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.

Pre-election Britain is currently going through a self-evaluation in such a way that, were it retail goods brought over a shop counter, there could be an action brought under the UK’s Trade Descriptions Act of 1968. This piece of legislation replaced the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 with “fresh provisions prohibiting misdescriptions of goods, services, accommodation and facilities provided in the course of trade”. It protects the consumer, who might otherwise be sold something which did not match the description given by the seller and is thus of lesser value than advertised. This act of deception currently applies to a commodity mentioned daily in the British media, and marketed under the brand name of “British values”. Regrettably, some immigrants seem not to share these values. But what are “British values”, and who says so? We should examine the meaning of “value” before ascribing them to a nation.

Value is the ascription of worth and has two main fields of function, the mathematical and the behavioral. Financial value, although that is what is most commonly understood by the English word, is a sub-set of the mathematical function, and need not be a third category. If x is given a value in a mathematical problem and a house is valued at a certain price, nothing essentially different is happening between these two scenarios in terms of value viewed as simple ascription. But whereas mathematical value is contained solely within mathematics, a self-referential system, values can also be societal, and so refer to something other than an apparatus of pure value comparison. Societal values can perhaps be defined as a set of civic indicators deemed acceptable to the majority of a society as conducive to its continuation.

British values, then, would be a belief that a certain set of actions in the civic sphere are preferable to alternatives as consensually agreed by the people who live in Britain. As we shall see, however, it is not a country’s people who get to evaluate their own nation. In this case, financial value is a valid comparison because a price is either centrally controlled or arrived at by the operation of the free market. So too with national values.

Nigel Farage, currently the joker in the pack of British politics, has recently been criticized for referring to polling showing that a large percentage of Muslims in the UK do not subscribe to “British values”, and it is presumed that everyone knows what this yardstick is in much the same way as they know the names of the four separate nations that make up the United Kingdom. But what are British values? That is, not what do we nostalgically believe them to be, not an airbrushed list of qualities the post-war British held dear and which always begins with “fair play”, but what are they in actuality? Perhaps we should ask the British government.

In 2014, the Department for Education (DOE) published guidelines for Britain’s schools, instructing them “to actively promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different religions and beliefs”. The first three on this wish-list are demonstrably eroding, to say the least, and are in any case not specific to Britain among Western nations. Nothing makes them uniquely British. But it is the fourth that needs unpacking. (“Tolerance” and “respect” for other peoples or religions can be conflated into one term without significant loss of meaning).

Firstly, we must go back to the source of the DOE’s four pillars of British society, and the paragraph quoted from above guides us: “These values were first set out by the government in the ‘Prevent’ strategy in 2011”. This “strategy” has a very specific purpose. The UK government introduced its Prevent program specifically to counter Islamist terrorism, although its guideline document gives equal ranking to other perceived threats. So British values have been defined by government as part of a program to stop Islamists blowing things up and hacking people to death. Is there not more to them than a sub-section of a government policy document? Let’s go back to the last Labour period in power.

The consensus among what there is of the British political Right is that the beginning of the programmatic dismantling of post-colonial Britain, including its elusive values, began in earnest in 1997 with the election of Tony Blair’s Labour government. Margaret Thatcher was certainly the last Prime Minister to be recognizably Conservative, and when her own party turned on her like the Roman consuls on Caesar, John Major was only ever presiding over an interim government before the advent of “Blairism” and the Blairites.

Blair’s Home Secretary was David Blunkett, and in 2005 he wrote a piece for The Guardian on patriotism and British values. In it, he gave a definition of these values:

I believe Britishness is defined not on ethnic and exclusive grounds but on shared values: our history of tolerance, openness and internationalism; and our commitment to democracy and liberty, to civic duty and the public space.

Along with the same anodyne abstractions noted in the DOE set above, note Blunkett’s negative definition which opens the quote. Whatever British values might be, they are not rooted in ethnicity. Indeed, any hint of White British patriotism is now highly suspect, and Labour have a particular animus against England. John Prescott, one of Blair’s aides de camp, spoke of the British Isles as “Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions”. [Italics added]. The BBC never mentions England by name unless there is rioting there or a football match.

British values, however, must not just be defined by government, they must be taught, and for the pedagogical aspect of national evaluation we move forwards almost a decade from Blunkett’s article.

In 2016, a governmental review was published that remains one of its best-kept secrets. Despite being hidden in plain sight, things only become visible to the public if the media make it so, and this document received no coverage. The Casey Review, subtitled British Values and the Common Language of Virtues, is a founding document of British adherence to globalism that would require a novella-length exegesis worthy of a Mediaeval Aristotelean scholar to show its significance. I’ll highlight a few salient points, but if you want to see the technocratic manipulation and systematic undermining of national, practical civic wisdom, it is a short report and worth your time.

The problems with the report are apparent at the outset, with author Baroness Casey’s stated aim to “establish a set of values around which people from all different backgrounds can unite”. Of course, each of these “different backgrounds” already has its own set of values, often differing from those of the British. The review’s example of a value which they deem universal is honesty, and this is assumed to be a value which immigrants from all backgrounds automatically share with the host nation. Teachers may struggle to explain this to the children of devout Muslim families who believe that honesty can be suspended in the case of taqiyya, an Islamic doctrine sanctioning lying if it is in the cause of their religion. This is confirmed by the Koran, Islam’s ultimate arbiter.

The Casey Review is pedagogical throughout. Baroness Casey quotes from David Goodhart (essentially a journalist) on teaching values, and we get our first glimpse of the universalism to come:

Values, meaning different and sometimes conflicting notions of how to live a good life, are in a way the problem, not the solution. It is shared experience and mutual interests, and the way these can be fostered by public institutions and public rituals, that are a better means for overcoming differences.

Values, meaning in this case British values, are now the problem. This is the ideological epicenter of a document super-saturated with ideology. The Baroness herself approves:

While a bolstering of British values may well contribute to enhanced integration, placing an emphasis on character and common virtues could be a more effective way of allowing pupils to discuss shared experiences, and to use a common language in discussing what they think it means to be British.

To give the document an air of philosophical gravitas, Aristotle is invoked as one of “many philosophers of character”, and is found to “suggest that a number of virtues are held in common across humanity”. Apart from his spell in Macedonia tutoring Alexander the Great, it is not reported that Aristotle saw much of the rest of humanity in order to make such a comparison. There is no citation given in the review. Also, if virtue is the issue and it’s a Greek philosopher you want to back you up, Plato would seem the more obvious candidate. However, Plato famously held (particularly in the Meno and Protagoras) that virtue could not be taught, and that is not what a technocrat wants to hear echoing down the millennia.

As noted, a line-by-line exegesis of The Casey Review is required, but I will just note a line from the summary, and the document’s extraordinary sign-off:

[T]he teaching and cultivation of values should be a more interactive, collaborative and inclusive process which will help to enhance the moral character of the next generation, and thus the tolerance, respect and community cohesion… currently lacking across Britain.

“Community cohesion” is code for ensuring Muslims do not have their patience tested by any aspect of British society, and “inclusive” is another familiar dog-whistle word meaning “fewer white people and their values”.

But it is the final statement of the review, boxed off and highlighted at the foot of the document, that contains the core message. Once again, it is by David Goodhart, who is clearly in favor at court:

To combine diversity with solidarity, to improve integration and racial justice, it is not good just preaching tolerance, you need a politics which promotes in-group identity. [Italics in original].

Racial justice has now arrived at the scene, and the identity politics we see blooming now in Britain is here seeded. Identity is all, provided that identity has nothing to do with White ethnicity.

The destruction of ethnic culture is an ongoing part of the drive to rid Europe of its nation states by dismantling the history of those nations, and an example from the troubled country of Sweden is instructive. In 2019, an archaeologist at Stockholm’s Länsmuseum turned whistleblower on the policy of the museum’s curator with regard to newly discovered artefacts from the Viking era:

Coins, arrow-heads, ritual amulets, weapons, jewelry and weights that were kept in the past are now dumped into metal recycling bins upon discovery instead of being cared for and displayed. Museum excavators are instructed to recycle unearthed iron elements into scrap metal on the weak pretext that ‘it would take too many resources to process, identify and store them’.

It is not easy to see how the storage of small metal items at a museum would present a logistical problem in a building geared precisely for storage. As for allocation of Swedish resources, it should be noted that the excavations which unearthed these historical treasures were part of works to prepare land for new accommodation for asylum seekers. The Swedish Culture Secretary at the time was Alice Bah-Kuhnke, a half-caste lady whose Wikipedia page curiously omits mention of any religion she might hold. Those interested in her are forced to make assumptions based on her parentage, her mother being Swedish and her father from 97%-Muslim Gambia. If a country’s ethnic history is destroyed, quite literally in this case, that country can be defeated without a shot being fired, and new values can be imposed which exclude those previously kept alive in the genetic make-up of its natives.

Alice Bah-Kuhnke: In charge of Sweden’s cultural heritage (2014-2019) and now a MEP for Sweden’s Green Party

Genetics is not a purely biological affair. It is obviously a vast field, but we all grasp the concept of heritability and would do so even if our reading stopped at Darwin. We may also know that the formation of heritable characteristics over time may not be limited to physical evolution, but extend to the sphere of the social. In primitive and broad-brush terms, one theory for the vast differences between Africa and Europe in terms of simple development goes back to differing ways of obtaining food. The gatherers in warmer climes had no need of co-operation with one another, which was thus purely discretionary. The hunters of the frozen north, however, who required a team of men to overpower larger animals and whose food did not drop from the trees, soon learned that co-operation was essential both to eat and to stay alive. From these behavioral seeds, two very different continents grew. And those seeds also contained values and the importance of their variation. Thus, the ethnic history of a nation, its developing valuation of itself, travels with it via a genetic delivery system which reinforces behavior advantageous to the group, in this case a nation.

Michael Levin, in his 1997 book, Why Race Matters, examines valuation in the context of racial difference, and makes use of reinforcement as a qualifying term:

From a behavioral standpoint, to value something is to be reinforced by it, and to explain someone’s values is to explain why those stimuli that reinforce him do in fact do so.

Reinforcement is a term in standard use in psychology. People require “conventional reinforcement”, such as praise, acceptance or encouragement. But the distinctive history of a national people has its own type of genetic reinforcement: ethnicity.

The valuation of individual and national ethnicity is the epicenter of the modern schism between the Left and the Right, and to recognize the role of reinforcement in that valuation is to go to the heart of that divide. Reinforcement in ethnic terms creates a virtuous circle in which an individual who values their ethnic history in turn reinforces the value they place on their own partaking of that ethnicity. The English value the work of Shakespeare not just because his work is dramatically satisfying and his use of language appealing, but also because he was English. A high valuation of ethnicity is why nations have national heroes, real or mythical. Which brings us to the question of national pride. Pride is the last of the Bible’s deadly sins, and national pride is now politically suspect if and only if that nation is historically White.

National pride is more complex than personal pride. It is more than the warm glow every time you see your diploma on the wall or feel the heightened sense of self-worth that comes with going for and getting a job you very much wanted. The pride an Englishman or any other native feels in his country extends backwards in time and goes down to the cellular, genetic level. Essentially, you are proud of those who came before you and what they achieved and, by extension, your own place as a living part of that achievement, which is your country. If this is a genetic as well as a temporal relation, we would do well to remember the root of ‘genetic’ is the Ancient Greek genos, among whose meanings are genus and species, but also family, lineage, and kin. This is the genetics the Left would rather you didn’t notice.

So, to what conclusion did our whistle-stop tour of contemporary British values, and the teaching of same, lead us? We can certainly say, pace the favored courtier David Goodhart, that values are not the problem. The problem is that values are being set technocratically by committee and not organically as national self-awareness. The installation of a pedagogical regimen will dictate what those values are, and what they are, what value is given to x, will not be the result of a natural accretion of values which have grown out of collective national identity but a set of globalist diktats. The values British schoolchildren are taught at school are the result of a technocratic/globalist value system which supersedes nationalist values and which by necessity prioritizes indoctrination, conformity and orthodoxy over national fervor. But real British values are not the outcome of focus groups of leftist ideologues writing anti-terrorism documents. They live in the blood and the soil of its native people, whether the new elites like that allusion or not.