Olympic skier who wrote 'F**k ICE' in snow now says he is victim of 'hate and vitriol'



Olympic freestyle skier Gus Kenworthy is shocked by the amount of backlash he is receiving.

Kenworthy, a silver medalist for the United States at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, made a post last week showing his followers how to contact the Senate in order to complain about Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

'Maybe that's the price you pay for speaking up and using your platform.'

Kenworthy provided a sample script that his followers could use, which included, "Innocent people have been murdered, and enough is enough. We can't wait around while ICE continues to operate with unchecked power in our communities."

The hyperbolic narrative was just one part of Kenworthy's post, however, as the attached photo read, "F**k ICE," written in the snow. While it is not clear how it was written, or if it was a digital edit, the positioning of skis around the yellow text implied that it was made with urine.

On Monday, Kenworthy made a follow-up video explaining that while he now competes for Great Britain — stating he does so to honor his mother — he is still half American and loves the United States.

"I care about the U.S., and I care about what's happening there," the 34-year-old stated.

What followed, though, was the skier saying that the intense backlash he has faced from the post was likely a product of him "speaking up."

"A lot of the messages have been awful; people telling me to kill myself, threatening me, wishing that they'll get to see me blow my knee or break my neck during my event, calling me slurs. Like, it's insane," he continued. "And maybe that's the price you pay for speaking up and using your platform. And so maybe this video is just going to invite more hate and vitriol, but I think it's important to say what we feel and stand up for what we believe in and stand up to injustice."

RELATED: Olympic ski jumpers may be injecting their penises with acid to jump farther

At the same time, the Olympian said that everyone has the freedom to "love the U.S. and be proud to be an American" while still thinking "it can be better" and "improve."

Without ever mentioning the nature of his anti-ICE photo, Kenworthy went on to say that he does not support ICE and believes the agency is "absolutely evil and awful and terrifying."

This was followed by a bevy of claims, such as American citizens "have been murdered in the street, executed in the street, and the officers are essentially acting with, like, impunity because their identities are covered."

"There's no accountability. It's really scary," he continued, claiming ICE is "racially profiling people, rounding up black and brown folks, and kidnapping them, putting them in unmarked vehicles with no arrest warrant, no probable cause."

Kenworthy added, "They're being held without any sort of due process. It's crazy. It's scary."

RELATED: Skier Hunter Hess changes tune after saying he has 'mixed emotions' about representing USA: 'I love my country'

Photo by Sean M. Haffey/Getty Images

The skier, born in Essex, England, concluded that the "majority" of those being apprehended by the federal agency are "good" and "hardworking people" who are "nonviolent and have no criminal history and just came to the U.S. seeking a better life."

Kenworthy described this as "literally the foundation story of the U.S."

The British-American will compete in the Men's Freeski Halfpipe qualification at the Winter Olympics on February 19, which begins at 4:30 a.m. ET.

The finals will air February 20 at 1:30 p.m. ET.

This is the same event as Hunter Hess, the American skier who recently walked back his comments regarding disagreements he has with U.S. policy. Hess said that "it's a little hard" to be representing the United States and that he had "mixed emotions" about it.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Free speech in Britain is worse than you think



If you want to see where contemporary speech regulation leads, look to Britain.

My country, the birthplace of the common law tradition and parliamentary liberty, now arrests thousands of its citizens each year for “offensive” speech. Much of what Americans still debate as hypothetical has already hardened into policy here.

While commentators work to enforce elite consensus, perceptions of two-tier policing have fueled public anger.

This did not happen overnight, nor did it require a dramatic constitutional rupture. It emerged gradually, through well-intentioned laws, bureaucratic definitions, and institutional habits that now govern what may be said, by whom and about whom. For Americans who assume such restrictions could never survive contact with the First Amendment, Britain offers a sobering corrective.

Catalog of grievance

The roots of this crisis can be traced to the Equality Act 2010, which laid the groundwork for today’s restrictions on speech. The act provides a legal definition of “protected characteristics,” making it unlawful to discriminate against individuals on the basis of attributes such as sex or race.

The act outlines core areas — race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and gender reassignment — which form the foundation of modern hate-crime legislation. Crimes deemed to be motivated by prejudice or hostility toward individuals with these characteristics can result in longer prison sentences. Yet because prejudice and discrimination are inherently subjective and difficult to quantify, hate-crime legislation erodes the principle of equality before the law.

In total, there are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Although not all meet the legal threshold for hate crime, these categories are embedded across workplace training, education, and public services.

Institutionalizing them frames certain groups as uniquely vulnerable to harm, encouraging institutions to treat speech as a risk to be managed rather than a liberty to be protected, and confers a durable victim identity. Through the lens of identity politics, victimhood becomes a proxy for moral authority. Unsurprisingly this logic expands rather than contracts. Campaigns to add further protected traits — such as menopause, misogyny, or afro hair — reflect a constantly growing catalog of grievance.

12,000 arrests a year

This mindset has enabled some of the most restrictive internet-speech enforcement in the Western world. Each year, roughly 12,000 Britons are arrested for online communications deemed “offensive.” In widely reported cases, individuals have received custodial sentences for social-media posts seen by only a handful of people, or have been arrested for deliberately provocative but nonviolent acts. In another case, a man received a lengthy prison sentence for possessing music classified by authorities as “right-wing.” The cumulative effect has been chilling: Free expression now exists largely at the discretion of the state.

Even when not explicitly codified, the logic of victimhood drives these censorious impulses. Nowhere is this clearer than in the evolving concept of Islamophobia — a concept that Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, has pledged to “reform.”

With opinion polls faltering, Starmer finds himself electorally dependent on a sizable Muslim voting bloc. He must reassure the public that Britain remains a liberal democracy — one in which citizens are free to criticize, offend, and mock religion. The state’s response has been semantic rather than substantive. Islamophobia is now being reframed as “anti-Muslim hatred,” defined in draft guidance as:

Engaging in or encouraging criminal acts, including violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation — whether physical, verbal, written, or electronic — directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslim because of their religion, ethnicity, or appearance.

Although this definition is non-statutory and not legally binding, it is likely to encourage further self-censorship around legitimate discussion of Islam. A similar effect followed the adoption of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia. The Labour Party and numerous public bodies — including more than 50 local councils, some governing Muslim-majority areas such as Bradford, Birmingham, Rochdale, and Leicester — have adopted it.

RELATED: Pakistani cousin marriage has no place in UK

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Hiding behind 'Islamophobia'

These same regions have long faced serious criminal scandals, including the sexual abuse of young girls by grooming gangs disproportionately composed of men of Pakistani origin. Official inquiries have documented how institutional reluctance to address these crimes — often citing fear of being perceived as “Islamophobic” — contributed to prolonged failures of safeguarding.

As someone who has written extensively about the cultural practice of cousin marriage, I must ask: Does pointing out the well-documented link between consanguinity and elevated risk of congenital disorders now qualify as “hostility”?

Rather than encouraging honest debate, further definitional expansion risks reinforcing institutional silence. In recent years, National Health Service materials have presented first-cousin marriage in notably neutral or positive terms, while academic journals have warned that criticism of female genital mutilation can shade into racism — sometimes proposing euphemistic language in place of the word “mutilation” itself.

This kind of top-down enforcement rarely sits well with voters. Public frustration grows when large numbers of young male asylum seekers are housed in already strained cities, while criticism of immigration policy is constrained by speech codes. No amount of central planning can engineer a harmonious multicultural society. Rebranding Islamophobia as “anti-Muslim hostility” will not resolve these tensions. It instead grants the state wider discretion to interpret — and restrict — speech.

Expansion of civil claims

The revised guidance goes further, characterizing anti-Muslim hostility as “the prejudicial stereotyping and racialization of Muslims as a collective group with set characteristics.” Like all attempts to police expression, the language is subjective and elastic. What happens if one agrees with MI5 that Islamist terrorism represents the most significant national-security threat? Or if one cites court data showing disproportionate Muslim representation in grooming-gang convictions?

The guidance also gestures toward institutional liability, warning against the “creation or use of practices and biases within institutions.” This invites an expansion of HR enforcement and civil claims based on indirect discrimination. Recent employment-tribunal cases — some involving substantial settlements for “injury to feelings” — illustrate how these standards already operate in practice.

Britain already restricts expression where Islam is concerned. Although blasphemy laws were formally repealed in England and Wales in 2008, they continue to function de facto. In one recent case, a man who burned a Quran was charged with “offending the religious institution of Islam” — an offense unknown to statute. (He later won on appeal.) When prosecution proceeds on improvised grounds, it is not difficult to imagine future cases brought under the banner of “anti-Muslim hostility.”

This is the endpoint of multiculturalism: ad hoc speech regulations shaped by cultural sensitivities and sustained by mass immigration. While commentators work to enforce elite consensus, perceptions of two-tier policing have fueled public anger.

There should be no such thing as a hate crime — only crime. Conditions are likely to worsen before they improve. Open borders and cultural relativism have become default assumptions across much of the West, yet they sit uneasily with the rule of law and freedom of expression.

If you want to see where contemporary speech regulation leads, look to Britain. Americans would be wise to do so while these questions are still debated in theory — rather than enforced in practice.

The West’s forbidden truth: Ethnic cleansing is now official policy



When a dictator in a distant, war-torn nation announces a plan to shrink an ethnic group inside his borders, the Western world erupts. Anchors denounce it. Newspapers detail the plight of the targeted people. Sanctions follow. Diplomats whisper about regime change. The moral verdict arrives quickly, and it arrives correctly: ethnic cleansing.

Yet Western leaders now make a parallel declaration in a cleaner suit. Their countries, they insist, have grown “too white.” The white population must fall. The electorate must change. No denunciations follow. No sanctions arrive. Corporate press treats the project as enlightened policy. A global consensus that once claimed to oppose ethnic cleansing now tolerates it — provided the target is white people in Western nations.

If the West still claims to oppose ethnic cleansing, it should start by opposing it at home and refusing the polite lies that protect it.

French writer Renaud Camus gave us the "Great Replacement.” For years, polite society treated the phrase as radioactive. Say it on television and you became a pariah. Post it online and platforms erased you. That taboo held only as long as people could be bullied into denying what they could see.

The concept’s explanatory power proved stronger than the gatekeepers. Major conservative outlets now discuss replacement openly. YouTube will still attach warnings to videos that mention it, yet the subject refuses to disappear because the policy keeps showing up in schools, boardrooms, and border statistics.

A taboo cannot survive daily evidence.

Quest for permanent power

“Diversity” served as a euphemism for replacement long before anyone had heard of Camus. When a corporation, movie studio, or university says it wants to “increase diversity,” it never means it plans to hire more white, straight men because it has too many trans black women on staff.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion never aimed at demographic proportionality. Leadership announced a preference: more non-white members, fewer white members. Declare a goal of reducing any other demographic, and the public would recognize the project as naked discrimination.

Private institutions practicing anti-white discrimination is bad enough. Governments adopting the same objective is a nightmare. Progressive voices in the United States celebrate the declining share of white Americans and brag that demographic change will lock Democrats into permanent power. They frame replacement as destiny, then use policy to accelerate it, then denounce anyone who notices as a “conspiracy theorist.”

Project Veritas recorded a State Department official admitting that replacement migration functions as a political strategy meant to secure electoral victory. That admission matters less than the broader point: Public and private rhetoric have normalized the idea that a party may change the electorate to entrench itself.

‘Diversity’ invades the countryside

Even if ethnic hatred played no role — and it does — the effort to subvert democratic accountability through mass migration amounts to a political coup. A ruling class that imports a friendlier electorate to escape judgment for its failures announces contempt for the people it claims to serve.

Spain offers a clear example. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and the Socialist Workers’ Party plan amnesty for 500,000 immigrants. Sánchez could not secure parliamentary support for the scheme, so he bypassed Parliament with an amnesty decree. Spain’s population runs about 49 million. Scaled to American size, that’s roughly 3.5 million people granted legal status by executive fiat. Far-left politician Irene Montero went farther, telling a crowd she hoped for “replacement theory” and meant to use new migrant voters to wipe out her political opponents.

The United Kingdom looks worse. Visitors to London joke that the Englishman has become an endangered species in the cities his ancestors built. Officials now want the countryside next. The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs has decided rural England feels “too white” and “too middle class.” It has launched programs to “diversify” protected landscapes and village life.

Officials then discovered an awkward detail: Many Muslim migrants dislike dogs, a staple of country living, and avoid living around them. Planners treat dogs, solitude, and preserved land as “white culture,” then hunt for ways to remake rural life so it attracts Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.

Listen to the admission hiding inside that language. The government intends to make the countryside less like a place where white people live so that fewer white people will live there. It plans to change the character of the land, the habits of the residents, and the public culture, all to engineer a demographic outcome. That is social transformation by state design.

RELATED:The left is at war in Minnesota. America is watching football.

Blaze Media Illustration

Drop the euphemisms

Diversity, equity, inclusion, decolonization — the euphemisms multiply, but the goal stays constant. Even the Great Replacement argument, while useful, still softens what the policy does. When a party, an institution, or a government targets a group for reduction, removal, or displacement, the correct term is not “diversification.” It’s ethnic cleansing.

This process does not arise from a neutral demographic ebb. Politicians announce it. Activists demand it. Bureaucrats implement it. Corporate managers enforce it. Then they threaten anyone who objects with professional ruin. Fear keeps the system humming, and euphemism keeps the conscience quiet.

Enough. That taboo deserves to die. When politicians, corporate leaders, and professors declare their intention to replace white populations, they deserve the same disgust any advocate of ethnic cleansing would receive in any other context. If the West still claims to oppose ethnic cleansing, it should start by opposing it at home and refusing the polite lies that protect it.

America can’t afford to lose Britain — again



The Labour government that rules the United Kingdom is hardly a year old, but its time is already coming to an end. Its popular legitimacy has collapsed, and it is visibly losing control of both the British state and its territories.

Every conversation not about proximate policy is about the successor government: which party will take over, who will be leading it, and what’s needed to reverse what looks to be an unalterable course. What is known, however, is that the next government will assume the reins of a fading state after what will likely be the final election under the present, failed dispensation.

We should equip our friends on the other side of the Atlantic with the lessons of the new right’s ascendancy and of a nation-first government in America.

The Britain birthed by New Labour three decades ago, deracinated and unmoored from its historic roots, is unquestionably at its end. Its elements — most especially the importation of malign Americanisms like propositional nationhood — have led directly to a country that is, according to academics like David Betz of King’s College London, on the precipice of something like a civil war. That’s the worst-case scenario.

The best case is that a once-great nation made itself poor and has become wracked with civil strife, including the jihadi variety. It is a prospect that will make yesteryear’s worst of Ulster seem positively bucolic.

American policymaking is curiously inert in the face of the dissolution of its closest historic ally. This is not because Britain’s decline is anything new: the slow-motion implosion of that nation’s military power has been known to the American defense establishment for most of the past 20 years. Ben Barry’s excellent new book, “The Rise and Fall of the British Army 1975–2025,” offers many examples to this end, including the 2008 fighting in Basra in which American leadership had to rescue a failing British effort.

The knowledge that Britain is facing a regime-level crisis has remained mostly confined to the establishment. Outside of it, the American right has mostly dwelled on an admixture of Anglophilia and special-relationship nostalgia, obscuring the truth of Britain’s precipitous decline.

The American left, of course, entirely endorses what the British regime has done to its citizenry — from the repression of entrepreneurialism and the suppression of free speech to the ethnic replacement of the native population — and regards the outcomes as entirely positive.

It is past time for that inertia to end. The last election will redefine the United Kingdom — and therefore America’s relationship with it. Even before it comes, the rudderless and discredited Labour government has placed Britain into a de facto ungoverned state that may persist for years to come.

The United States has an obligation to protect its own citizenry from the consequences of this reality. It also has what might be called a filial duty to assert conditions for Britain to reclaim itself.

That duty means taking a series of actions, including denying entry to the United States to British officials who engage in the suppression of civil liberties. American security and intelligence should focus on the threats posed by Britain’s burgeoning Islamist population. The U.S. should give preferential immigration treatment to ethnic English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish who are seeking to escape misgovernance or persecution in the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, the United States should make it clear that the robust Chinese Communist Party penetration and influence operations in U.K. governance will result in a concurrent diminishment of American trust and cooperation.

Also necessary is the American government’s engagement with pro-liberty and pro-British elements within the U.K. This means working with Reform U.K., which presently looks to gain about 400 parliamentary seats in the next election. Its unique combination of a dynamic leader in Nigel Farage, intellectual heavyweights like James Orr and Danny Kruger, and operational energy in Zia Yusuf makes it a compelling and increasingly plausible scenario.

RELATED: Cry ‘God for England’

Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Although the Tories are polling poorly and have had their reputations battered by their substandard record in government over the past decade, they nonetheless merit American engagement.

America’s role here is not to endorse, and still less to select, new leadership for Britain, which would be both an impossibility and an impropriety. However, we should equip our friends on the other side of the Atlantic with the lessons of the new right’s ascendancy and of a nation-first government in America.

In the fraught summer of 1940, the American poet Alice Duer Miller wrote, “In a world where England is finished and dead, I do not wish to live.” The island nation has not feared its own end at foreign arms for a thousand years. But its crisis today is from within, carrying existential stakes.

The current British regime is nearing its end, and the last election is coming. So too is our decision on how to engage it in the years ahead.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

The Man Makes the Clothes

WESTERHAM, U.K.—I traveled the distance from New York City to this little town in the county of Kent in southern England—by airplane, then train, then local taxi—just to see a grown man's onesie.

The post The Man Makes the Clothes appeared first on .

Britain’s Big Brother ID law is the globalist dream for America



On Friday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stood at the podium at the Global Progressive Action Conference in London and made an announcement that should send a chill down the spine of anyone who loves liberty. By the end of this Parliament, he promised, every worker in the U.K. will be required to hold a “free-of-charge” digital ID. Without it, Britons will not be able to work.

No digital ID, no job.

The government is introducing a system that punishes law-abiding citizens by tying their right to work to a government-issued pass.

Starmer framed this as a commonsense response to poverty, climate change, and illegal immigration. He claimed Britain cannot solve these problems without “looking upstream” and tackling root causes. But behind the rhetoric lies a policy that shifts power away from individuals and places it squarely in the hands of government.

Solving the problem they created

This is progressivism in action. Leaders open their borders, invite in mass illegal immigration, and refuse to enforce their own laws. Then, when public frustration boils over, they unveil a prepackaged “solution” — in this case, digital identity — that entrenches government control.

Britain isn’t the first to embrace this system. Switzerland recently approved a digital ID system. Australia already has one. The World Economic Forum has openly pitched digital IDs as the key to accessing everything from health care to bank accounts to travel. And once the infrastructure is in place, digital currency will follow soon after, giving governments the power to track every purchase, approve or block transactions, and dictate where and how you spend your money.

All of your data — your medical history, insurance, banking, food purchases, travel, social media engagement, tax information — would be funneled into a centralized database under government oversight.

The fiction of enforcement

Starmer says this is about cracking down on illegal work. The BBC even pressed him on the point, asking why a mandatory digital ID would stop human traffickers and rogue employers who already ignore national insurance cards. He had no answer.

Bad actors will still break the law. Bosses who pay sweatshop wages under the table will not suddenly check digital IDs. Criminals will not line up to comply. This isn’t about stopping illegal immigration. If it were, the U.K. would simply enforce existing laws, close the loopholes, and deport those working illegally.

Instead, the government is introducing a system that punishes law-abiding citizens by tying their right to work to a government-issued pass.

Control masked as compassion

This is part of an old playbook. Politicians claim their hands are tied and promise that only sweeping new powers will solve the crisis. They selectively enforce laws to maintain the problem, then use the problem to justify expanding control.

RELATED: Europe pushes for digital ID to help 'crack down' on completely unrelated problems

Photo by Flavio Coelho via Getty Images

If Britain truly wanted to curb illegal immigration, it could. It is an island. The Channel Tunnel has clear entry points. Enforcement is not impossible. But a digital ID allows for something far more valuable to bureaucrats than border security: total oversight of their own citizens.

The American warning

Think digital ID can’t happen here? Think again. The same arguments are already echoing in Washington, D.C. Illegal immigration is out of control. Progressives know voters are angry. When the digital ID pitch arrives, it will be wrapped in patriotic language about fairness, security, and compassion.

But the goal isn’t compassion. It’s control — of your movement, your money, your speech, your future.

We don’t need digital IDs to enforce immigration law. We need leaders with the courage to enforce existing law. Until then, digital ID schemes will keep spreading, sold as a cure for the very problems they helped create.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

UK government makes digital ID mandatory to get a job: 'Safer, fairer and more secure'



Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Friday that digital ID will become mandatory in order to be employed in the United Kingdom.

The new ID is part of a government plan to allegedly help fight illegal immigration. The idea is that illegal employment is what is attracting many migrants to make the treacherous trip across the English Channel to move to the U.K.

'You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID.'

Starmer said the IDs would not only make it more difficult to work in the U.K. illegally but that it would offer "countless benefits" to citizens. The BBC reported that senior minister Darren Jones claimed the IDs could also be "the bedrock of the modern state."

The prime minister made the announcement at the Global Progressive Action Conference in London on Friday, stating, "Our immigration system does need to be fair if we want to maintain that binding contract that our politics is built on."

Starmer continued, "And that is why today I am announcing this government will make a new, free of charge digital ID mandatory for the right to work by the end of this parliament. Let me spell that out: You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID."

"It's as simple as that," the leader sternly stated, before making a moral argument. "Because decent, pragmatic, fair-minded people, they want us to tackle the issues that they see around them. And, of course, the truth is, we won't solve our problems if we don't also take on the root causes."

RELATED: Europe pushes for digital ID to help 'crack down' on completely unrelated problems

The knighted leader continued to claim that the move was an attempt by the government to have "control over its borders."

"We do need to know who is in our country," Starmer added.

"It is not compassionate left-wing politics to rely on labor that exploits foreign workers and undercuts fair wages."

Jonathan Brash, a member of parliament from Hartlepool and politician in Starmer's party, said that it was important to "explode the myths and conspiracy theories being spread on Digital ID."

"It will make our country safer, fairer and more secure," Brash said on his X page, along with an image of a political poster that said the same.

RELATED: Trump's new AI Action Plan reveals our digital manifest destiny

— (@)

"This is a battle for freedom," English reporter Lewis Brackpool told Blaze News. "Liberalism is to blame. This attitude of 'live and let live' caused this freedom-robbing policy. It's time for Brits to take a stand."

Brackpool called for peaceful resistance while pointing to his work with Restore Britain, which has already begun investigating the government's intentions behind the project.

"The British public deserves full transparency on Digital ID drifting into surveillance and financial control," he wrote on X.

In early September, Blaze News reported that both French President Emmanuel Macron and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair were urging Starmer to consider making digital IDs mandatory.

The Daily Mail reported that Blair was pushing the idea in backroom conversations, continuing his early-2000s attempt to push the IDs on the country's citizenry.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Unite the kingdom: Tommy Robinson leads historic 100,000-strong march to save Britain



Over 100,000 demonstrators packed the streets of London on Saturday afternoon for a "Unite the Kingdom" march led by British independent journalist Tommy Robinson.

The march, featuring people holding the English flag aloft, comes as local councils across the United Kingdom are taking down English flags flown by Britons. Some politicians are calling the mere flying of the English flag a rallying point for "hate."

'You either fight back, or you die.'

Robinson live-streamed his festival on X, which opened with a prayer and featured musical performances, as well as speeches from actor Laurence Fox, Rebel News journalist Ezra Levant, and activist Sammy Woodhouse. His supporters packed the blocks around Whitehall, waving the Union flag of Britain and the red and white St. George's Cross of England. Some in the audience around the stage held photographs of Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated earlier this week.

"This is the biggest demonstration in Britain's history!" Robinson told the crowd. "This is your community. These are your brothers and your sisters. We today are united. Today is the spark of a cultural revolution in Great Britain."

"They've managed to silence us for 20 years with labels: racist, Islamophobe, far-right. They don't work anymore," Robinson declared. "The silent majority will be silent no longer."

He slammed the "globalist revolution" for attacking the family, Christianity, and opening the borders.

Robinson connected Elon Musk to speak to the attendees via video chat. He thanked the billionaire for supporting freedom of speech by purchasing X.

RELATED: 'Christ is king!' chants break out at large memorial for Charlie Kirk in London

Laurence Fox, Kate Hopkins, and Tommy Robinson attend the Unite The Kingdom rally on September 13, 2025 in London, England. Photo by Ben Montgomery/Getty Images

"What I see happening is a destruction of Britain," Musk stated. "The government has failed in its duty to protect its citizens, which is a fundamental duty of government."

Musk had a message for those in the "reasonable center," who "ordinarily wouldn't get involved in politics."

"Look carefully around and say, 'If this continues, what world will you be living in?'" he said. "If this continues, that violence is going to come to you. You will have no choice."

"You either fight back, or you die," Muck concluded.

RELATED: Why the English flag now terrifies the regime

Photo by Guy Smallman/Getty Images

A counterprotest, "March Against Fascism," formed nearby, organized by the Stand Up To Racism group. Those demonstrators held up signs reading, "Oppose Tommy Robinson. Stop fascists & the far right."

Left-wing media outlets labeled Robinson's march as an anti-immigration protest.

Metropolitan Police claimed that the crowd was "too big to fit into Whitehall."

The deparment further added, "We have deployed additional officers with protective equipment in multiple locations, supported by police horses, to deal with the disorder," via a social media post.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Farage Warns U.K. Censorship ‘Sledgehammer’ Could Come For Americans Next

'You can say what you like. I don't care, because that's what free speech is, isn’t it?' Nigel Farage responded to rude Rep. Jamie Raskin.

Locked up for a joke. It can’t happen here ... can it?



A comedian lands at Heathrow and finds himself met by officers as though he posed a terrorist threat. His offense? A social media joke about trans people. He’s released on bail on the condition he doesn’t post on X.

Another man prays silently outside the “safe zone” of an abortion clinic and is hauled off, given a two-year conditional discharge, and fined £9,000 (just over $12,000).

We hope Britain pulls up from its nosedive, but let’s not delude ourselves. America faces the same temptations.

A third man waves the Union Jack at a pro-Palestinian march in England — only to be arrested. Reuters quickly ran interference: not for the flag, they said, but for a “racially aggravated public order offence” and “homophobic abuse.” As if that makes it better.

And we’re still not mentioning the Islamic child-rape scandal that grows worse with every new revelation. The United States watches Britain collapse into a kind of Reformation-era persecution, this time in the name of Islam, paganism, and sexual license. Americans shake their heads, maybe reassure themselves: We fought a revolution to escape this. Charles II jailed Christians. Charles III praises Islam. And we have the First Amendment. Case closed.

Not so fast. We may be on the same road. Once you begin policing speech to protect feelings, the end point looks very much like the UK. And we have plenty of warning signs.

The university test case

Universities may be the clearest early indicator. Professors tell us every profession must “look like” society — except their own. If a field is 97% male, they call it systemic bias. But in the academy itself, where atheists and leftists dominate, they see no problem.

The numbers don’t lie. At Arizona State University, a December 2024 survey found just 19 Republicans among 544 faculty members. At the University of Arizona, only eight Republicans out of 369. Entire departments lacked a single Republican. A 2023 Harvard Crimson study found only 2.5% of Harvard faculty identify as conservative. If any other profession looked this skewed, professors would scream about bias. In their case, they call it “normal.”

And the consequences? They’ll defend freedom of speech for burning an American flag. Burn a trans flag, and suddenly you’ve committed a hate crime. That is one step removed from Graham Linehan’s arrest in the UK for an X post.

Censorship in practice

Students already know what this means. A 2022 FIRE survey found they self-censor in class. They parrot leftist slogans on gender and race, not because they believe them, but because they want the grade. We are teaching them to lie to advance. No one is being asked to confess Christ; they are being asked to confess Ibram Kendi and John Money.

I’ve seen it firsthand. At ASU’s Honors College, faculty blocked Charlie Kirk, Dennis Prager, and Robert Kiyosaki from speaking, smearing them as “white supremacists.” That label alone was enough to push the event off campus. These professors weren’t interested in argument. They wanted silence.

RELATED: Why the English flag now terrifies the regime

Blaze Media illustration

Truth vs. lies

How do they justify it? With “hate crimes.” Not crimes that incite violence, but crimes of opinion. Disagree with LGBTQ ideology? That’s hate. Straight to jail. Professors sleep well at night because we’ve accepted their framework: society divided into oppressors and oppressed. Bad outcomes aren’t the result of choices, but of systemic injustice. Victims must be coddled, even at the expense of truth.

Once you accept that, feelings erase the First Amendment.

We need a spine. Sexual sins are real and destructive. Abortion ends a life. A comedian may say this through jokes; a philosopher may say it through essays. Either way, it’s the truth. The mob can gnash its teeth, plug its ears, strip away free speech, and jail comedians, but reality doesn’t change.

We hope Britain pulls up from its nosedive, but let’s not delude ourselves. America faces the same temptations. We must pray for the end of abortion, speak plainly about the damage sexual ideology inflicts on children, and reject the false frame of “oppressors and oppressed.” The real categories are truth and lies. Choose wisely, while you still can.