Tiers of a Clown-World: From Threats of Throat-Slitting to Lucy in the Sty

I have hope for Tom. I have no hope for Brendan. They’re both puppets of Frank, but Tom’s strings seem much looser than Brendan’s. That’s why I hope he’ll break free one day. Who am I talking about? I’m talking about the Trotskyist libertarians Tom Slater and Brendan O’Neill, who are both puppets of the Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi. As Trotskyists and libertarians, Tom and Brendan have always thought and written with a mixture of delusion, dishonesty and deceit. But Tom shows worrying signs of beginning to see the truth.

Open Borders = Closed Mouths

For example, Tom has written about the very significant and disturbing murder of Asad Shah, which Brendan and Frank have always studiously ignored. Asad Shah was a heterodox Muslim who was engaged in theological debate by an orthodox Muslim called Tanveer Ahmed in Glasgow in 2016. Tanveer said that Asad had committed blasphemy. Asad said that he hadn’t. The debate was resolved in decisive — and typically Islamic — fashion when Tanveer stabbed and stomped Asad to death. It was what I call a meteor murder, one of those that flash through the headlines and then disappear for ever from the leftist media. Meteor murders disappear like that because they reveal the toxic truth rather than reinforce leftist lies. The toxic truth revealed by Asad Shah’s murder was that Muslim immigration is very bad for free speech in the West.

The hero and the heretic: Tanveer Ahmed is celebrated by British-based Muslims for murdering Asad Shah (ghazi = hero, kazzab = liar)

As libertarians, Frank Furedi, Tom Slater and Brendan O’Neill are passionate supporters of both free speech and open borders, so they can’t admit that open borders inevitably result in closed mouths. Instead, they dishonestly pretend that Muslims and other non-Whites would adore free speech if only Western governments abandoned “multiculturalism” and championed the glorious values of the Enlightenment. The murder of Asad Shah explodes this libertarian pretence and dishonesty, which is why Frank Furedi and Brendan O’Neill have always completely ignored it. To his great credit, Tom Slater broke that silence and wrote a long article about the murder. He emphasized its ominous significance and deplored the lack of attention it has received. But he still refused to admit that the murder was a direct product of Muslim immigration, not of “multiculturalism.”

Importing Pakistani pathologies

If he’d set the murder in its full context, he would have found it much harder to do that. So he didn’t. Asad Shah belonged to the small Ahmadiyya sect, which is regarded as blasphemous by mainstream Muslims like Tanveer Ahmed. That’s why Ahmadiyya are persecuted in Muslim countries like Pakistan, whose government has banned Ahmadiyya from even calling themselves “Muslim” and whose mainstream Islamic sects literally preach murder against the Ahmadiyya.

Astonishingly, when Pakistanis come to  Britain, they bring Pakistani culture and ideas with them. Fancy that! Yes, Pakistani Muslims retain their devotion to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) rather than embracing the Enlightenment (Piss Be Upon It). In Pakistan, which literally means “The Land of the Pure,” you demonstrate your devotion to Muhammad by killing anyone who disrespects him. That’s why Pakistani Muslims built shrines for two martyr-murderers, Ilm Ud-Din from the 1920s and Mumtaz Qadri from the 2010s, who killed blasphemers and then nobly submitted to execution by the authorities. In Britain, the Pakistani Muslim Tanveer Ahmed saw no reason to abandon this venerable tradition of killing blasphemers. As the snappy saying goes in Urdu: Gustakh-e-Rasūl kī ek hī sazā, sar tan se judā! — “For insult to the Prophet, there is only one punishment: cut the head from the body!” That’s why Tanveer Ahmed stabbed and stomped Asad Shah to death, then calmly accepted arrest, trial, and life imprisonment. Now that he’s in jail, he basks in the adulation and respect of other British-based Muslims who share his perfectly orthodox and respectable views about the need to slaughter blasphemers.

Handy Hindi head-chopping hints: a mainstream Muslim maxes the mojo of Mohammadism (image from OpIndia)

Who could have seen that coming? Anyone with any understanding of Islam and Third-World migration, that’s who. There are also deep-rooted traditions of child-rape and political corruption in Pakistan, so — surprise, surprise! — Pakistanis in Britain effortlessly out-perform the White natives in raping children and rigging elections. Third-World immigration is very bad for the West and for free speech, which is why Frank Furedi and Brendan O’Neill have said nothing about the horrific murder of Asad Shah. To his credit, Tom Slater said a lot about the murder of Asad Shah but failed to admit the truth: that Muslim migration, not multiculturalism, was to blame.

Rapturous applause for violent threats

And now Tom Slater has done it again. He’s written about another highly significant free-speech case and has again failed to admit the truth. Indeed, I don’t think he even sees the truth, because his libertarianism warps both his perceptions and his judgment. Here is some of what he wrote:

What a difference a jury makes. The acquittal today [15^th August 2025] of Labour councillor and trade unionist Ricky Jones, after he called for far-right protesters’ throats to be slit at an ‘anti-racist’ demonstration in north-east London last year, reminds us why 12 ordinary men and women are an infinitely superior defence against illiberalism and overly harsh punishment than any ‘enlightened’ judge.

Last August, at a Stand Up To Racism rally in Walthamstow, in the wake of the anti-migrant Southport riots, Jones picked up the mic to denounce ‘disgusting Nazi fascists’, adding ‘we need to cut their throats and get rid of them’. He ran a finger across his neck for dramatic effect. A clip of his speech, which naturally received rapturous applause from the crowd, went viral, and he was charged with encouraging violent disorder.

To say that people were locked up for saying much less after Southport is an understatement. Racist memes landed some people in prison. But there was no serious prospect of Jones’s violent rhetoric being acted upon. There were no fascists in attendance to knife: the Walthamstow protest was called in response to rumours of a far-right demo that mysteriously never materialised. He also argued, apparently successfully, that he never intended those words to be taken literally and even edited them out of a clip he later posted. Unless you believe that rash, stupid words should result in a lengthy spell in prison, then this can surely be the only correct, proportionate, liberty-protecting decision. If only we’d seen more of them amid the post-Southport mania.

The reason we didn’t is that, unlike Jones, many of those nabbed for speech-related crimes last summer pleaded guilty. Had Northampton childminder Lucy Connolly — convicted of ‘stirring up racial hatred’ and sentenced to 31 months for posting on X, ‘Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care’ — pleaded not guilty, she may well have been spared prison, too. That she remains inside while Jones has just walked free isn’t so much two-tier justice as it is two-tier legal advice. Not to mention two different offences — Jones’s charge of encouraging violent disorder, notes free-speech lawyer Preston Byrne, is a ‘narrower conduct offence that’s harder to prove’. Still, whether it was wise counsel or sheer bloody mindedness on his part, Jones’s decision to leave his fate in the hands of a jury of his peers, rather than some jaundiced, imperious beak, may well have made all the difference here.

This raises uncomfortable questions about the Southport speech criminals, many of whom pleaded guilty under the not-so-wise guidance of their duty solicitors. Hoping for leniency, many have ended up doing longer stretches than even violent criminals. Connolly received a heftier sentence than one Philip Prescot, an actual Southport rioter. He was part of the mob that menaced the town’s mosque. We might also ask why Jones, while remanded in custody at first, was later granted bail, while Connolly was not, piling yet more pressure on the defendant. (“The Ricky Jones acquittal shows us the wisdom of juries,” Spiked, 15th August 2025)

Leftist judge Rosa Dean, a Diversity and Community Relations Judge (DCRJ) who promotes “diversity and community engagement in the judicial system”

Slater talks about “uncomfortable questions” but fails to ask one very obvious “uncomfortable” question. What would have happened if Lucy Connolly or any of the other White “Southport speech criminals” had pleaded “Not Guilty” and appeared before the same judge and jury that acquitted the Black leftist Ricky Jones? The question is obvious and so is the answer: Connolly and Co would have been found guilty by the same jury that acquitted Jones. The judge would then have taken great relish in sentencing her or them to a long stretch in jail. We know for certain that the judge, Rosa Dean, is a partisan leftist and there are entirely credible estimates that the jury was at least half non-White. Slater praises the jury for its “wisdom” and for making the “correct, proportionate, liberty-protecting decision.” Contra Slater, the overwhelming likelihood is the jury had no interest at all in “liberty” or free speech. Instead, it was merely protecting one of its own. If someone not of its own, like the White right-winger Lucy Connolly, had appeared before it, then it would have delivered the opposite verdict: “Guilty!” rather than “Not Guilty.”

The Dumbfounded and da Delighted

Do Slater and other libertarians disagree? Then I simply ask them to consider this obvious scenario. Suppose that Salman Rushdie goes on trial after a future British government introduces a law protecting Muslims from blasphemy and offence. Suppose further that the trial takes place in Bradford or some other heavily enriched city and that, by the vagaries of jury selection, Rushdie faces a jury composed entirely of orthodox Pakistani Muslims. What would the jury’s verdict be? It would certainly be “Guilty.”

Black murderer, White victim: the acquitted O.J. Simpson and his wife Nicole Simpson (image from Netflix)

And what would the verdict be if the jury happened to be entirely White instead? It would probably — but not certainly — be “Not guilty” (we can’t be certain because many White leftists pander to Muslim hatred of free speech). The law has never been perfect and never will be. But the law is much less reliable and objective in racially and religiously mixed societies. We saw that very clearly way back in 1995, when the Black O.J. Simpson had a mostly Black jury and was wrongly found not guilty of murdering his White wife Nicole Simpson. In the wider society, the verdict dumbfounded Whites and delighted Blacks. We saw it again in America when the White Derek Chauvin was wrongly found guilty of murdering the Black George Floyd. Whatever the racial make-up of the jury in that case, the jurors had no doubt that Blacks would react with fury and violence if Chauvin was acquitted.

Lucy in the Sty with Crime ’Uns

In Britain, something similar has happened: the Black Ricky Jones has been given an easy ride and found not guilty; the White Lucy Connolly has been strong-armed into pleading guilty and given a harsh sentence. Yes, the toxic truth about the acquittal of Ricky Jones and the imprisonment of Lucy Connolly is that they reveal the two tiers of a Clown-World. There is two-tier justice in Britain, because the leftist Clowns who are currently in charge treat non-Whites with maximal lenience and Whites with maximal harshness. The current Attorney General, Lord Hermer, is an “anti-fascist” Jew who loudly proclaims his devotion to the “rule of law.” In other words, he’s an anti-White authoritarian who believes in the rule of leftist lawyers like himself, not the genuine and impartial rule of law. Hermer and the shabbos-goy Keir Starmer personally oversaw the destruction of fair trials after the Southport riots in 2024, encouraging the courts to treat White defendants with maximal harshness and minimal delay. Accordingly, the non-criminal Lucy Connolly was quickly condemned to the pig-sty of jail not because her words posed any threat of inciting violence, but because she’s White and leftists like Hermer disagree with her politics. In 2025, Ricky Jones has belatedly avoided the pig-sty of jail not because his words were any less intemperate or unacceptable than Connolly’s, but because he’s Black and leftists like Hermer agree with his politics.

The Black and the White: acquitted Ricky Jones and imprisoned Lucy Connolly

It’s as simple — and as septic — as that. Clown-World believes in free speech only for its pets, not for its pests. Libertarians like Tom Slater and Brendan O’Neill claim to believe in free speech for everyone. That’s why libertarians like Slater and O’Neill should ask themselves why Clown-World is so much in favor of non-White immigration. Are the Clowns blindly and blunderingly undermining their own power by importing vibrant Third-World folk? Or do the blindness and the blunders happen elsewhere? The answer is obvious. The acquittal of Ricky Jones has just bawled that answer again. Like Tom Slater, I’m pleased by the acquittal. Unlike Tom Slater, I’m pleased because I understand the acquittal means. It was another glaring example of two-tier justice and will be another boost for White nationalism.

Britain has witnessed harsh punishment for a White mother who issued a swiftly deleted cry of anger and easy acquittal for a Black barbarian who issued threats of throat-slitting. And more Whites have woken to the truth: that Britain’s traitorous elite hates Whites and loves injustice. This being so, one conclusion follows swiftly and surely: that traitorous elite needs to be toppled and its ethnic pets need to return to the Third World.