Diversity is our strength? Britain has to remind migrants: Don't rape kids



Britain is among the Western nations whose liberal elites embraced the cult of multiculturalism and repeated the mantra "diversity is our strength" while welcoming unassimilable hordes from the third world. The fallout of this toxic empathy has been severe and far-reaching.

It has gotten so bad, in fact, that the British Home Office evidently saw cause to remind migrants on Wednesday not to rape or mutilate children.

'The Home Office should instead deport them.'

The government's new booklet, titled "Understanding behaviours and expectations in the U.K.: A guide for asylum seekers," states at the outset, "We understand that coming to a new country can be difficult, and that laws and customs here may be different from your home country. In the U.K., there are laws that protect everyone's safety, dignity, and rights. It is important that you understand them."

The booklet points out, for instance, that women in the United Kingdom are actually allowed to "work and earn their own money; study and go to school or university; travel freely; choose who they marry, or choose not to marry; [and] make their own decisions about their lives."

The Home Office underscored that even husbands, fathers, and brothers cannot make decisions for an adult female without her consent.

RELATED: 'Beyond evil': Nightmarish report reveals full scale of mass Islamic rapes of '250,000' white British girls

Illegal aliens trying to sail into the English Channel. Tom Nicholson/Getty Images.

In the section on sex and consent, the Home Office informed newcomers that unlike whatever backwaters they may hail from, "In the U.K., the law is clear and strict: Both people must agree to sex or sexual contact of any kind."

"If someone is asleep, drunk, or unable to respond, they cannot consent," added the booklet, published just days after an Eritrean migrant, 33-year-old Bruke Desalagne, was found guilty of raping an intoxicated elderly man for 20 minutes outside a church in North London.

After telling asylum seekers that they are expected not to threaten people into having sex with them, the Home Office's booklet emphasized that statutory rape is indeed a crime.

"The legal age of consent in the U.K. is 16. This means that anyone under the age of 16 is considered a child and cannot legally agree to have sex," said the document. "There are no exceptions to this rule. Even if they say yes, it is still illegal. You could go to prison, lose your support and accommodation, and it will affect your asylum claim."

Of course, the United Kingdom won't deport all foreign child rapists.

For example, the victims of 73-year-old child rapist Shabir Ahmed were informed in June that the criminally convicted leader of a Pakistani grooming gang — which police said victimized as many as 50 girls — was being released from prison and could not be deported due to provisions under the Immigration Act of 1971.

RELATED: What is anarcho-tyranny? Modern Britain gives a disturbing glimpse of our future.

Stuart Brock/Anadolu/Getty Images

Besides reminding migrants that women have rights and that it's wrong to have sex with children, the Home Office guide noted that asylum seekers are expected to refrain from making sexual comments to strangers, making kissing noises at passersby, stalking individuals in public or blocking their paths, and verbally abusing people because of their religion, sex, or appearance.

The booklet concludes by informing asylum seekers that it is a crime to "take sexual images of someone without their consent" and to "share sexual images of someone without their consent."

On Wednesday, the Home Office also released a leaflet titled "Keeping children safe in the U.K.," again reminding asylum seekers that "what is allowed in some countries may be illegal here."

In addition to reminding foreigners that sex with children is a crime and that children shouldn't be beaten with "objects like belts or sticks," the leaflet notes that "female genital mutilation (FGM) and forcing a child to marry are serious crimes in the U.K."

UK Home Office

Just in case asylum seekers manage to miss these materials, the Home Office apparently has produced posters stating that sex with children "will affect your asylum claim."

"The Home Office has spent your money to produce these posters for illegal migrants," tweeted Reform UK leader Nigel Farage. "Why are we letting these people into our country?"

Chris Philp, the Conservative member of parliament serving as shadow home secretary, wrote, "The Home Office has just issued a booklet to illegal immigrants advising them not to commit rape and sexual assault, including of children[.] This tells us all we need to know about the kind of people illegally entering our country."

"Illegal and legal immigrants are coming from places and societies where attitudes towards women are completely incompatible with Western society," continued Philp. "It seems like every day there is another report of an illegal immigrant raping or assaulting women and young girls here. Instead of trying to train these mainly young, male illegal immigrants to behave in a civilised way towards women, the Home Office should instead deport them."

According to data obtained from the U.K. Ministry of Justice by the Telegraph, foreign nationals were responsible for over 25% of sexual assaults on women that were successfully prosecuted in 2024. The Telegraph noted that another 8% of sexual assaults on women were committed by offenders of "unknown" national origins, meaning the overall proportion of convicted foreign-born rapists is likely much higher.

It appears Britons are tiring of all this diversity.

A poll released in November by the National Center for Social Research found that whereas 64% of American respondents said that diversity strengthens society, only 49% of British respondents agreed. Forty percent of Britons said that white people declining as a share of the population was bad for society.

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

Popular 'Citizen Vigilante' movie promotes death wish for multicultural melting pot



BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock isn't giving “Citizen Vigilante” high marks as a film — rather, he argues it largely fails by traditional cinematic standards.

But the point of the film wasn’t to tell a compelling story or showcase great acting.

“‘Citizen Vigilante’ is not a movie. It doesn’t care about story. It doesn’t care about plot. It doesn’t care about acting. It doesn’t care about script. It’s not a good movie,” Whitlock says.

“It’s a provocative political statement,” he adds.


Whitlock believes the political statement is anti-illegal-immigration, anti-multiculturalism, and anti-Islam, explaining that the film is “capturing the anger that many people in America and in Europe have” regarding these topics.

However, while Whitlock doesn’t care for the film as a film, he does believe it’s important that “movies get put out to make political points.”

“For this movie to be put out and for Elon Musk to be supporting it and for the conversation that is driven and for the subject that it touches on, it’s an indication in my mind of where they want the conversation to go and what they’re trying to stir in white people globally,” he says. “Enough is enough.”

And Whitlock himself is “anti-multiculturalism” like the film.

“All cultures are not created equal. And we are tolerating cultures that are satanic, chaotic, not law-abiding, degenerate. We’re tolerating and embracing these things under, like, ‘Hey, this is what we’re supposed to do. Diversity is good,’” he explains.

“I’m fed up with the melting-pot mentality that, when I was younger, that slogan sounded good. As I’ve now reached full maturity, I’m like, not everything needs to be in this pot. Some of this stuff in the pot will kill you,” he continues.

And while television and media are always trying to “tug at our tribalism” — usually from the point of view of the left — “Citizen Vigilante” does the same.

“That’s the point of ‘Citizen Vigilante,’” Whitlock says, “to bring out our tribalism, justify our tribalism.”

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Citizen Vigilante Aims Wildly Popular Punisher Genre At Politically Incorrect Migrant Invaders

If we are used to movies showing us multiculturalism™ as a moral good, Citizen Vigilante dares to say it can also be viewed as a moral failing.

We’re At The ‘Free Speech Is Bad Actually’ Stage Of Multiculturalism Now

For years conservatives warned that multiculturalism and free speech are on a collision course. If a society starts treating every culture as equal and beyond criticism, then eventually you have to police speech — and apparently, Europe has decided to do just that. French influencer Thaïs d’Escufon was allegedly assaulted in 2021 by a North […]

'F**king madness': UK police detain Tommy Robinson — again



There is today perhaps no greater thorn in the side of the British liberal establishment than counter-jihad activist Tommy Robinson.

The 43-year-old son of an Irishwoman and an Englishman has proven time and again that he is able not only to draw crowds numbered in the tens of thousands but to focus British working-class fury over the fallout of mass immigration, the failure of multiculturalism, the threats posed by radical Islam, and the efforts by the powers that be to cover up and/or contain various related scandals.

'This is an attack on free speech.'

In the wake of his criticism over the horrific death of 18-year-old Englishman Henry Nowak at the hand of a Sikh in England and the near-beheading of Scotsman Stephen Ogilvie by a Sudanese suspect in Belfast, Robinson found himself once again in police custody under the British equivalent of the Patriot Act.

Robinson noted in a Saturday post on X, "I'M A TERRORIST AGAIN. I have been detained at Heathrow Airport today for the best part of 3 hours. I was detained under section 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019."

Under schedule 3 of the counter-terrorism law, an examining officer "may question a person for the purpose of determining whether the person appears to be a person who is, or has been, engaged in hostile activity" if that person is at a port or in a border area and appears to be entering or leaving the country, or if that person is on a ship or aircraft that has touched down in the United Kingdom.

RELATED: African suspected of trying to cut white Briton's head off identified — while police fret about online critics

Leon Neal/Getty Images

"Hostile activity" is defined as acts threatening national security, acts threatening the economic well-being of the U.K., or serious crimes carried out for or on behalf of a foreign power.

Per the legislation, it is "immaterial" whether the detainee is "aware that activity in which they are or have been engaged is hostile activity."

Robinson claimed that his phone had been seized by police — just as it had when he was detained by Kent police under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act while attempting to travel in July 2024 to Spain, where he now lives.

The Westminster Magistrates' Court determined in November that Robinson's previous detention under the Terrorism Act was unlawful and cleared the activist of the corresponding charge.

According to paperwork dated Saturday that Robinson was provided with and later shared online, an examining officer at the airport seized the Englishman's iPhone and Samsung Galaxy A16 on suspicion that the devices "could be used in connection with the carrying out of a hostile act."

"Absolute f**king madness," Robinson wrote.

A Metropolitan Police spokesperson told the BBC that a man in his 40s was stopped under the counter-terrorism law at Heathrow Airport after returning to the U.K. from Russia via Turkey.

Robinson — who met with Elon Musk's father, Errol, while in Moscow — told the Guardian last week that he had traveled to Russia "to see how this country got itself so well on to the straight and narrow and see the beauty of a civilized society."

The Metropolitan Police spokesperson stated that the man stopped on Saturday "was interviewed by officers and his communication devices were seized. He was subsequently released."

A spokesperson for Robinson speculated that police confiscated the activist's communication devices because "they likely want to see who he is talking to, and maybe find out who his sources are, sources who will expose politicians for their part in the rape of a generation of British girls."

"This is an attack on free speech, this is an attack on investigative journalism, nothing more nothing less," the spokesperson added.

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

The Super Bowl now plays like America’s divorce proceedings



The Seattle Seahawks trampled the New England Patriots in Super Bowl LX, but the postgame chatter barely touched football. Fans and pundits argued about anthems, halftime, commercials, and what the whole spectacle “said” about America.

For better or worse, the Super Bowl serves as the premier civic liturgy of the American empire, a night when strangers share the same screens and offices share the same small talk. When that ritual becomes another front in the culture war, the country loses one more place to breathe.

Americans once used the game to share food, laugh at ads, and pretend for a night that they still belonged to one people. This year, the country used the game to rehearse separation.

Families fight. Politics intrudes. Resentments pile up. Holidays still force a pause. Thanksgiving and Christmas push people back to the same table, reminding them that the argument cannot become the relationship.

When even the ritual itself turns into the argument — when Thanksgiving and Christmas are no longer about gratitude or celebrating the birth of Christ but rather who can win a political debate — the family slides from conflict toward rupture. A nation works the same way. Shared ceremonies do not solve deep disagreements, but they keep disagreement from becoming total separation.

From national pastime to litmus test

Americans rarely stop living their separate lives to watch the same thing at the same time. Streaming splinters audiences. Social media isolates communities. Even big films and best-selling books now fall into ideological silos.

The Super Bowl remains one of the few national events that still compels common attention. People who hate sports tune in for the ads so they can follow the conversation at work the next day. A shared celebration, however frivolous, still binds people who otherwise share little else in common.

This year’s Super Bowl looked like a country at war with itself.

The broadcast opened with two national anthems: the familiar Francis Scott Key standard and the newer “black national anthem” that appears at more NFL events each season. The league has leaned hard into woke activism, from corporate rituals to social campaigns, and it rarely hides the moral it wants viewers to absorb. Two anthems signal two constituencies. Two constituencies begin to behave like two nations.

A cultural sorting mechanism

The halftime show sharpened that divide. The NFL chose Bad Bunny, a Puerto Rican artist who performs almost entirely in Spanish, and the set centered on Hispanic identity. The stage recreated a bodega, complete with an “EBT welcome” neon sign. The performance leaned into sexual provocation, with dancers simulating sex acts and same-sex grinding played for shock and applause. The show ended with performers hoisting foreign flags, a tableau that read less like cultural flair and more like a victory lap.

RELATED: Bad Bunny preached in Spanish. The NFL hides behind tax perks in English.

Photo by Kevin Sabitus/Getty Images

A large portion of the audience did not buy what the league sold. Ratings suggested many viewers tuned out during the set. Some did so out of prudishness, others out of irritation at the message, others out of confusion. Either way, the halftime show did not function as a shared moment. It became a sorting mechanism.

Turning Point USA offered a competing halftime program featuring country artists singing about America and Jesus Christ. The stream broke records and reportedly became YouTube’s largest live broadcast. The accomplishment deserves credit. The need for it should worry anyone who wants a coherent nation. Instead of one shared celebration, Americans built parallel ceremonies, then congratulated themselves for avoiding each other.

Who is the customer here?

The commercials followed the same pattern. One spot from a mortgage lender portrayed a family of color moving into a mostly white neighborhood and encountering casual racism until they instructed the residents on diversity and inclusion. The ad did not wink. It preached.

Another strange commercial, backed by Patriots owner Robert Kraft, aimed to address rising anti-Semitism. It showed a Jewish student harassed in a school hallway as classmates mocked him and stuck a note reading “dirty Jew” to his backpack. The boy reached his locker, where a black student offered solidarity based on shared experience with hatred from whites. The ad then unveiled a “blue square” social media campaign modeled on the "black square" campaign that followed George Floyd’s death in 2020.

NFL owners did not back away from the woke script. They turned the dial higher.

Two different worlds

The next day I went to my barber, and he described the shift in real time. Small talk drives that job. For most of his life, the Monday after the Super Bowl brought lively chatter about the best plays and the funniest ads. This year, customers wanted to talk politics. They complained about the anthems, the halftime, the messaging, the moral scolding. The game itself barely came up. Friendly banter about the MVP and next season’s prospects gave way to arguments about what kind of country this still is.

That exchange captured the larger problem. Conservatives and liberals increasingly inhabit different worlds. They share geography, but they do not share premises. They do not share authorities. They do not share the same media diet, the same moral language, or the same sense of what counts as a fact. When they occupy the same room, they talk past each other. When they can avoid the room, they do.

RELATED: Americans aren’t arguing any more — we’re speaking different languages

Photo by Taurat Hossain/Anadolu via Getty Images

The old American civic fracture ran along a map. The new fracture runs through families, workplaces, churches, and neighborhoods. The country did not divide into North and South. It divided into competing moral nations layered on top of the same territory. Each tribe builds its own institutions, its own entertainers, its own narratives, and, increasingly, its own rituals.

No stable regime can endure that kind of division indefinitely. One side will eventually impose cultural dominance on the other, with power used to punish dissent and enforce conformity. Or the country will choose some form of national divorce, formal or informal, with communities separating as much as law and logistics allow.

The Super Bowl did not create this crisis. It revealed it. A shared civic ritual lets people practice unity without requiring uniformity. Americans once used the game as a harmless excuse to share food, laugh at ads, and pretend for a night that they still belonged to one people. This year, the country used the game to rehearse separation.

A nation that cannot share a football game cannot share much else for long.

We’re not a republic in crisis. We’re an empire in denial.



Forms of government are not laboratory specimens. You cannot line them up like competing scientific theories, test them under controlled conditions, and then apply the “correct” model to every nation on earth.

The United States learned that lesson the hard way in places like Afghanistan. The George W. Bush vision of exporting liberal democracy across the world was delusional because cultures differ and human beings are not blank slates. People must be governed in ways that align with their nature and customs.

If conservatives wish to make the United States a republic again, they must begin by admitting what America has become.

Government forms have limits. They are not universal ideologies that can fit any situation, and when nations ignore those limits, they fail. America keeps expanding beyond what a republic can bear and refuses to admit it, with predictable consequences.

In its classical form, a republic rests on a set of virtuous citizens capable of self-government through shared beliefs, values, and customs. Citizenship is limited and precious. It conveys as many responsibilities as rights. Citizens do not gain the vote simply because they reside inside a border. They earn it through constant engagement with the body politic. They are soldiers, business owners, family men, and stalwart church members. They have shown both a willingness to sacrifice for society and the capacity to contribute meaningfully to it.

The phrase “self-governing” can mislead because it suggests isolated, autonomous individuals. That is not what classical thinkers meant. A republic needs the lightest touch of any governmental form because the community reinforces itself. Citizens hold each other to account.

From Aristotle to Machiavelli to the American founders, the assumption was the same: A republic requires a virtuous people bound by thick ties of identity and shared moral expectations. Formal authority exists, but most of the real enforcement happens through custom and communal pressure, with the civil magistrate stepping in only when necessary. A republic works only when its people possess enough virtue and cohesion to govern themselves.

That is why republics are rare. They have a strict limitation: scale.

Most successful republics in history have been compact city-states with contained populations capable of maintaining identity and virtue. Once a republic expands, it must incorporate people who do not share its customs or worldview. In “The Prince,” Machiavelli warns rulers who wish to expand that they should only conquer nations sharing similar religion, language, and heritage. That common ground allows the conquered population to assimilate.

Ruling peoples with radically different cultures is far more difficult because the subjects cannot easily accept the rule of a leader whose assumptions differ so dramatically from their own.

A country that does not share culture, religion, tradition, or heritage cannot function as a republic because the people lack the common ground necessary for self-rule. The gaps are too wide to be bridged by normal political debate. A stronger form of authority becomes necessary to bind disparate groups together.

This is why kingdoms and empires are far more common throughout history. Most populations do not possess the cohesion or virtue required for republican government and must instead be ruled by a king. Empires are simply multicultural kingdoms, held together by an emperor who forces cooperation among groups that otherwise could not form a single polity.

Even classical empires understood the need to respect the character of their diverse subjects. Wise rulers did not attempt to make every people act the same. They allowed local custom to continue as long as taxes were paid and troops supplied. Local leaders were often retained. Sometimes a local king stayed on his throne but only if he showed deference to the emperor. The multicultural empire required a much stronger hand, though wise emperors used that power sparingly.

This historical reality explains much about the behavior of modern liberal democracies. Many citizens wonder why their leaders insist on importing large numbers of foreigners despite popular opposition. Cheap labor and imported voters are part of the answer, but in the end, it comes down to the pursuit of raw power.

RELATED: Do you want Caesar? Because this is how you get Caesar

Blaze Media Illustration

Large-scale immigration introduces deep cultural differences that destabilize the political order, and the only way to manage that instability is more centralized authority. A liberal democracy that becomes too diverse must govern in the manner of an empire. Its leaders must exercise the level of authority required to hold multiple nations together under one state.

The fact is, multicultural societies trend toward authoritarianism. They must. The differences are too great to manage through ordinary civic persuasion. This dynamic intensifies when the state attempts to integrate its various peoples rather than allowing them to exist separately. By transforming their democracies into multiethnic empires, Western leaders acquire imperial levels of power while maintaining the appearance of popular rule.

No republic can survive the level of diversity now celebrated as a civic virtue.

If conservatives wish to make the United States a republic again, they must begin by admitting what America has become. The country has been transformed into a multicultural empire and is governed accordingly. It grants immense power to its ruling elite in the hope that it can manage the instability produced by extreme diversity.

A republic cannot endure under these conditions. America must end immigration, scale back its foreign ambitions, and cultivate a shared, virtuous culture. Without these steps, talk of republican revival is performative. The structure of a republic cannot survive the substance of an empire.

If Americans will not reclaim the unity that makes self-government possible, then they will be ruled, not represented. Republics are earned. Empires are endured.