This week, we saw the 26th Mohammedan become a member of Parliament by swearing an oath on the Quran. Until not too long ago, this would have been illegal. For most of our country’s history, you had to be a native to represent the native people, according to the English Bill of Rights; and you had to be a Christian, specifically a member of the Church of England, according to the Test Act. We did away with such protections in the name of, you guessed it, diversity, equity and inclusion, to our detriment. I tweeted the obvious: that there should be no Mohammedans in Parliament. This received widespread support.
I followed up, however, with a more specific tweet: “Only Anglo Christian men should be able to stand for election in Britain. Only Anglo Christian heads of households should be able to vote in elections.”
This caused absolute outrage.
It is amazing to see such a strong reaction to something that would have been considered normative until relatively recently, in fact, for most of history. Mainstream media journalists and politicos alike were admonishing me for being ‘misogynistic.’ The truth is, this statement is no more misogynistic than it is racist. Let us break it down briefly:
Only Britons should be elected to office in Britain: English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish. No one should be ruled by foreigners. We would not expect the Japanese to be ruled by Turks, for example. That would be ludicrous. Why, therefore, do we not have the same expectations for ourselves?
The same for the faith. England has been a Christian country since its inception in 927 A.D., and I would hope it would remain so. What does that mean? At the very core, it means the value set by which our executive, legislative and judiciary govern is based on a Christian moral compass - or at least, should be. Every peoples/nation have to choose a value set to live by; ours has always been Christian. It is illogical, then, to let non-Christians stand in elections.
And to the final point, it should be men. Politics is a masculine arena. That is not to say that women are less than men; that is to say politics is too good for women. Men fight and work in order that women do not have to. Men are - generally speaking - faster, stronger, more athletic and prone to violence than women, who tend to be more nurturing and emotive. Men and women are not the same. They are equal in the eyes of God, in terms of dignity and worth, but they are not equal in role or responsibility. Men are meant to provide and protect; women are meant to keep a home and raise children. These are all common sense facts we have always understood, until we let feminism become the predominant lens through which we look at such issues. Deep down we all know the truth remains the truth, though. There is a reason we do not want to see women on the front lines in war, or on the streets stopping criminals as police officers. It is dangerous, and we want to keep the fairer sex safe for their holy vocation.
This is an argument rooted in natural law, the complementarity of the sexes, the family as the basic social unit, and a rejection of liberal individualism. I can understand how secularists/non-Christians may have a different worldview, but it is extremely disappointing to see Christians bending to the will of the world, instead of following the teachings of the faith, through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Catholics long fought against universal suffrage on the grounds of feminine dignity and domestic vocation.
Husband and wife should not compete against each other. The family should be the basic unit of our society, not the individual. And we should always remember that rights are God-given, not privileges granted by governments.
This is about roles, rights, and responsibilities. It is about recognising the differences between men and women, and recognising that those differences are good because they are part of God’s order for our lives. Feminism is a denial of these facts, which ultimately leads to transgenderism.
The fruits of subverting this good old-fashioned truth have led to the mess that we are in now. So, I am not arguing that women should not vote because of how they vote, but that said, how they vote is generally damaging. If only women voted, we would have nothing but liberal governments. Women are more compassionate than men, and that bleeds through as suicidal empathy when women engage in politics. Generally speaking, women vote for mass migration, to help the other at the expense of their own, and for the so-called right to kill their own offspring. The fruits of universal suffrage are evil. If only they would see this and give up their vote.
On Dan Wootton Outspoken, I debated with Kezia Noble and Ana Boulter on universal suffrage:
On The New Christian Right’s The Next Crusade - Poland has almost ZERO crime whilst Europe burns: here’s why:
And on my YouTube channel we discussed the idea that the anti-Christ is already here:
Feminism has been a terrible cancer that has made us weak in the face of the threat of Islam. This should be indisputable.
There is a solution it’s staring everyone in the face 🤦♂️
The English Bill of Rights (1689) AN ACT FOR DECLARING THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE SUBJECT, AND SETTLING THE SUCCESSION OF THE CROWN.
I, A. B., do swear, That I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical that damnable doctrine and position, that Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm:
“So help me God!”
William III, 1700 & 1701: An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject [Chapter II. Rot. Parl. 12 & 13 Gul. III. p. 1. n. 2.]
III. Further Provisions for securing the Religion, Laws, and Liberties of these Realms.
And whereas it is requisite and necessary that some further Provision be made for securing our Religion Laws and Liberties from and after the Death of His Majesty and the Princess Ann of Denmark and in default of Issue of the Body of the said Princess and of His Majesty respectively Be it enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same
That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established
That in case the Crown and Imperiall Dignity of this Realm shall hereafter come to any Person not being a Native of this Kingdom of England this Nation be not obliged to ingage in any Warr for the Defence of any Dominions or Territories which do not belong to the Crown of England without the Consent of Parliament
That no Person who shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall go out of the Dominions of England Scotland or Ireland without Consent of Parliament.
That from and after the Time that the further Limitation by this Act shall take Effect all Matters and Things relating to the well governing of this Kingdom which are properly cognizable in the Privy Councill by the Laws and Customs of this Realme shall be transacted there and all Resolutions taken thereupon shall be signed by such of the Privy Councill as shall advise and consent to the same.
That after the said Limitation shall take Effect as aforesaid no Person born out of the Kingdoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a Denizen (except such as [are (fn. 3) ] born of English Parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Councill or a Member of either House of Parliament or to enjoy any Office or Place of Trust either Civill or Military or to have any Grant of Lands Tenements or Hereditaments from the Crown to himself or to any other or others in Trust for him
That no Person who has an Office or Place of Profit under the King or recieves a Pention from the Crown shall be capable of serving as a Member of the House of Commons.
That after the said Limitation shall take Effect as aforesaid Judges Commissions be made Quam diu se bene Gesserint and their Salaries ascertained and established but upon the Address of both Houses of Parliament it may be lawfull to remove them.
That no Pardon under the Great Seal of England be pleadable to an Impeachment by the Commons in Parliament.