There are group differences and because the brain is a product of evolution and affects our behaviours and predilections, different groups have different distributions of tendencies. @danny__kruger

"I have absolutely no objection to Muslims. As a man of faith, I respect people who believe in God... That's a good thing for our society to have..." Danny Kruger says immigrants must integrate into British society, but refuses to deport any of those who don't once they have British citizenship. He then praises Muslims for practising Islam in Britain, despite later saying that if Britain were to become majority Muslim it "would be unrecognisable." This is incoherent. Kruger's liberalism will not stop British people from becoming a demographic minority in their own country. We don't have to tolerate this, actually.

Full video on this will be on my Youtube channel later today.

I confronted this Pakistani man who was sitting drinking and appeared to be filming young girls in a small children's play area 100m away from a migrant hotel near my house. 2 young mothers with their young daughters were alone with this man just meters away.

This is the same fundamental flaw that we see at the core of our national rot. It is not liberalism. It is relativism. Post modernism. It’s essentially cultural relativism at its core. Yes, relativism did stem from liberalism but there’s a very important distinction. True liberalism is based on empiricism. That means it’s evidence based. Therefore the actual liberal view of Islam would be based on the evidence that pertain to outcomes and it would treat it differently on that basis. Relativism on the other hand undermines objectivity and empiricism based on the idea that there is no such thing as objectivity. Everything is simply a point of view. This is post modern ideology that largely originated in France. It places subjectivity at the core of its philosophy and prevents rational and concrete distinctions from being made. This is the connection between the Green Party, Labour, the Conservatives and now Reform. But true liberal values of empiricism, meritocracy and freedom of speech do not need to be abandoned in order to fix the serious problems we face. In fact, liberalism would support the necessary changes as empirically, the evidence is on our side in economic data and crime states, etc. Further, the liberal value of freedom of speech and thought is essential for corrective measures to occur. Too often we allow post modernists to get away with restricting freedom of speech under the guise of liberalism. They are NOT liberals. But even true liberalism still fails because it does not integrate the importance of holistic forms of ethnocentricity and in group preference (patriotism, families, etc). It’s also inherently globalist which has also been demonstrated to be harmful. Liberalism is a fundamentally British tradition and a truly great one that has been mutilated and is now frequently misrepresented. In essence, liberalism was subverted by largely foreign philosophers that introduced post modern principles. In proper patriotic fashion, we should embrace true liberal values whilst rejecting the post modern influence and updating it to take account of holistic forms of ethnocentrism.

@hashjenni False

Don’t ever forget: the ONLY difference between you and the people of Gaza is geographic luck. Nothing else.

No. I have not focussed on whether asylum must be claimed in the first safe country that the individual passes through. You seem to be missing the point that law is downstream of philosophy. Philosophy comes first and then laws follow. Not the other way around. I focus on philosophy. The law must then map to the philosophy. My primary concern with regard to law is what needs to be changed in order for it to reflect a holistic philosophy as it applies to British people primarily as a priority. So what exactly is it you’re attempting to achieve here philosophically? Are you interested in observing real, concrete consequences and acting accordingly or are you simply attempting to implement a predetermined idea? Let me explain. It seems that, based on existing legal realities, you’re trying to justify unlimited numbers of people coming to the UK in order to provide them with a better life experience, no matter the consequences for the UK. Implementing subjective and easily subverted tests for entry largely in the form of trust based interviews. You are not observing actual outcomes in the UK. Economics, crime, etc. Have you explored those areas? Have you considered the cultural impact? What I am doing is different. I am observing actual consequences using government data and real experiences in the UK. That’s very different to simply adhering to an ideology no matter the evidence. How does your model control for the extremely high levels of sexual offences observed that are committed by people that come here to claim asylum? Have you considered how their culture drives such behaviour? Where does the negative experience of British victims of such crimes factor into your philosophy? Further, how does your model account for the negative global impact of the erosion of British culture which gave the world so much? It seems to me that your view is simplistic and disconnected from practical reality. It’s therefore similar to a faith based religion. It seems to be ‘it’s nice to help people’ without considering any 2nd order impact.

@Integral_Views @PaulGrimshaw15 @Bazza73617427 @LBC Do any of your videos include this little nugget of UK case law:

Why is it that specifically Muslim men in Britain, whether immigrants or those born here, rape White women and children in such great numbers and with such indifference to the suffering they cause, not only to the immediate victims but to their families, their communities, and indeed to the entirety of the British people who have been deprived by the state of the means to defend them? The answer to this seemingly simple question that has a complex answer will go some way to substantiating the argument that Islam is not only incompatible with Western liberalism but antithetical to our values, our safety and the continuation of our society. For the mass rape of British women and children is not an anomaly peculiar to individual criminals, however large in number they are, but an integral part of the conquest of Britain by Islam, and, therefore, is at the heart of Islam itself. Islam, in different degrees depending on its power over the state but universally in every Muslim-majority country, places a large number of religiously justified prohibitions on women: on what they can do for a living, what they can say to men, how they should behave in their presence, where they can go and what they can do in public and, most visibly to Western eyes, what they can wear. As an unreformed and unenlightened medieval religion this is not surprising, as clothing in Europe in the Middle Ages was subject to sumptuary laws, which dictated what materials, colours and styles different classes could wear according to their social status. Islam, however, drew on the dogma of the Qur’an to make this prescription an interdiction, and a social requirement into a commandment of Allah. Whether it’s a hijab that covers a woman’s hair and surrounds her face; a niqab that leaves only her eyes uncovered; or a burqa that reduces her to a shambling ghost, all three, in the most oppressive Islamic societies, are accompanied by dresses or veils that cover the wearer’s body from her head to her ankles or down to the ground. The effect is that the wearer is erased from sight except as a black and amorphous shape, an absence in the public sphere, and above all as a void in the vision of men. For Islam regards women’s bodies, first and foremost, not as the property of women but as the source of the sexual temptation of Muslim men, who, in contrast, are free to dress how they please. As they always do — and, one might argue, are intended to — these prohibitions have created a compensatory outlet for, precisely, the sexuality of Muslim men. Because of this religious prohibition on Muslim women, which is not limited to the covering of their bodies but extends to the control of every aspect of their lives as women, the libido of Muslim men is split between highly-controlled non-sexual affection for their wives and mothers and uncontrolled sexual violence towards other women. For Muslim men living in European countries, the object of this sexual violence is, pre-eminently, White women and girls. As the object of this religious interdiction, therefore, the sexuality of Muslim men is deeply repressed. As it is to a lesser degree among monks and priests in Christian societies, one of the consequences of this is that, in Pakistan, for example, the rape and sodomy of Muslim street children is widespread. In neighbouring Afghanistan, another Islamic State, this sexual repression has found outlet in the practice of bacha bazi, or ‘boy play’, which is a euphemism for the enslavement and rape of impoverished adolescent boys by older, wealthy men. Although illegal in Pakistan, this is still practiced in rural regions, particularly those bordering Afghanistan, and further entrenches the sexuality of Muslim men in a libidinal economy of rape. To accommodate this split in the male libido, Islam tells Muslim men that infidel women are religiously sanctioned objects of rape, and that under Islam, a women is a female child who has menstruated. Again, this further invests the emotions that would otherwise lead to feelings of love and affection in the economy of rape. This psychic investment of the libido of Muslim men in rape is increased and worsened when they are living in non-Islamic countries, and above all in European countries in which women, not only in law but increasingly in our behaviour, have acquired equality with men. Confronted with the public expression of the freedom of White women from religious interdictions, the Muslim man is made aware of the restriction on his sexuality enforced by Islam, creating further feelings of sexual humiliation and servitude. In response, and in order to stop this becoming a source of apostasy, young Muslim men are instructed by their communities, clan elders and imams to view men in non-Islamic countries as weak, precisely because we have, in their view, given up the power over women that Muslim men are taught by the Qur’an to believe is their God-given right (‘Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other’, 4:34). Having handed responsibility for their sexual desires and their means of satisfaction to their God, their religion and their imam — who in this respect acts as their pimps — Muslim men compensate by turning their servitude (a Muslim is ‘one who submits’) into superiority over the non-Muslim men whose sexual freedom they envy. Since Muslim men have no relationship to Muslim women other than as breeders of their children, keepers of their homes and servants to them and other Muslim men, their only sexual relationship is to other men. Presumably, if hundreds of thousands of married Muslim men were having sex with their wives, they wouldn’t be raping 12-year-old English girls in all-male gangs, day after day, week after week, for years on end, in essentially homosexual acts of violence enacted on underage girls. To be a Muslim is, by definition, to be homosocial, with the corresponding propensity to homosexuality this encourages and facilitates. This explains the all-male communities in which almost all Muslim men live their lives while Muslim women are largely confined to their homes. Islam uses this religiously formed homosexuality to direct the libido of Muslim men towards the conquest of other men. And since Islam, in theory if not in practice, is a brotherhood of men, such conquest must be directed against non-Muslim men. As can often be seen in the behaviour of men who are both weak and aggressive — exemplified, perhaps, by the sudden attraction of young Western men to transvestism — and who gain their self-worth from threatening and attacking women, it’s the non-Muslim women that Muslim men rape; but it’s the non-Muslim men — to whom, in their own understanding of sexual relations, they attribute ‘ownership’ of the raped women — that they are trying to dominate. In non-Islamic countries, Muslim men are overwhelmingly uneducated, unskilled and financially poor compared to the native male population. Muslims in Britain, which accepts the detritus of the world, have the lowest employment rate, by far the lowest median salary, the smallest proportion with degrees in higher education, by far the least household wealth of any religious group, and whose working men earn less than the Muslim women who are in employment. The primary way Muslim men compete with White men, therefore, is through the sexual harassment, physical abuse and rape of White women and children. As an example of this, the legal defense of the two Pakistani brothers, Mohammed Fahir Amaaz and Muhammad Amaad, who violently assaulted police officers in Manchester Airport in July 2024 was that the officers had no right to search their mother. In their eyes, their defence of the venerated object of Islamic interdiction — that is, the Muslim mother — justified their assault of a woman police constable, in the process breaking her nose. But it is non-Muslim (police) men whose authority they defied on the basis of Sharia law. Burdened with a sexuality that has never advanced into adulthood, a Muslim man cannot have a sexual relationship with his wife beyond the needs of reproduction or the mechanical release of semen — masturbation to orgasm, at least in theory, being prohibited (haram) by Islam. The only sexual relationship a Muslim man can have, therefore, is with a non-Muslim woman. And just as men sexually addicted to prostitutes do so to justify this debasement of themselves, he calls them ‘whores’, trying to convince himself that it is the women, and not he, who is dirty, degraded, etc. Islam is rife with this debasement of women, which is justified as the religiously-sanctified response to women who do not dress, or behave, or speak in a manner the Qur’an describes as ‘modest’. Women in France already wear oversized clothing on public transport to avoid harassment by the millions of Muslim men successive French governments have allowed into their country. Today it’s a baggy pullover, but for their daughters and ours it will be the hijab and the burqa. Undoubtedly, another function of the mass rape of European women is the campaign of terror that will compel their populations to embrace Sharia law. It’s a short step from normalising the violence of a woman clad from head to foot in a burqa to a woman who, because of her immodesty in failing to do so, is the religiously sanctioned object of rape. Not universally but in varying degrees, the libido of Muslim men can only find release in the rape of White women. Indeed, as young men in the West become increasingly addicted to pornography, the sexuality of White adolescents is becoming as bound to rape and violence as that of Muslim men. The rape of White women, therefore, which Islam not merely condones but has created and entrenched in the libido of Muslim men, has both a religious cause and a geopolitical goal, that being the conquest of non-Islamic countries by Islam. One of the most famous historical examples is the mass rape of German women by the Soviet soldiers who conquered Nazi Germany; but like all soldiers — whatever their nation and throughout history — who are in occupation of a conquered country, rape is both a reward for the conquerors and an instrument for the intimidation and humiliation of the conquered. But in Islam it is, in addition, a sign — in this case written by Allah — of the conquest of an infidel country. Far from being ashamed of the mass rape of the women and children of the conquered country, Muslim men — and women too, who are complicit in covering up the crimes of their husbands and sons — are proud of it. Mass rape by Muslim men in a conquered country — which in Britain now is a daily occurrence — is the forerunner of the 72 virgins Muslim men who have died for Allah are promised in heaven (Qur’an 56:36). This ‘reward’ of virginal girls who have no say in their rape in Islam’s rapists’ heaven in itself is an expression of the adolescent sexuality in which Muslim men are condemned by their religion to live their limited and violent lives. For all these reasons, the mass rape of White women and children by Muslim men is not an aberration, not an isolated incident, not even, for Muslims, a crime. It is, rather, at the heart of a religion that has been devoted, since its birth in the Seventh Century, to conquest. Rape is the dark heart of the Islamic faith, and every White woman in Britain and across Europe has been sacrificed by their government to its barbaric beliefs and rites. If you don’t want to see your daughter, niece, girlfriend, wife or any more British women gang raped by Muslim men and want to know what we can do to stop the rape of Britain by these animals, please consider purchasing a copy of my new book, The Great Replacement and the Islamisation of Britain. The link is below. architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk/2026/02/26/the…

Rafe, what I've come to understand is that a fair number of people who support Restore Britain right now are accelerationists. They would prefer the Green Party to win outright than for Reform to win. The logic is that the Green Party would utterly destroy the country in short order which would create the conditions for the conflict necessary to ultimately implement the very strong policies that are required. They believe that's better than having Reform and what they view as another 5 years of slow decay and betrayal. That's not my view but it is held by many and it's not completely nonsensical. It seems fairly clear to me that the left simply will not stop until the extremes of their positions utterly fail in ways that are catastrophic and indisputable.

You may want to correct your post as that is not what I said, Connor. I would never call for a coalition with the Tory Party, the party that betrayed and broke Britain, and imported millions of people from culturally incompatible lands. In addition, coalitions lead to compromise and watered-down policies (viz. Meloni's Italian government). Everyone knows my views on what needs to be done to save Britain are some of the strongest and most strident out there. My point is that to save Britain from the myriad existential crises it faces, we need a majority government that has a clear mandate to implement the necessary strong policies. However, the right is now so fractured that it is currently impossible to achieve this. This is not about politics. This is pure maths. The fact people need to understand is that the MAJORITY of British voters vote for left and centre left parties. Only a MINORITY of voters vote for right and centre right parties. In the last election, for example, the combined vote for the Tories and Reform was 38% Ignoring the other 4 parties of the left, the vote for Labour alone was 33.7% enough for it to form a majority government. Add in the other 4 parties and the comparison with the right vote share is stark. Absent the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP & Plaid, and Labour would have been the "natural party of government" in recent decades rather than the Tories. This is only going to get worse. Because people must also understand that right wing voters are DYING at a far faster rate than left wing voters. By the time of the next general election in 2029, approx. 1.2 MILLION right wing voters are forecast to have died, compared with only 500,000 left wing voters. That is why the next election is crucial if we are to have any hope of saving Britain. My point is that mathematics dictates that the only way we can save Britain is to unite the right around a single party. For the purposes of this discussion I'm not concerned with which party this is. That demands another lengthy discussion (this is already length enough). People can make their own minds up on the party -- although it certainly can't be the Tories. And in truth we don't need to unite the entire right. We simply need to unite enough of the right to guarantee at least 35%+ of the vote. Technically, one can secure a majority with 31% of the vote. But to secure the mandate and a decent majority necessary to implement the strong policies Britain requires, 35%+ would be ideal. So, to clarify your misunderstanding, my call is not to politicians - especially not to Tory politicians! My call is for VOTERS to abandon their party loyalties and think strategically and practically. Otherwise Britain cannot be saved. If we do not unite a large part of the right, we face a PERMANENT dystopian future either of weak barely-right wing governments incapable of delivering strong policies or, even worse, Frankenstein coalitions of the Left, which would potentially include the Greens. This is a reality people must recognise and confront. For example, we know from polling that the majority of Tory voters are far more right-wing than the wets who represent them in Parliament. So if a few million of them were to vote tactically at the next election that would be one way of securing a majority government. This is a matter of extreme urgency. The challenges Britain faces are such that we cannot face another electoral disappointment. As alluded to above, we also face a demographic time bomb: the youth vote and migrant vote. Not only are right wing voters dying at a far faster rate than left-wing voters, they are not being replenished amongst the young. We have the most left wing youth in history. 3/4 of youth are centre left or left wing. Only 24% vote for right or centre right parties. This is unprecedented. Add in the fact that immigrant communities overwhelmingly vote for left-wing parties, and we have a demographic time bomb which the right has consistently failed to address. The next election is crucial to saving Britain because the next government needs to tackle education reform and reverse the indoctrination of our youth in our schools and universities. If it fails to do this, the right face at least 20 years in the wilderness. Indeed, this is what Prof. Eric Kaufmann already predicts. He believes Britain is currently destined to become like Trudeau's Canada and have a 20 year period of unbelievable left-wingery. That can be stopped -- but only if we have the good sense to abandon our idealism and become realists. This is a time for us all - including me - to put aside emotion and partisanship and simply look at the cold, hard numbers. The alternatives to a majority right-wing government are too appalling to consider...or allow. Uniting (enough of the) right is the only patriotic option to save Britain.

The ONLY way we are going to get a strong right-wing government that is able to implement its manifesto policies is if we UNITE THE RIGHT If we split the right we face either a coalition (which invariably leads to compromise and watered down policies) or, far worse, a Frankenstein government coalition of left-wing parties The only reason the so-called Conservative Party was able to form majority governments was because it was the only party (allegedly) on the right, whilst the left-wing vote was split between 5 parties (Labour, Lib Dem, Green, SNP & Plaid). Uniting the right is the only way to save Britain.

@EssexPR Good for you Adam. Great stuff. Keep it up!

Bought myself a new sparring set and there was a photographer in the gym… what are the chances lol Slowly getting back to fitness. 📸- JJW Productions

@GBNEWS No aid and no entry.

'It can be used to help refugees much closer to home!' Chair of the London Green Party Eugene McCarthy says foreign aid can work in Britain's benefit to reduce the number of asylum seekers. 🇬🇧 Become a Friend of GB News: gbnews.com/support

@Kindke People from Pakistan are the largest group from any single country claiming asylum in the UK.

@Integral_Views Why is a man from Pakistan claiming Asylum?!?! Unbelievable what our politicians are allowing to happen,

@Jonnyengli58267 @jakerattlesnk I'll check it out

@Integral_Views @jakerattlesnk What's responsible for low muscle mass, lack of exercise but also lack of dietary protein . Meats become very expensive over the last few years. A 8oz steak was £4.50 now £9. Suggest you look at Prof Bart kay on YT on the Randal cycle and de novo lipogenesis from excess carbs.

It’s absolutely baffling to me how every British man is not a complete far right wing lunatic at this stage.

Carbs are fine within reason as long as muscle mass is high enough. Muscle acts as a store for glycogen. Without adequate muscle mass, blood sugar is raised due to excessive carbohydrate consumption. This causes inflammation, type 2 diabetes, etc. The key issue is low muscle mass.

@Integral_Views @jakerattlesnk I could go on. there's tons of YT info on the above. Why not do a vid on the effects of carbs on population health? Why do women go bald and grow tashes, too many carbs, there is a biochemical mechanism. See Prof Bart Kay on YT. Happy to sense check, if interested reply here.