One of the most important speeches the establishment doesn't want you to hear -- and the evidence they don't want you to see
Join Britain's fastest-growing independent political community which provides more than 90,000 readers with counter-cultural evidence, analysis, and debate that challenges the establishment. Our work is funded by our readers. Become a paid subscriber to unlock every article, join our live discussions Mondays at 7pm (UK time), our group chat, leave comments, and know you’re helping the silent majority.
I just watched one of the most interesting speeches for a very long time. Addressing a conference on the topic of political extremism, America’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, took the opportunity to dismantle one of the big establishment narratives.
For too long, Marco Rubio said, when it comes to the threats facing the West, our leaders have suffered from a major blind spot. While they have focused on Islamist terror and become obsessed with the far-right, they have also ignored, downplayed, minimised, and even sought to justify what is now arguably one of the biggest threats of all — extremist violence and terror from the political left.
Just look at the last few years.
A pensioner in Greece, murdered by a firebomb targeting members of the country’s governing conservative party. The murder of American conservative activist, Charlie Kirk. The murder of the young conservative activist, Quentin Deranque, in France, beaten to death by far-left activists. Repeated attempts to assassinate President Trump. The cold-blooded assassination of a healthcare chief executive in America, which was then celebrated by many on the left. And in Europe, the 21 left-wing terrorist attacks that were recorded last year, which is close to the 24 Islamist terror attacks and vastly higher than the just one right-wing terrorist attack.
It’s not just that far-left extremism is becoming more visible; it’s that, unlike other forms of extremism, it is routinely presented as a legitimate or understandable expression of rage against ‘the system’, something that can be justified.
Think about the George Floyd protests that resulted in the mass destruction of several American cities, which parts of the media class told us, with a straight face, were ‘mostly peaceful’. They weren’t condemned; politicians even took the knee.
Time and time again, while other forms of extremism are treated much more harshly, far-left extremism, cloaked in the language of ‘equality’, ‘justice’, and ‘liberation’, ends up being excused, legitimised, ‘contextualised’, or simply swept under the carpet.
And if you want further evidence of this glaring double standard then just look at the last few weeks in Britain. When Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered, in June 2016, by a man who was overheard shouting “Britain first”, the establishment spontaneously entered a prolonged and intense period of soul-searching about the ‘far right’.
I cannot recall any politician warning people not to talk about the case and risk prejudicing a future trial. On the contrary, the debate became so intense that more than 17 million decent Brexit voters quickly found themselves being dragged into this debate about the ‘far right’, which was clearly used by some to try and discredit the wider campaign to leave the European Union.
Now fast forward to today. After Reform politician Ann Widdecombe was murdered earlier this month by a man who reportedly had communist literature, where is the equivalent debate and soul-searching about the ‘far left’? Where is the widespread condemnation of left-wing extremism? The expert panels on BBC Newsnight? The viral media clips from BBC Verify explaining the murky networks of the far left?
There isn’t any. There’s just a deafening silence, while Keir Starmer, Shabana Mahmood, and countless others warn people “not to speculate” or risk influencing the eventual trial, which has been kicked into next year. When it involves the far-right, speculation is fine. But when it might involve the far-left, it’s strongly discouraged.
And nor does the blatant double standard end there.
Compare and contrast, too, the response to Ann Widdecombe’s murder with the remarkable speed at which the very same politicians — including Keir Starmer and Shabana Mahmood — reached conclusions regarding an alleged ‘far-right terror threat’ at a UK Ijtima ‘Islamic festival’ at Shrubland Hall, in Suffolk.
With the news of the far-right terror plot breaking in the aftermath of Ann Widdecombe’s murder, which some might say is rather fortunate timing, politicians were very quick to publicly praise the police for preventing what they said was a ‘far-right terror plot’. Politicians and commentators still won’t even publicly mention the political motives and links driving Ann Widdecombe’s killer, but the events in Suffolk? Clearly, without doubt, unquestionably, a ‘far right terror plot’.
But then, suddenly, the story disappeared before completely unravelling. Those who were arrested in Suffolk were released without charge, while police announced they could find ‘no evidence’ of any far-right terror plot at all. How strange. I suspect we will never really know what happened here but, once again, politicians were fine to speculate and debate but only when it involves certain types of extremism.
Or consider, too, the findings of a major new survey of the British people that was just released by reputable pollsters, More In Common. In sharp contrast to the claim that the main threat facing the West comes from the far-right — a claim that is repeatedly used to try and shut down wider debates about immigration, broken borders, two-tier justice, and the grooming gangs — the researchers found something else entirely.
Consistently, they found it’s not people on the right who are the most likely to say it’s acceptable to use physical violence or verbal harassment towards their opponents in politics — it’s people on the left.
Time and time again, it is ‘left-wing progressives’ — people who vote Labour, Green, or SNP, and who ironically claim to be the most liberal and enlightened of all — who are most likely to think violence and harassment can be acceptable.
Whereas only 29 per cent of British people think it’s acceptable to be physically violent against somebody who holds ‘racist views’, this rockets to nearly half of all Green voters.
And while only 41 per cent of people say it’s acceptable to verbally harass somebody who holds racist views, this climbs to 48 per cent among Labour voters, 60 per cent for Green voters, 62 per cent for SNP voters, and 84 per cent for Plaid voters in Wales.
Consistently, it’s people who lean to the political left — the supposedly nice, tolerant, empathetic, and kind brigade — who are the most likely of all to believe that violence and harassment are acceptable tools in politics.
This is not something we can just brush under the carpet. It is exactly what Marco Rubio warned about in his brilliant speech. It’s what lies directly upstream from the extreme violence that’s been directed towards Charlie Kirk, President Trump, Nigel Farage, Quentin Deranque, and countless other conservative activists.
There is what we might call a ‘circle of tacit support’ that surrounds the far-left — a circle of implicit sympathy and support in our schools, universities, media, charitable sector, politics, cultural institutions, and more. And we need to call it out.
We see it when mainstream commentators and university staff let the mask slip and celebrate, for example, the death of Ann Widdecombe. And we see it when credible opinion polls find that fully one-quarter of Democrats in America thought the murders of Charlie Kirk and healthcare CEO Brian Thompson were ‘justified’. Just think about that: fully one-quarter of Democrat voters think the murder of conservatives or private-sector company bosses is somehow justifiable.
This is what makes the far-left so terrifying and dangerous; its followers believe that assaulting, harassing, and even murdering conservatives is acceptable or justified so long as it’s done in the name protecting racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities from harm. And they, in turn, are quietly egged on by a much wider circle of tacit support. But who defines ‘harm’? And who defines what is acceptable? They do.
Yet where is the outrage and debate about all this? If a similar survey found that close to half of all Conservative or Reform voters endorsed violence, or thought political murder was justified, you can guarantee it would be all over BBC Verify. Fiona Bruce would be quietly shaking her head on BBC Question Time, asking Tory and Reform politicians some very tough questions. But once again — silence.
Or what about the fact that, according to the same survey, one in four Labour voters and more than half of all Green party voters openly say they want a ‘communist revolution’ in Britain — of the sort that killed tens of millions of people around the world, from Cambodia to the Soviet Union? Why is communism constantly treated as a more socially acceptable ideology than fascism, when it is just as murderous?
And why, as Melanie Phillips asks in The Times this week, is it even acceptable for the BBC to use self-described ‘communist’ commentators who openly align themselves with the far-left, such as Ash Sarkar, while they would never dream of using somebody who aligned themselves with an extreme right-wing group?
I’m not asking this question because I want to see more right-wing extremists on the BBC; I’m asking it to point out the blatant double standard that runs through our taxpayer-funded institutions. Like our universities, too, which pour millions of pounds of the British people’s money into studying the far right while investing nowhere near the same amount into studying and stigmatising the far left.
For too long, as Marco Rubio pointed out in that speech, which I urge you all to watch, the very idea that the far left might pose a serious threat to the West was dismissed as “a right-wing fever dream or, worse, as a dangerous fascist conspiracy”.
But what’s become crystal clear is that this is no such conspiracy theory. The threat from the far-left is real. It is growing. It is supported by a wider circle of passive sympathisers and supporters in the institutions. And it is about time that we had leaders, institutions, and commentators who not only grasped this double standard but took action to call and root it out once and for all.
Paid subscribers can join Matt Live EVERY Monday evening at 7pm UK time on the Substack App to discuss the big issues of the day. Tonight we will be discussing the arrival of Andy Burnham, what it means, what to expect, and YOUR predictions!
Excellent analysis. I have long admired Marco Rubio. Our country is in a sorry state. If only we had leaders like Marco.
Well said Matt, and as you point out in "Bad Education", much of the problem originates and is intensified in our state education system, from age 5 onwards.