Love Western Culture? You’re a Terrorist

US State Department condemns UK Home Office for calling “Cultural nationalism” an "extreme right-wing terrorism" ideology

The US State Department has condemned the UK government’s counter-extremism program, Prevent, after the Telegraph reported last week it has instructed Home Office civil servants to treat “Cultural nationalism” — the belief that “Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups” — as an “extreme right-wing terrorism” ideology.

Speaking exclusively to Courage Media, an official from the State Department said:

“Western culture is not something to demonize, diminish, or apologize for. Rather, Americans and Europeans should honor our shared heritage of self-government, liberty, and rule of law. Extremism comes not from those who respect our traditions, but from those who seek to erase them. We must continue to uphold these values and cease efforts to censor, marginalize, or stigmatize individuals for their beliefs, while rejecting all violent extremism.”

In March, Vice President JD Vance expressed concerns over incursions on free speech by governments in Europe. The State Department, under Secretary Rubio, has expressed alarm at the prosecution of Christians praying silently outside abortion clinics in Britain, and the arrest of child protection activists “Billboard” Chris Elston and Lois McLatchie Miller in Brussels last week.

Other American political figures took notice. Representative Riley Moore of West Virginia ridiculed the Prevent definition on X:

“Hey @Keir_Starmer, I believe western civilization is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic & cultural groups.

I also think western civilization is under threat from leaders like you who hate your heritage and are ashamed of your ancestors.”

Prevent duty training, available on the GOV.UK website, lists “Cultural nationalism” alongside “White/ethno-nationalism” and “White supremacism” as “extreme right-wing terrorism”.

Source: GOV.UK, “Prevent Refresher Duty Course”, as shared in The Telegraph (6 June 2025).

According to this definition, I, alongside Matt Goodwin, Konstantin Kisin, Douglas Murray, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali would all be ensnared in this broad, censorious net of “extreme right-wing” critics of immigration. As would the Prime Minister, since Keir Starmer described Britain as becoming “an island of strangers” thanks to an “open-borders experiment” run by successive governments.

Government ministers have already been smeared as right-wing extremists: with Prevent’s parent body, RICU, writing in a research report that former MP, Sir Jacob Rees Mogg was an example of said “cultural nationalists”. A former civil servant was then questioned by police about being a “far-Right extremist”, and if he voted Brexit, because he posted a selfie with Sir Jacob on social media.

Speaking to Courage Media, Andrew Hale-Byrne said,

“”The United Kingdom is now a dystopian censorship state. The Counter Terrorism police asked me how I voted in the Brexit Referendum, and I refused to tell them. They also interrogated me over a selfie photograph with Jacob Rees-Mogg that I had posted on Facebook. The Counter Terrorism Command Police also accused me of not being concerned about the plight of the non-binary during Non-Binary Awareness Week.”

The ideological capture of the civil service would explain why the definitions of “White/ethno-nationalism”, “White supremacism”, or “Extreme right-wing” aren’t fit for purpose either. Ethno-nationalism — the belief that national identity is inherited exclusively through lineage, and not conferred via legal documents or values — is not practiced exclusively by white Europeans. A number of studies show British people, and Europeans more broadly, have lower levels of in-group racial bias, and higher levels of out-group tolerance, than other nations and ethnicities. Furthermore, by failing to differentiate ethnicity (national identity, heritage, culture) from race (categories like white, black, Asian), the distinction between “White/ethno-nationalism” and “White supremacism” is redundant. The definition of “White supremacism” even uses the term “ethno-tribalism” in it.

Civil servants betray a flimsy understanding of philosophy with these definitions. Italian fascism was not a racialised form of authoritarianism, and came from Parisian communes and Marxist trade-unions. Fascism is not the exclusive domain of the right. Nor is authoritarianism a form of government invented or more commonly practiced by white Europeans. Most Muslim states are theocratic, and many African nations are governed by dictators. Yet the Home Office pretends that bringing millions of expats from those nations will have no impact on British culture, levels of ethnic and religious tribalism, nor bring our system of Parliamentary democracy under any strain.

Worst is the definition of “Extreme right-wing”, as being “the active or vocal support of ideologies that advocate discrimination or violence against minority groups.” The definition treats speech as indistinguishable from violence, presenting further cause for concern about incursions on free speech by the British government. It also bakes in a Marxist view of the world being dichotomised into oppressor and oppressed classes, on the basis of their demographic size or perceived differences in power, wealth, and status. It is also premised on the discrimination = disparity belief that inequalities result not from discrepancies in individual ability but from the hidden-hand of bigotry. The only acceptable position, according to the British state, is bogus anthropology of blank slate egalitarianism.

This is insidious, given former government Counter-Extremism Commissioner, Dame Sara Khan released a report last December with state-funded communist group HOPE Not Hate, which called “Cultural Marxism” a conspiracy theory and an “extremist” belief. However, if Khan’s (and her sister, Sabrina’s) former department think “Cultural nationalism” is tantamount to right-wing terrorism, then the acceptable antonym would be leftist cultural internationalism. Ideologues within the Home Office will proscribe any position but cultural Marxism, and then condemn you as an extremist if you notice and oppose it.

These shoddy, partisan-political definitions have been the operational handbook at the Home Office for some time. Last November, details of a report commissioned by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, during the summer protests that followed the Southport murders, were leaked to GB News. The paper claimed that “right-wing extremist narratives (particularly around immigration and policing) are in some cases ‘leaking’ into mainstream debates”. These narratives include “anti-communism”, “Cultural Nationalism”, and believing that “Western culture is under threat from mass migration”. The Pakistani grooming gang scandal was dismissed as a “grievance narrative” exploited by “right-wing extremists” to “promote anti-Muslim sentiment as well as anti-government and anti-‘political correctness’ narratives”. In January 2025, Policy Exchange obtained the full report. Despite being the leading cause of deaths and injuries from terrorism, the largest number of terror suspects, and largest motivation of incarcerated terrorists, Islamist terror only received 160 words of coverage and one case study. 320 words were spent on a single incident of school bullying on “Punish a Muslim Day”; and 430 words on an anti-immigration sticker campaign.

Responding to reporting by The Telegraph, a Home Office spokesman said, “Prevent is not about restricting debate or free speech, but about protecting those susceptible to radicalization.” Hard to believe when Prevent has failed to thwart terror attacks by Axel Rudakubana and Abi Harbi Ali, both referred to the service, in recent years. Meanwhile, it has been busy proscribing books by Douglas Murray, C. S. Lewis, Beowulf, Brave New World, The Lord of the Rings, and 1984 as “actively patriotic and proud” texts read by rightwing extremists. (The latter of which received a new trigger-warning last week.) In a seminar for civil servants, a lecturer asked “To what extent should Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray be suppressed? … To de-platform them would cause issues … so, society needs to find other ways to suppress them.” Apparently, Yes, Minister and Michael Portillo’s Great British Railway Journeys deserve greater concern to those combating terroism than, say, the Qur’an. I’d compare it to a Brass Eye sketch, but I suppose that would put me on the watchlist too.

Why such a myopic focus on the “far right”? They are only 10% of Counter-Terror Police and 25% of MI5’s open caseload. Whereas Islamists caused 94% of deaths and 88% of injuries in acts of terror since 1999, are 63% of terrorists in custody, 80% of Counter-Terror Police suspects, and comprise 75% of MI5’s open caseload. Yet, of the 6,922 referrals to Prevent in 2023 – 2024, 1,314 were for rightwing extremism, compared to 913 for Islamism. Islamist referrals remain 75% lower than their peak (3,706) in 2016 – 2017. Why have the Home Office effectively stopped monitoring the most lethal terror threat in Britain?

At the heart of the Home Office is an Islamic Network, who work to “promote the recruitment, retention and progression of Muslim staff in the Home Office” and “influence policymakers so that policy is more inclusive of Muslim needs.” It has exceeded 700 members — one of whom said in a seminar that “Prevent is inherently racist because it focuses on Islamist extremism”. That same civil servant later pointed and laughed at an ISIS recruitment video, saying, “He used to go to my school! I know him!” Another member rejected the application of a Christian asylum seeker fleeing forced conversion, accusing her of “making it all up,” and distorted passages from Home Office reports to argue her country was “safe for Christians.” One whistleblower said:

“Having an Islamic lobby group inside the Home Office represents a serious threat to the Government’s aims in combating Islamic extremism and granting asylum to those fleeing Islamic countries over religious persecution.”

This might explain why, in its Glossary of terms, Prevent is keen to emphasise that “Islamist should not be interpreted as a reference to individuals who follow the religion of Islam.” They are eager to protect Islam from any suggestion that Jihadists may derive their justification from an accurate, rather than a distorted, interpretation of Islamic doctrine. But if you, dear citizen, are concerned about the unprecedented and unwanted importing of millions of unfamiliar people into your home, and the effect that might have on the continuity of your culture, then you’re a dangerous extremist who deserves to be deradicalized by the government.

RICU, the parent body of Prevent, also manipulates media coverage after Islamic terror attacks to minimize the reputation damage for Muslims and Islam. It organises photo-ops for Imams at the scenes of atrocities, runs prefabricated hashtag campaigns on social media to distort public perception, and organises events that serve as distractions from outrage and grief — including the “Don’t Look Back in Anger” concert after the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Given Prevent’s priorities have been shaped by politically-correct sensitivities and a desire to protect the reputation of Muslims, it is likely RICU’s operations have been distorted in the same fashion.

Lord Toby Young, director general of the Free Speech Union, has written to the Home Secretary, expressing “serious concern” about the Prevent definitions:

“Now that ‘cultural nationalism’ has been classified as a subcategory of extreme right-wing terrorist ideology, even mainstream, right-of-centre beliefs risk being treated as ideologically suspect, despite falling well within the bounds of lawful expression.

“Topics captured under the Prevent category of ‘cultural nationalism’ include widely held views, ranging from concerns about immigration and social cohesion to the belief that integration should be a policy priority, and that shared cultural norms help sustain a liberal society.”

However, the likelihood that the Labour government will comply with strongly-worded letters from their ideological adversaries is unlikely. Instead, it may take a muscular response from our American allies in order to provoke action.

It is a damning indictment of the British government that American congressmen care more about conserving the culture and liberties of the British people than they do. Without clearing ideologues out of the civil service, and repealing the DEI laws that ensure their employment, sensible patriots will continue to be persecuted as extremists by the British state.