Reflections on yet another atrocity in Broken Britain
MATT GOODWIN
Yesterday, Sunday morning, I woke up to a text from a friend who lives outside the United Kingdom. “What on earth is happening to your country?”
I turned on the news. Another mass stabbing, this time on a London-bound train, which put ten people in hospital, with life-threatening injuries.
Three words, I replied.
Mass uncontrolled immigration.
That’s what happened to our country.
Just look at all the things that have happened in the United Kingdom in the last week alone. In just one week:
An illegal migrant from Sudan was sent to prison after stabbing a 27-year-old young mother, Rhiannon Whyte, 20 times in the head with a screwdriver.
A man named Wayne Broadhurst, who happened to be walking his dog around his neighbourhood at the wrong moment, was stabbed to death by an illegal migrant from Afghanistan.
An illegal migrant who had arrived on one of the small boats stabbed a stranger to death in a bank in Derby.
Another migrant strangled and assaulted a railway worker over a minor ticket dispute.
A Syrian illegal migrant, we learned, had sexually assaulted a student outside a nightclub in Cardiff, trying to rape her.
Illegal migrants chased hotel workers with knives “because they didn’t like the food”.
And then, on Saturday night, ten people became victims of a mass stabbing on that London-bound train from Doncaster to our capital city.
All they were doing was trying to get home —trying to visit friends and family, trying to take a train. And then, without warning, a Black British man went on a rampage, trying to kill them all while mumbling about ‘the Devil’.
Why is this happening?
Let me say something nobody in Westminster will ever say.
It’s happening because, for years, our so-called ‘leaders’ have been importing millions of people from highly violent, conflict-ridden, and, yes, inferior ‘honour cultures’ from the Third World, where settling grievances through violence is standard.
As the academic Garrett Jones points out in his recent book, The Culture Transplant: “When a nation imports people, it imports the average cultural traits of those people”.
Mass uncontrolled immigration is not just the importing of people; it is the importing of cultures. And not all cultures are equal. Far from it.
The cultures that our hapless politicians are now importing into our country at speed are not just radically different and incompatible to our own; they are inferior, primitive, stuck in cultural codes and practices we moved on from centuries ago.
In other words, our politicians are engaging in what the Canadian psychologist, Gad Saad, calls “suicidal empathy” –they think they are helping these people when in fact they are killing their own society, they are killing their own people, from within.
They would rather allow murderers, terrorists, rapists, and known criminals into our country in the name of “helping minorities” than prioritise the security and safety of their own people. This is suicidal empathy and it is destroying our civilisation.
None of this can be said in Westminster where the creed of universal liberalism –”all cultures are equal”–reigns supreme.
This is what you saw on Question Time this week, when I was widely attacked by a liberal ruling class that cares more about helping people from backward cultures than defending its own people.
But its effects can now clearly be seen in the extent to which first and second generation migrants who have been imported into the UK, who we are told are “as British as us”, are “nice boys from Cardiff”, “were born here”, actually turn out to be highly violent criminals, continuing the cultural traits from their origin countries, which have simply been transplanted here.
Again, nobody in Westminster wants to think about the critical importance of culture. But just consider what we have seen in recent years.
The 2025 Manchester synagogue terrorist? Syrian parents. The 2024 Southport terrorist? Rwandan parents. The 2021 Liverpool terrorist? Born in Iraq. The 2021 terrorist who murdered Sir David Amess? Parents from Somalia
The 2020 Reading terrorist? Born in Libya. The 2020 Streatham terrorist? Parents from Sri Lanka. The 2019 Usman Khan terrorist? Parents from Pakistan. The 2017 Manchester MEN terrorist? Libyan parents. The 2015 Leytonstone terrorist? Born in Somalia. The 2013 Woolwich terrorists who murdered Lee Rigby? Nigerian parents.
The 2007 London/Glasgow terrorists? Iraqi/Indian parents. The 2005 “homegrown” suicide bombers on 7/7? All had parents from Pakistan or Jamaica.
No other society in the world would do this to themselves –would do to their own people what our leaders are doing to us.
Could you imagine, say, the United Arab Emirates, Japan, or China doing this? Of course not.
Because they do not tolerate suicidal empathy. They prioritise their own citizens and do not allow the transmission of foreign cultures into their own.
Through mass immigration, porous borders and a total failure to integrate newcomers, our leaders have simply made us much less safe and put our own people at risk —which we are now realising and witnessing on an almost daily basis.
These migrants do not instantly adopt the host country’s ‘British’ or ‘English’ culture and identity the moment they sign a few papers. Far from it
They retain central aspects of their origin countries –including their religion, belief, attitudes toward violence, hatred of non-believers, and so on.
This is what the rape gang scandal was about; we imported clan-based networks from rural Pakistan that think non-believers are fair game and do not respect authority.
The vast majority of radical Islamists in Britain were either born abroad or trace their roots back on these islands only one generation, while living in ‘closed’ social networks that are filled with other people from their origin countries, which then reinforce these radically different cultures within our own country.
This is then further enabled by an idiotic ruling class and woke left that pursues virtue and social status for itself by proclaiming platitudes like “diversity is a success” while also having to use speech codes –”far right”, “racist”, and so on–to shut down anybody who questions why this is allowed to take place.
Then it also uses multiculturalism to encourage minorities to remain distinctive and separate from the majority, even prioritising them over the majority.
It is all completely insane.
This is what the UK has now been doing for 30 years, under Labour and the Tories, the Uniparty, importing radically different if not incompatible cultures which then persist across generations and are not disrupted in any serious sense.
And today this is being compounded by importing 180,000 unvetted illegal migrants into the country in just 7 years, most of whom come from primitive backwaters, with another 180,000 forecast to arrive by the next general election.
Just think about that –by the next election we will be talking about 400,000 unvetted illegal migrants roaming around the country, many from the same highly violent, conflict-prone societies as the ones that have given us all of the chaos above.
And so in the years ahead this chaos will only increase, it will only get worse, because our leaders refuse to recognise the importance of culture and make changes.
In short, every terrorist attack, every stabbing, every rape, every sexual assault, every rape gangs, is a reminder of the fact our leaders, who are supposed to defend us, are importing people who hate who we are and cling to totally different cultures, identities, and outlooks, all of which is making our own culture, identity, and social cohesion harder to maintain.
We can either keep ignoring the critical importance of culture or we can do something about it. What would “doing something about it” look like?
Radically reshaping our country and its future around people who have deep roots and ties to this country. Rewarding those who genuinely integrate, removing those who do not. Ending the extreme policy of mass uncontrolled immigration
Doing whatever is necessary to fix our borders –including leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, repealing Tony Blair’s Human Rights Act, and immediately detaining and deporting illegal migrants.
End soft-on-crime policies, including the Labour Party’s recent pledge to section lower numbers of Black people for mental health issues because they think it’s “racist”. And launch an all-out assault on radical, violent Islamism
We have a choice, as a country. We can start doing these things and taking action, or we can keep killing ourselves from within through suicidal empathy.
This article (When will it end?) was created and published by Matt Goodwin and is republished here under “Fair Use”
See Related Article Below
If You’re Not Going to Label the Huntingdon Train Attack as ‘Terrorism’, at Least Change the Law so Mass Casualty Attacks are More Serious Than Murder
ANNA STANLEY
Last October, a light rail station five minutes from my home in Israel became the scene of a Hamas terror attack. Two militants opened fire on passengers, then turned to knives, killing seven and injuring 17. A young mother died shielding her nine month‑old son. Since that night, the shadow of that violence lingers every time I pass the station. The attack was unmistakably terrorism – planned, ideological and designed to spread fear. But as mass violence is increasingly evolving to include random or psychotically driven attacks, our laws and language must evolve for this new reality.
Just days ago, on November 1st, another train attack unfolded in the UK. On a London-bound service, Anthony Williams, a 32 year-old British man of Caribbean descent, moved through the carriages, stabbing passengers. Eleven people were hospitalised, nine with life-threatening injuries. Counter-terrorism police were initially deployed, though the authorities have since ruled the incident non-terrorist.
This decision sits uneasily with public sentiment. A knife attack on a crowded train instinctively registered as terrorist, especially only weeks after the Manchester synagogue attack. This discomfort stems from the UK’s legal definition of terrorism, which restricts charges to acts driven by ideological, political or religious motives. Without ideological motives, even the most frightening attacks are prosecuted as ordinary crimes, like murder or attempted murder.
In contrast, certain US terrorism statutes – such as those covering attacks on mass transportation – can trigger federal terrorism charges based on where the attack occurs, rather than requiring an ideological motive. Had the London train stabbing occurred on a US train it could fall under federal terrorism statutes that focus on attacks on mass transit, regardless of ideology. On August 22nd aboard Charlotte’s light rail, Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska was attacked by African American Decarlos Brown Jr. He was suffering from schizophrenia and slashed her throat from behind. She bled to death alone. Footage of the attack gripped the nation. Her murder becoming a rallying point for national political debate, particularly from the Right, and drew condolences from the White House. Despite no ideological motive, Brown was charged under the post-9/11 federal statute covering terrorist attacks on mass transportation and now faces the death penalty.
While the UK still demands ideological motive for terrorism prosecutions, recent tragedies have influenced tentative steps to address mass-casualty attacks outside that framework. A July 2024 assault in Southport England, where Axel Rudakubana stabbed nine young girls at a dance class – killing three – was not classified as terrorism. This sparked debate: if mass-casualty attacks exploit fear as effectively as political terror, should the law not respond with similar severity? Jonathan Hall KC, the UK’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, proposed reforms. In March 2025 he outlined a new offence targeting large-scale random acts of violence on public transport or crowded places. This measure would stiffen penalties for non-ideologically motivated attacks that far exceed ordinary murder charges. This would empower prosecutors to frame atrocities like the London-bound train stabbings as assaults on public safety – not mere isolated crimes such as attempted murder, which fail to capture their scale of terror.
Beneath these incidents lies a troubling reality: mass violence is often linked to severe, untreated mental illness. Decarlos Brown Jr was not a stranger to the authorities; his schizophrenia diagnosis was well-documented. At the time of his attack, he was in a psychotic state, voicing delusions about being controlled by “material” in his body. Likewise, the London-bound train attacker was reportedly heard telling passengers “the devil is not going to win” during the rampage.
A higher prevalence of mental illness is reflected in certain ethnic communities. In the UK, black people are 3.5 times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act and are more likely to have had a psychotic disorder in the past year. Similarly, black Americans are three to four times more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia. Many of these cases were triggered by drug use. Despite the data, Britain continues inching toward cannabis legalisation, even though modern strains are far more potent and linked to increased psychosis. Perhaps lawmakers remember fondly the hashish from their youth and are unacquainted with the ‘weed on steroids’ strains of the modern day. If the legalisation proceeds, there will be more violent crimes committed by psychotic people.
It’s a grim picture, wherever you place blame – a society where mass violence is not only the domain of jihadists but increasingly being carried out by the mentally unwell.
All three train journeys – the one in Israel, in America, and England last week – were characterised by horrific violence, shattering the public’s sense of safety. As threats evolve, so too must the law. Justice must rise to meet the magnitude of harm. The UK’s legislative reform proposals signal a new era, where mass violence spreads fear as effectively as terror, even when no ideology guides the blade.
Anna Stanley is an open-source investigator specialising in extremism. She previously worked in intelligence roles for the UK Foreign Office and police. Find her on X.
This article (If You’re Not Going to Label the Huntingdon Train Attack as ‘Terrorism’, at Least Change the Law so Mass Casualty Attacks are More Serious Than Murder) was created and published by The Daily Sceptic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Anna Stanley
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply