Proof the Islamist Threat in England Can No Longer Be Ignored | Winston Marshall

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Rubin Report – "Proof the Islamist Threat in England Can No Longer Be Ignored | Winston Marshall"

Release Date: February 27, 2025
Host: Dave Rubin
Guest: Winston Marshall

---

Introduction

In this compelling episode of The Rubin Report, host Dave Rubin engages in a robust discussion with Winston Marshall, focusing on the escalating Islamist threat in England and the broader challenges facing British national identity. Recorded at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference, the conversation delves deep into issues of immigration, social cohesion, and the erosion of free speech within the UK.

---

1. The Islamist Threat and Social Cohesion

Winston Marshall opens the discussion by highlighting the dire situation in England, emphasizing the strained relations between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. He identifies a liberal, progressive two-tier approach to justice as a core issue undermining social cohesion.

Marshall (00:00): "We are in dire straits in England and Britain... if we take law and order seriously, we get rid of two tier system, we actually punish perpetrators and people start respecting the law, then we might actually have social cohesion."

Marshall references international models, such as Singapore, the Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, to suggest how England could effectively address Islamism. He points out that in Britain, "one in a hundred British Muslims are on a MI5 jihadi watch list," underscoring the severity of the Islamist threat.

Marshall (09:15): "One in 100 British Muslims are on a MI5 jihadi watch list. This, you know, something like 95 people killed by Islamists since 2005."

He advocates for stringent law enforcement and controlled immigration as pivotal steps toward restoring social harmony.

---

2. Identity Crisis: English vs. British

The conversation shifts to the complexity of national identity in Britain. Marshall distinguishes between identifying as English versus British, explaining that while he personally identifies more with English heritage, the broader British identity is meant to unify diverse groups, including Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish.

Marshall (01:42): "English not British, English not British, you see, but English over British. So I do identify as British, but English primarily."

Marshall reflects on his speech at Oxford University, where he found a lack of consensus among students about what it means to be English, illustrating the fragmented understanding of national identity.

Marshall (04:30): "I think there's no clear cut rule on what we are."

He further explores the interplay between ethnicity, place, and culture, noting the porous nature of these identities and the challenges they pose in defining a cohesive British identity amidst mass migration.

---

3. The Impact of Mass Migration

Marshall discusses the significant influx of migrants into Britain, both legal and illegal, arguing that it has contributed to social disunity and the erosion of a shared national identity. He cites areas like Whitechapel, where English is no longer the primary language, as evidence of linguistic and cultural shifts.

Marshall (05:30): "Millions coming every year or up to a million... social disunity, we've seen different groups separating parts of London."

He emphasizes the difficulty in integrating migrants when there is already no consensus on what it means to be British, complicating efforts towards assimilation and social harmony.

---

4. Education System’s Role in Identity Formation

Marshall is critical of the British education system, claiming it undermines national pride by misrepresenting history. He argues that young British people are not taught the valorous aspects of British history, such as defeating Napoleon and ending slavery, but are instead portrayed negatively.

Marshall (07:12): "They've been taught that we are bad people... that we are the perpetrators, irredeemably so, of the slave trade."

This, he asserts, has led to a decline in patriotism and willingness to defend the country, as reflected in recent polls showing only 10% of young British individuals would fight and die for their country.

---

5. Political Leadership and Its Consequences

The discussion turns to the role of political leaders in exacerbating Britain's challenges. Marshall specifically criticizes Boris Johnson, blaming his administration for fueling immigration and environmental policies he describes as "Net zero lunacy."

Marshall (11:45): "Boris Johnson... turbocharged all the bloody problems, Net zero lunacy, all the... Boris Johnson... he sold out our country."

Marshall laments that political decisions have contributed to the current state of disarray, making it harder to address the Islamist threat and social fragmentation effectively.

---

6. Shifting Cultural Attitudes and Hope for Change

Despite the bleak outlook, Marshall expresses hope for cultural and societal shifts, drawing inspiration from the United States. He cites Donald Trump's victory as evidence that cultural attitudes can change, moving the Overton window toward more conservative viewpoints.

Marshall (09:15): "My hope has been with seeing Trump's win in the States... clearly a culture can shift and can change."

This optimism underlines his belief that with the right leadership and policies, Britain can overcome its current challenges.

---

7. Free Speech in Britain Compared to America

A significant portion of the conversation addresses the erosion of free speech in Britain. Marshall contrasts the UK's restrictive laws with the American First Amendment, arguing that Britain lacks genuine free speech protections.

Marshall (12:30): "We don't have free speech. The only defense we have... European Convention of Human Rights, Article 10."

He highlights recent incidents where free speech was curtailed, such as Nigel Farage losing parliamentary privilege and being "debanked," illustrating the tangible impacts of these legal restrictions.

Marshall (14:32): "We will continue to exercise free speech, my friend."

Marshall questions whether free speech is genuinely a British value or an imported concept from America, expressing skepticism about its existence in contemporary British society.

---

Conclusion

In this thought-provoking episode, Dave Rubin and Winston Marshall dissect the multifaceted crises facing Britain, from the Islamist threat and immigration to national identity and free speech. Marshall's insights underscore the urgent need for cohesive policies and a redefined national identity to restore social harmony and uphold fundamental freedoms. As Britain grapples with these challenges, the conversation highlights the critical intersections of politics, culture, and societal values that will shape the nation's future.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Marshall (00:00): "We are in dire straits in England and Britain... if we take law and order seriously, we get rid of two tier system, we actually punish perpetrators and people start respecting the law, then we might actually have social cohesion."

• Marshall (07:12): "They've been taught that we are bad people... that we are the perpetrators, irredeemably so, of the slave trade."

• Marshall (11:45): "Boris Johnson... turbocharged all the bloody problems, Net zero lunacy, all the... Boris Johnson... he sold out our country."

• Marshall (12:30): "We don't have free speech. The only defense we have... European Convention of Human Rights, Article 10."

• Marshall (14:32): "We will continue to exercise free speech, my friend."

---

This summary encapsulates the critical discussions and viewpoints presented in the episode, providing listeners and readers with a comprehensive understanding of the pressing issues addressed by Winston Marshall and Dave Rubin.

Transcript

[A]

We are in dire straits in, in England and Britain, but things can be turned around. I think, you know, one of the big issues we're facing, I mentioned immigration. There's a problem of the relations between Muslims and non Muslims in this country. And, but that's not part of that problem, is that we are, there's the kind of a liberal, progressive, two tier approach to justice. So, so if I, where I'm hopeful is I look to, let's say Singapore, I look to the Emirates and the Saudis who have, you know, Singapore is 20% Muslim population. The Saudis and the Emirates obviously Muslim majority countries, but they're very outspoken about how to deal with Islamism in Britain. Islamism is a serious problem. One in a hundred British Muslims are on a MI5 jihadi watch list. This, you know, something like 95 people can kill by Islamist. Since 95, I think no, 2005. And we've got a lot of issues with those groups mixing. But I think if we take law and order seriously, we get rid of two tier system, we actually punish perpetrators and people start respecting the law, then we might actually have social cohesion. Come again?

[B]

So, Winston Marshall, you just said something interesting off camera. Hopefully you can on camera that you think of yourself or you identify as British, not English. From an American perspective, I don't think anyone would know what that means.

[A]

English not British, English not British, you see, but English over British. So I do identify as British, but English primarily. Even though I'm not entirely ethnically English, I'm a real mutt of Euro mutt. But let's just give a bit of context for listeners. We're at ARC alliance for Responsible Citizenship. One of the debates being had both on and off stage is that what is the story we tell ourselves, what is the identity? And then outside of ark, why this is such an important question for Britain is because mass migration, illegal and legal, is probably the most important issue of the day. And so we have quite literally millions coming every year or up to a million, let's say has been, well, oh no, sorry, over over a million some years gross of migrants coming to the country. And there's conversations about, well, we've seen social disunity, we've seen social cohesion crumbling, we've seen different groups separating parts of London. You'd have had to drive through Whitechapel where the signs aren't even English anymore and English is not even the first language in a lot of the countries. So the conversation has been had of who we are. How are we to tell people who are moving here, what to integrate into, what to assimilate into if we ourselves cannot identify who we are. I'll add further. I spoke at Oxford University at a Roger Scruton lecture. A famous conservative intellectual passed a few years ago and it was full of conservative students talking about identity. And then after I spoke, I asked everyone in the room to say, what do you think it means to be English? And not one of them gave the same answer. And it had a complete total range, including someone who said, well, it doesn't really mean anything to be English. No, classic thing you hear is, oh, to be English is just fair play and, and tolerance. I'm like, well, that's what the Americans have. That doesn't distinguish us from them whatsoever. So back to the complex issue of English identity. Someone like Roger Scruton himself would say, it's from place. And you might say, well, you're from England. Then if you're born here, then that makes you English. But that's complicated and I'll explain why. For example, Elon Musk, ethnically partly English, from South Africa, very much an American citizen. Likewise, you could be completely ethnically English, have lived 300 years in America, but you're not English, you're an American. That's partly because there's an ethnicity. You are administratively somewhere from a place. And then there's the cultural aspect as well. And to make things all the more complicated, all of these realms, the domains rather, and the ethnicities or the identities themselves are porous. So even if you come up with a conclusion, you will have to say, except in these times, it's complicated and more. There are exceptions. I think there's. So there's no clear cut rule on what we are. Now, what I said to you before we started rolling is I identify as English over British, and it is the British identity that actually unifies the Scots, the Welsh, the English, the Northern Irish and all of the non of those who are in Britain from across, whether you are from Jamaica, Nigeria. Kemi Badenok, leader of the Conservative Party, is Nigerian heritage. She would identify, I assume, as British. So there's a question. We're in a muddle, I think, particularly with mass migration. Now the conversation we're having before is, so I identify as English. I find harder to articulate what it is to be British. British is a 300-year-old concept. Well, I guess it's not a 300 year old concept, but the act of Union was in 1707 when Scotland and England combined. So whereas England is 1100 years old. In fact, we have our 1100 year anniversary in two years time, I think, and it was founded by, well, King Athelstan founded it. But I would say we go back to King Alfred the Great who united the English against the great heathen army. I identify with that heritage. So for me, national identity is. And people off camera, I'm interested, they're disagree with me, but it is to take on the heritage of a people as it is your own and to actively participate in it. So I think you can go to America like Elon Musk is and become an American because he's taking on the heritage from the founding fathers as if it is his own heritage, and then moving forward and taking on and participating in that heritage. I think that you can come here to this country and you might not be ethnically English, but you hypothetically could participate. A famous example from the scripture would be Moses wife who was an Abyssinian woman, but she's very much part of Israel. Israel, a nation without a state as it wandered through the desert to the promised land. She was, I would say, part of the Israel tribe. So again, this problem is identity. As you get into semantics, I'm doing a lot of thinking out loud here.

[B]

Well, you've given me about 20 ways to go here, but I guess the main one is. So do you think that all of the problems that your country seems to be facing right now are downstream from this? It's downstream from this inability to define itself properly?

[A]

Well, it actually gets worse because there's a deliberate attack as well on all things that might be deemed positive about our identity. So this happens in the education system. There's a polling done last week that something like only 10% of young British people in that range would fight and die for their country. And unfortunately, these kids have been taught that we are bad people. They're not being taught the truth, which is that we are the people that defeated Napoleon, we are the people that ended slavery, we are the people that defeated Hitler and the Nazi parties. We had some help from across the bottom, but that is an infinitely proud history to take on and have. And they're not being taught any of that. In fact, they've been taught the opposite, that we are the perpetrators, irredeemably so, of the slave trade earned. And that somehow whatever Hitler did, that the idea of nationalism, it's not okay to be just because the Germans did such a terrible evil stuff that we can't be proud about our own history. You know, we learned a lot of different lessons than the Americans did after the Second World War, you, I think, learned that America defeated the Nazis, and so that's something to be proud of. In Europe, the lesson seemed to have been nationalism is bad. And so we had a sort of.

[B]

Divergence there that's very fundamentally different.

[A]

Yeah. So basically there's an attack from four sides. But the point I was making right at the beginning is that leaving aside the progressive radicals who are trying to deliberately take apart our culture, even those who are proud of our culture aren't struggling to, I'm sure, you know, all agree on what it is that our culture is, what it is that our identity is.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, that's much of what this conference is about. Obviously it's not fully about just the uk, but clearly identity for all of the Western nations is kind of top of mind here. Are you hopeful? I keep asking everybody this, but are you hopeful that, you know, you guys will straighten this out? I mean, there's major problems that, you know, from deportations and closing borders and then still having to fix all of the internal mess that's here.

[A]

My hope has been with seeing Trump's win in the States, because what we saw there is a yanking of the Overton window. I was in New York City during the election and I saw young people wearing MAGA hats around Soho. That was unthinkable in 2016. And clearly a culture can shift and can change. We are in dire straits in England and Britain, but things can be turned around. I think one of the big issues we're facing, I mentioned immigration. There's a problem of the relations between Muslims and non Muslims in this country, but that's not part of that problem, is that we are. There's the kind of a liberal, progressive, two tier approach to justice. So where I'm hopeful is I look to, let's say, Singapore, I look to the Emirates and the Saudis who have, you know, Singapore is 20% Muslim population. The Saudis and the Emirates, obviously Muslim majority countries, but they're very outspoken about how to deal with Islamism. In Britain, Islamism is a serious problem. One in 100 British Muslims are on a MI5 jihadi watch list. This, you know, something like 95 people killed by Islamists last. Since 95, I think no, 2005. And we've got a lot of issues with those groups mixing. But I think if we take law and order seriously, we get rid of two tier system, we actually punish perpetrators and people start respecting the law, then we might actually have social cohesion. Come again?

[B]

And you think that might happen?

[A]

Well, we've got to end, we've got to stop. We've got to get migration under control as well. Absolutely. It depends who's in government. For a long time I was against. I didn't think. I didn't really believe in politicians to solve our problems. I believe that you should do things with social enterprises and even business enterprises, and that's actually how you move things along. But clearly it's come from the political classes and the Westminster uniparty that so many of our problems going back to Tony Blair through the Conservatives. I actually at this point think that Boris Johnson is the most. Is the most despicable of the lot. A lot of this happened under his, his watch. We actually had a Maga victory in 2019. And by Maga victory, what I mean is a coalition against progressive excesses and.

[B]

It just didn't do anything.

[A]

Well, it was under Boris Johnson's leadership and he not only squandered it, but he turbocharged. All the bloody problems, Net zero lunacy, all the. We had the Boris wave of immigration just going through the roof. So Boris Johnson, there's rumors that he might make us, or certainly he wants to make a comeback and Americans might like him, but he sold out our country. But let's have a look at another conversation.

[B]

Let me just ask you one other thing which we've discussed before but worth mentioning. I mean, because the free speech situation here is, let's say, less than stellar and people are getting arrested for memes and a whole bunch more. How worried are you in your day to day life that you're going to say something on a show like this or put out a tweet or whatever, and then have someone come knock on your door. From an American perspective, it's like completely unthinkable.

[A]

I've quite literally had phone calls from my lawyer about tweets saying that technically it's illegal. I'll say this about free speech because it came up in J.D. vance's speech in Munich at the Munich Conference. I have a feeling that the concept that free speech is a British value is an import from America. I don't. I'm not totally convinced it is. We had blasphemy laws until 2008. We had the sedition laws until 2009. The reason we're famous for free speech is because we have philosophers like John Locke, John Stuart Mill, John Milton with Aropagitica, we have these great arguments for free speech. But the reason those arguments were had is because free speech didn't exist. If you go back to the bill of rights, 1689. The only thing about free speech in there was parliamentary privilege that you could say what you wanted in Parliament. But we don't even have that. I mean, last year, Nigel Farage's parliamentary privilege was revoked over the Southport killing. He wasn't allowed to say.

[B]

And then he was debanked too, wasn't he?

[A]

That was either earlier in the year or the year before. Yeah, there's another problem. But the point I want to make is the only defense we have for free speech today in Britain is from the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 10. But if you read the article, part A, you have freedom of speech, Part B, accepts in these situations. And then it's just a long list of things you can't, including whatever the. Your nation state decides you can't. And then if you look at British, the laws against free speech, I mean, there are dozens of them, so. So we definitely don't have free speech. Now, when J.D. vaughn says in his speech that free speech is a shared value, I'm not totally convinced free speech is one that we have here. In fact, I believe that the First Amendment in America was because they saw what it was like not to have free speech in Europe, and they're like, well, we have that here.

[B]

So now maybe he meant, we'd like to share it.

[A]

We'd like to share it with you. Yeah, I'd like to. I'd like to have it also, but I don't think. I'm not sure we've ever really had it.

[B]

We will continue to exercise free speech, my friend.