Is an Islamist Fifth Column now dictating our Global Affairs too?

Was the UK's resolute refusal to support the US in taking out the Ayotollah and Iranian arms sites down to fear over domestic retaliation?

The words “International Law” have rather become a parody in today’s world. Well intentioned treaties and supranational organisations designed to keep bad actors and bad acts at bay are increasingly being hijacked by the exact malign regimes they were designed to limit, and instead are used to straitjacket any sort of response, reaction or preventative measure against the very malevolence they were designed to prevent.

On top of all that, whether refugee conventions, human rights laws, retrospective territorial realignments or legal warfare constraints, not only do entities such as the UN and ECHR appear extremely outdated in their legislative frameworks, they consistently rule in favour of, or even actively promote, states and organisations hostile towards the West.

Take for example the fact that the UN appointed Iran as vice‑chair of the UN Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations. Iran secured the position without a formal vote at the committee’s opening session. The committee, a subsidiary of the UN Legal Committee, meets annually to discuss Charter principles and ways to strengthen them.

Surely a regime that violates the basic principles of the UN cannot sit in a leadership position that deals with strengthening them?

The pathetic appeasement is beyond a joke. It is dangerous.

But was it Starmer’s beloved International Law that caused him to prevent the US using joint military bases to launch their tactical pre-emptive strike against Iran at the weekend?

Normally when Starmer vomits wokery, he is in lockstep with his left wing leader buddies in Australia and Canada. But this time, they were not. While the Carney and Albanese voiced unequivocal support for Trump’s affirmative action, the UK blocked America using bases shared with the UK in an unprecedented move while taking great pains to loudly profess we played no part in the operation.

Is that because Starmer is lily livered over interventions in the Middle East given the chequered history of his pwn party in theatres of war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or is he using it as a guise because he rather supports the Iranian terror regime?

I think neither are plausible answers.

Lord Wolfson, the Shadow Attorney General (at least for the Tories) rather elegantly dismantled the International Law argument, I will summarise below.

• The inherent right to use force in the face of an imminent attack from a hostile nation which is responsible for a pattern of hostile actions

• Iran has repeatedly threatened to attack the UK’s bases and personnel. The Director General of MI5 has stated that the UK has responded to tens of Iranian-backed plots, presenting potentially lethal threats to British citizens and UK residents. There is also a constant barrage of cyberattacks

• The UK’s long-standing allies, the US and Israel, were right to consider that they faced further attacks given that Iran has previously attacked both states directly and through its many proxies, has repeatedly stated its intent to destroy Israel, was assessed to be on the brink of acquiring nuclear capability while already possessing sophisticated long-range delivery capability which Israel cannot fully neutralise with defensive weapons.

• The acquisition of a nuclear capability by Iran represents a genocidal risk for Israel

• The UK is permitted under international law to use force to aid another state which is acting in self-defence and is under an obligation to prevent genocide

• Against that background, the UK has three distinct legal bases to assist and is in the same legal position as the US

No. My fear is that the UK is so riddled with actors from the hostile regime, it is now at its mercy, within its own territorial bounds.

The Impact of Islamism in the UK: Politics, Security, and Society

With a Muslim population estimated at around 6.5% of the total (approximately 3.9 million people as of the 2021 census, although doubtless today far, far higher), concerns about its influence span electoral processes, protests, security threats, and demographic theories.

The recent victory by The Green Party (which is now essentially a zombie slug being controlled by Islamists) follows a deeply alarming pattern of growing sectarian politics wherever there is a significant Muslim community. But it isn’t even just a numbers game. In constituencies where Pro-Gaza MPs, or now Green MPs it seems, have or can secure victory, there are clear indications of electoral fraud

Electoral Fraud in Muslim-Majority Areas

Electoral fraud has been a recurring issue in some UK areas with significant Muslim populations, often linked to cultural practices or political mobilisation. Historically, notable cases include the 2004 Birmingham postal vote scandal, where six Labour councillors of Pakistani origin were found guilty of widespread fraud involving thousands of ballots. Judge Richard Mawrey described it as “electoral practices that would disgrace a banana republic.” In 2014, Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahman, of Bangladeshi heritage, was removed from office for vote-rigging, bribery, and spiritual influence, including claims that imams pressured voters by declaring opposition “un-Islamic.” More recently, allegations surfaced during the February 2026 Gorton and Denton by-election in Manchester, a constituency with about 28% Muslim residents. Observers from Democracy Volunteers reported high levels of “family voting,” where multiple family members entered polling booths together, potentially breaching secret ballot rules. This was largely the physical manifestation of what has been going on for decades with the Postal Vote. The by election in Manchester was called too quickly for that system to be infiltrated and abused, hence spouses, cousins, children and neighbours were frogmarched to voting booths by patriarchal overlords instead

I myself have witnessed first hand what appears blatant ballot stuffing in by elections a decade ago in Oldham and Peterborough. It has been standard practice for a long time now that local Imams will be courted by a political party and then ensure all mosque attendees vote the same way, often using the postal vote where mysteriously multiple names are linked to one postal address.

But the Green Party campaign went one step further, playing on sectarian and racist divisions designed to court more extreme elements of Muslim voting. Creating campaign material in Urdu, some of their claims included calls to “punish Labour for Gaza,” and made dangerous assertions that the Reform candidate wanted to deport all Muslims

Pro-Gaza and Pro-Iran Protests:

You can tell the sort of people you have in your country by who turns out to demonstrate - and for what.

The death of the Ayatollah witnessed incredible scenes of Israelies and Iranians celebrating together in Golders Green, two states at a macro level in a bloody battle for existential survival, but within the diaspora sharing the same enemy in the form of the bloodthirsty and brutal Islamic regime.

Yet where were the protests when Iran started bombing neighbouring Muslim states during Ramadan?

Instead protests against the death of the Ayatollah took place, even being attended by the Deputy Leader of The Green Party Mothin Ali.

Sadly Brits have become rather inured against the Hate Marches that have taken over our big cities and University Campuses since 2023. So it was no surprise when hundreds of pro-regime supporters marched in London, carrying banners of Ayatollah Khamenei and condemning attacks on Tehran, with Hamas-backing former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn joining one such rally.

I have long argued these marches are at least in part corralled and coordinated by hostile powers such as terror organisations and Iran.

Terrorism Watchlists and Security Concerns

The UK’s terrorism watchlist, managed by MI5, includes around 43,000 individuals, with approximately 75% (about 32,250) linked to Islamist extremism.

Meanwhile IRGC-Connected Incidents in the UK total at least 20 intercepted attacks. Yet unlike the EU, the UK has failed to designate the IRGC as a terrorist group.

In January 2024, the IRGC plotted to assassinate two British-Iranian journalists at Iran International.

Additionally, the Islamic Centre of England faces investigation for selling pro-Hezbollah merchandise, highlighting IRGC influence.

Are we now in a situation - echoing the disgusting revelations of how Muslim Leaders in Aston in Birmingham forced the police to ban visiting Israeli away fans out of fear they would lead armed attacks against them - where our global politics is being dictated by fear of reprisals from the Muslims in our own country?

The 16% Population Theory

Dr. Peter Hammond, a South African missionary and author in his book Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, presents a historical pattern observed across countries, arguing that Islam functions as a “complete, total, 100% system of life” and that the Islamisation of a nation begins when Muslims reach a critical mass sufficient to agitate for religious privileges. Tolerant societies’ accommodations then allow other components (including Sharia enforcement and jihad) to “creep in.” In it, he argues:

• Under 2%: Muslims are regarded as a peace-loving minority and not seen as a threat. They are often portrayed positively in media.
  

• 2%–5%: They begin to proselytise from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, with major recruiting in prisons and among street gangs.

• 5% and above: They exercise inordinate influence relative to their size. They push for halal food, with threats for non-compliance, and begin demanding accommodations. At this stage, they also start seeking to govern themselves under Sharia law within their communities or ghettos.

• 10%: They increase lawlessness as a form of complaint (e.g. riots, car-burnings, protests against perceived insults like cartoons). Any non-Muslim action can trigger uprisings and threats.

• 20%: Formation of jihad militias, sporadic killings, and burnings of churches/synagogues.

• 40%: Widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare.

• 60%: Unfettered persecution of non-Muslims (including “apostate” Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing/genocide, Sharia used as a weapon, and imposition of jizya (tax on non-believers).

• 80%: Daily intimidation and violent jihad, state-run ethnic cleansing, and genocide

• 100%: The theoretical “peace of Dar-es-Salaam” (House of Peace) — only madrassas, only the Quran. In practice, radical Muslims often turn on less radical ones, with internal violence continuing.

  According to this scale, the UK lies between lawlessness as a form of complaint (already observed with the Batley school teacher, the protests after the Manchester Airport arrests etc) and the formation of Jihad militias (as I have discussed on Substack before, I firmly believe we are well on our way to this with suspicious Muslim ‘Summer camps’ focusing on physical training and Koranic scripture taking place around the country).

Starmer’s Capitulation

In an extraordinary address to Parliament, Starmer has confessed that the UK will not join the US-Israel offensive against Iran based upon what appears to be fears of reprisals against military personnel abroad, raising grave questions about how protected our overseas bases are, while also regurgitating the questionable position of the legality of the initial attacks, saying it is not a fair thing to do to serving military personnel (which is a bit rich coming from the man who personally pursued private prosecutions against veterans for acts in the theatre of war - and on a pro bono basis).

I suspect the elephant in the room is more about what the incendiary reaction would be back at home.