The ‘propositional nation’ myth crumbles under real-world tests



Americans elected Donald Trump because they were tired of being despised by their own leaders. The real estate billionaire has his flaws, but at a time when politicians left and right were calling the country sexist, racist, lazy, and entitled, Trump called on Americans to Make America Great Again.

Now, as Trump’s second term begins with an impressive start, most of his supporters feel relieved to have a president who loves the country back in office. However, his early success raises larger questions. Greatness is tied to what Aristotle called telos — the ultimate purpose or end. To make America great, we must first answer the defining question of our time: Who are we?

If conservatives retreat from this debate out of cowardice, they will find themselves living in a world shaped by their ideological opponents.

Trump’s election marked a clear rejection of several ideas about national identity. Americans do not want to be “global citizens.” They want a distinct and sovereign nation. They do not want to live in a multicultural patchwork of segmented communities speaking different languages and celebrating different identities.

Americans reject the idea of acting as the world’s police force, sacrificing their sons and national resources to impose a global order that places their own country last. They do not want the United States to function as an office park or an economic zone. Instead of maximizing arbitrary economic measures like gross domestic product, they want a government that prioritizes the well-being of its people.

The American people are tired of leaders who belittle them for wanting a real nation — one that values its citizens above abstract economic statistics or globalist ideals. While Americans have clearly rejected progressive visions of identity, the question remains: Is there a unifying identity they can embrace?

An unrecognizable world

Rejecting multiculturalism, globalism, and economic essentialism is not enough. To make America great, conservatives and right-wing leaders must present an alternative identity — one that unites the nation and gives it a clear purpose.

This realization unsettles many conservatives, who have been conditioned to avoid discussions of identity for fear of being labeled extremists. That fear is understandable. Identity is powerful; it can inspire both great and terrible actions. It should not be taken lightly. However, conservatives cannot afford to abandon this conversation to Democrats and the political left. The question Who are we? will be answered — either by those willing to engage or by those who wish to redefine America entirely.

If conservatives retreat from this debate out of cowardice, they will find themselves living in a world shaped by their ideological opponents.

Is America merely a dream — an unattainable goal toward which the nation is always striving? Is it a set of ideas that anyone from anywhere can adopt and embrace? For decades, conservatives have promoted the idea of a “propositional nation” — one built on adherence to a set of principles rather than shared culture or heritage. With the failure of the multicultural globalist vision, many on the right now seek to return to this framework.

The problem is that this definition does not hold up to scrutiny.

The Liberia test

If America is merely an idea — a collection of abstract principles that anyone can adopt — then any society should be able to replicate those ideas and achieve the same results. There would be no need for immigrants to physically come to the United States or integrate with its people, because the location and the population would be irrelevant — only the principles would matter.

Yet history suggests otherwise. Liberia, for example, was founded as an African republic for freed slaves and freeborn black Americans. Its constitution mirrored the United States’ system, incorporating separation of powers, checks and balances, and a Bill of Rights. On paper, Liberia should have thrived under the same principles.

But reality tells a different story. Despite adopting America’s founding framework, Liberia has experienced persistent corruption and instability, ranking among the most corrupt nations in the world. Its struggles challenge the core assumptions of the propositional nation and raise a critical question: If America is just an idea, why can’t it be easily replicated?

The idea of a propositional nation falls apart when applied to domestic politics in the United States. The argument suggests that anyone who believes in America’s founding principles should be welcomed as a citizen. This assertion is rarely followed to its logical conclusion, however.

Consider Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a Somali immigrant serving in Congress who frequently criticizes the United States. Omar has repeatedly described the country that granted her asylum as racist and oppressive. She often addresses her supporters in Somali and has pledged to prioritize the interests of Somali immigrants — and, depending on the translation, Somalia itself.

Media reports have suggested that Omar’s second husband was actually her brother, allegedly part of an immigration fraud scheme. Despite this, there has been no serious effort to remove her from office or to revoke her citizenship.

Who will enforce the idea?

If America’s identity is based solely on adherence to its founding principles, Omar’s open disdain for those principles should disqualify her from political leadership. Yet even suggesting denaturalization for her alleged immigration fraud — let alone her rejection of American values — would prompt accusations of racism or fascism, even from many conservatives.

No one who promotes the idea of a propositional nation seriously intends to enforce it. Doing so would require a totalitarian state where citizenship depends on ideological conformity. Such a system would resemble actual fascism far more than the bogeyman that progressives like to conjure.

So if America is not a proposition, what is it? What defines it as a nation? The same factors that have shaped nations throughout human history: shared language, history, heritage, traditions, religion, and culture.

In “Who Are We?” Harvard professor Samuel Huntington — far from a right-wing radical — argued that America’s core identity is rooted in the Anglo-Protestant tradition. While Huntington, as a man of the left, did not advocate restricting American identity to Protestant Christianity or English ancestry, he recognized the necessity of a core culture. He believed that new members of the nation must assimilate into this cultural foundation for America to remain cohesive.

Without a clearly defined cultural heritage for new arrivals to embrace, a country risks devolving into a fragmented, multicultural patchwork. Principles and ideas matter, but they are not abstract concepts detached from the people who uphold them.

The American proposition emerged from a specific people — the American nation — and cannot simply be transplanted elsewhere with the expectation of identical results.

If America is to regain its greatness, it must do so within the context of its Anglo-Protestant heritage, ensuring that those fortunate enough to join this nation seek to assimilate into that tradition.

The question Who are we? will be answered, whether conservatives engage with it or not. It is essential that they put forward a shared national identity — one that honors America’s past while embracing the remarkable achievements its people can accomplish together in the future.

Why ‘neutral’ policies fuel the ever-growing power of the state



Many conservatives and libertarians say reducing the size of government is their top priority but rarely consider the factors that drive its growth in the first place. For most small-government champions, institutional neutrality and minimal state power are measures of success. Yet, they often overlook how these factors can make expansion of the state inevitable.

While libertarians hold varying views, many believe borders are an artificial state imposition and that individuals should move freely at will. This belief that government should not favor any particular culture or people leads to multiculturalism. Ironically, it also creates a need for a large state apparatus to mediate conflicts among diverse cultures.

In a multicultural society with no unified tradition, all laws seem like artificial impositions.

When America’s founders broke from Great Britain, they did not seek to abolish all governance or grant unfettered individual freedom. They acknowledged the necessity of government but believed it could remain limited if people shared moral principles and maintained personal virtue.

Early America included state churches, blasphemy laws, and strict standards for public conduct. Liberty, in their view, was not the absence of authority but governance aligned with the shared values and beliefs of the people.

The men who established the U.S. government recognized that it would only work for a moral and religious people, and they made that fact explicit. They believed that when people act virtuously and pursue the common good without state coercion, government can effectively govern less.

Every person who seeks the good does so by following what feels natural within their own culture and religion. Laws and restrictions that align with these beliefs do not feel burdensome — often, shared communal expectations alone can maintain order. In this sense, liberty and a shared moral vision are inseparable.

When the social forces of religion and culture remain strong, the state can uphold order with minimal interference. Robust families and communities with a common moral foundation mediate conflict and discourage antisocial behavior before it demands government involvement. But when these social forces weaken or fracture, the state must intervene to prevent disorder.

This dynamic explains why a government that does not favor a particular culture or its virtues will inevitably grow in both size and power.

By its nature, multiculturalism fractures a shared moral vision. Culture shapes us from birth, helping us understand the world and our place in it. Culture and religion define right and wrong, establish the social customs we consider natural, and inform our sense of the good life for both individuals and communities. While different cultures may overlap in some areas, this minimal shared morality is often not enough to foster harmony, because a multicultural society, by definition, embodies multiple competing visions of the good and how to pursue it.

When people shared a strong majority culture and moral vision, government could stay small. The state needed only to make laws consistent with that culture, so those laws did not feel like an imposition. Critics may label a government that favors and protects the majority culture as “illiberal,” yet it may be more likely to let citizens live according to their conscience. However, when a nation becomes multicultural and the state chooses to support that shift, the state must radically change its role.

In a multicultural society, organic dispute-resolution methods and communal expectations cannot reliably maintain order. Individuals hold differing views on public conduct, the values taught in public institutions, and which notion of the good should guide collective action. These disagreements are fundamental because they stem from the core assumptions of each competing culture. Without a common tradition, no organic communal structure exists to mediate such conflicts, so the state must step in.

In a multicultural country, the government must serve as a neutral arbiter among communities with different moral visions. Yet, no institution can remain truly neutral, because moral neutrality does not exist. Public schools, hospitals, libraries, and armed forces become cultural battlegrounds as a result. Every clash of culture provides the state an opportunity to expand its authority, imposing its ideology on fractured and atomized communities. Whenever people cannot agree or resolve disputes on their own, the government steps in, assumes that responsibility, and gains additional power.

It does not matter whether an arbitrary law comes from a despotic monarch, a technocracy, or a democracy — it will still feel oppressive. In a multicultural society with no unified tradition, all laws seem like artificial impositions by a state disconnected from any single culture. While it may run counter to modern small-government theories, vigorous government action that defends a unified culture is often more likely to protect liberty than open borders and neutral institutions.

Only a shared moral vision — rooted in our nation’s historic Christian faith — can halt the spread of tyranny and preserve the liberty our forefathers envisioned. “Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain,” the Psalmist reminds us. “Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain.”

Jordan Peterson drills down on problems with multiculturalism amid renewed fury over mass rape of British girls



Outrage about the systematic mass rape of British girls by Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs and about politically correct authorities' failure to  hold the pedophilic rapists accountable is mounting once again, reignited in part by the leftist Starmer government's rejection of a call for a formal public inquiry into child exploitation in the Greater Manchester town of Oldham and by Elon Musk's efforts to highlight past governmental failures.

Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and Natalie Winters, co-host of Steve Bannon's "War Room," joined Piers Morgan on his show Tuesday to discuss the combined effort by the media and law enforcement to cover up the mass rapes in order to avoid anti-Muslim sentiment.

Morgan, like his guests, vociferously condemned both the Muslim rape gangs and woke authorities' cover-up of their crimes; however, later in the episode, he attempted to argue that multiculturalism was not to blame. His argument was quickly chewed up.

At the outset, Morgan — no fan of Islam critic Tommy Robinson — credited Robinson with "bang[ing] the drum about the rape gang scandal for a very long time" and played a clip of the activist's 2011 interview with former BBC broadcaster Jeremy Paxman, in which he suggested the scandal had been ignored because the impact was largely absorbed by working-class Britons: "Do you know anyone who's been murdered by a Muslim gang? You probably don't. I do. Do you know any 15-year-old girls that ... you've grown up with that have been raped or pimped? You don't — so I don't expect you to understand the issue."

When asked to explain why Britons felt compelled to downplay or ignore the rape of white, predominantly working-class British girls, Peterson broke the issue down into "four bins of complexity" around the issue:

  • "The first is the racial divide that typifies the crimes. So it's Pakistani Muslim immigrants and white working-class young girls. So there's a racial, ethnic, and religious divide that is part and parcel of the crime."
  • "Then there is a class issue in the U.K. with regards to the victims and also the whistleblowers like Robinson."
  • "Then there's the meta-problem of the difference between Islam and Christianity [and] the additional problem that psychopathic sadists use religious justification to camouflage and justify their crimes."
  • "Then there's the problem of open borders and immigration and the progressive presumption that all cultures, no matter their difference, are valuable in their diversity and can be integrated peacefully into society at ... an indefinite rate."

Adding right-left politics atop the mix, Peterson noted "that's an absolute bloody rats' nest."

While recognizing the complexity of the issue, Peterson offered an apparent critique of multiculturalism, suggesting that sexual misbehavior and other undesirable social traits are everywhere default traits that have been uniquely rejected by the historically anomalous West.

"Like the default position for an unguarded woman worldwide and throughout history has been 'rape target,'" said Peterson. "That's the norm, not the civilized conduct that generally obtains between men and women even in public on the streets in the West."

'Multiculturalism makes no demands of the incomer to integrate.'

"40 out of 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world are authoritarian hellholes, and only three of them are democracies," Peterson noted later in the interview. "There are certainly doctrines in Islam that are very, very difficult to square with free, liberal, Western, Christian democracies, and those differences aren't just apparent — they're deep."

Peterson also pointed out that "100% of Protestant- or Catholic-majority countries outside of Africa are highly functional democracies. 100%. 6% of Muslim-majority countries are democracies, and they're not in the highly functional category."

After Peterson intimated that the multicultural project in the West has meant the admission and tolerance of populations for which sexual misbehavior and other barbaric practices are the norm, he indicated that the cover-up of the scandal was the result, in part, of fear of leftist political backlash and Islamic violence; of the elite's decision to "sacrifice the children of working-class Brits to the moral grandstanding of their progressive elitism"; and to the woke establishment's expertise in "identifying individuals and bringing reputation-savaging to bear on them in an extremely effective way."

Morgan, apparently still convinced that "multiculturalism has been very successful" in the U.K., asked Natalie Winters late in the episode, "Why should we blame multiculturalism in totality for [the Pakistani rape gang scandal]?"

"I don't really think that tolerance should be the paramount virtue if the disparate cultures that you're importing into said country are cultures that, frankly, I think are conducive to gang-raping of young girls," said Winters, adding that pedophilia was codified in the Quran.

"Our leaders will say that assimilation is racist, it's neocolonial, it's not appropriate to say that cultures that have different values and standards than us need to adopt the shared culture of the country that they're immigrating to," continued Winters.

Elements of the British government have in recent years issued similar critiques of multiculturalism.

Blaze News previously reported that former British Home Secretary Suella Braverman told an audience in Washington, D.C., in September 2023, "Multiculturalism makes no demands of the incomer to integrate."

"[Multiculturalism] has failed because it allowed people to come to our society and live parallel lives in it," continued Braverman. "And in extreme cases, they could pursue lives aimed at undermining the stability and threatening the security of our society. We are living with the consequences of that failure today."

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

Allstate's wokeness under fire after CEO uses New Orleans massacre to lecture Americans about 'divisiveness'



The College Football Playoff quarterfinal at the Sugar Bowl was originally scheduled to take place in New Orleans on New Year's Day; however, the city was rocked in the early hours by an apparent Islamic terrorist attack.

Now-deceased terror suspect, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, allegedly drove a rented truck through a crowd of people on Bourbon Street, claiming the lives of at least 15 victims. Police were ultimately able to neutralize the driver, who was reportedly found with a "remote detonator" for explosives discovered in the French Quarter.

The Sugar Bowl was finally held on Thursday and attended by roughly 57,000 defiant football fans. While the day's big winners were the American spirit, which jihadists have repeatedly proven unable to dampen, and the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, who crushed the Georgia Bulldogs with the help of a 98-yard kick return, the big loser appears to have been the game's title sponsor, Allstate.

During the game, Allstate ran a promotional video wherein the company's president and CEO Tom Wilson used the New Orleans massacre as an opportunity to lecture Americans — including those who just lost loved ones as the result of an imported ideology — about "divisiveness." The video, which was swiftly met with widespread contempt and ridicule, prompted some critics to take a closer look at the kind of corporate culture that would have informed the decision to make such a statement at such a time.

"Welcome to the Allstate Sugar Bowl. Wednesday, tragedy struck the New Orleans community. Our prayers are with the victims and the families," said Wilson. "We also need to be stronger together by overcoming an addiction to divisiveness and negativity."

Wilson invited football fans to help his company "amplify the positive, increase trust, and accept people's imperfections and differences. Together, we win."

'To normal people this sounds like Allstate giving cover to an ISIS terrorist.'

BlazeTV host Steve Deace tweeted, "Still can't believe a venerable American company like Allstate sent its CEO on national television to lecture victims of terrorism about divisiveness. It's like a @TheBabylonBee parody of woke corporatism comes to life."

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wrote, "This is crazy by Allstate. Maybe — and hear me out here — we should all agree that terrorism will not be tolerated in the United States."

"Wtf is wrong with this guy," wrote Elon Musk.

Sean Davis, co-founder of the Federalist, noted, "Time to cancel Allstate. Do you really want an insurance company that talks about murder and terrorism this way?"

Numerous commentators online shared a 2016 tweet from the late comedian Norm Macdonald where he wrote, "What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?"

Robby Starbuck, a normalcy advocate who has campaigned against the corporate embrace of DEI, wrote, "Only major companies somehow get this out of touch with society. To normal people this sounds like Allstate giving cover to an ISIS terrorist as if he wouldn't have killed those people if we all accepted his backwards ideology. This is the definition of suicidal empathy."

Libs of TikTok and other critics highlighted the company's woke policies in an apparent effort to figure out whether Wilson's statement was an aberration or par for the course, demonstrating it to have clearly been the latter.

The company notes on its website that DEI "is a core value at Allstate."

Wilson is a signatory of the CEO Action for Diversity and Inclusion pledge — the aim of which is to "rally the business community to advance diversity & inclusion within the workplace by working collectively across organizations and sectors." Extra to maximizing "diversity," Wilson and other signatories pledged to "address honestly and head-on the concerns and needs of our diverse employees and increase equity for all, including Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, LGBTQ, disabled, veterans and women."

In its 2023 annual report, Allstate boasted about employing fewer white men on its management team, stating, "Inclusive Diversity and Equity is core to success and while more progress is needed, Allstate continues to lead. In the U.S., 56% of the management team and 48% of the company's officers identify as female or BIPOC, both of which increased from the prior year."

Allstate's racial obsession is manifest also in its voting roadmap concerning directors, where the presence of white men is the measure against which progress is apparently marked. Under the section in the annual report on board governance, Allstate notes, "Diversity, including race, gender, ethnicity and culture, are also important factors in consideration of Board composition."

The company has also secured a perfect score in recent years with the radical LGBT activist group Human Rights Campaign, in part by providing multiple LGBT training elements, including an "intersectionality training"; providing sex-change guidelines and at least one inclusion policy for cross-dressing employees; having either an LGBT employee resource group or non-straight diversity council; and engaging in LGBT activism.

Facing incredible backlash, the company told Fox News Digital, "To be clear, Allstate CEO Tom Wilson unequivocally condemns this heinous act of terrorism and violence in all forms. We stand with the families of the victims, their loved ones and the community of New Orleans. The reference to overcoming divisiveness and negativity reflects a broader commitment to fostering trust and positivity in communities across the nation."

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

Musk accuses Britain's leftist PM of failing to tackle Pakistani gangs' systematic rape of children



Thousands of British girls were systematically raped, tortured, and trafficked by Pakistani grooming gangs from the late 1980s well into the new millennium. For years, authorities failed to help the victims and hold the pedophilic rapists accountable in part because of "nervousness about race." The British media, rendered largely useless by political correctness and an apparent disinterest in the fate of white, working-class children, similarly dropped the ball and in some cases even suppressed details about the horrific and widespread issue.

Former British Home Secretary Suella Braverman, a critic of the "misguided dogma of multiculturalism," noted in September 2023 that the "systematic rape, abuse and exploitation of young girls by organized gangs of older men — and the disgraceful failure of the authorities to act despite ample evidence — is a stain on our country."

Elon Musk generated serious waves Wednesday by suggesting that the recent refusal by the isles' stained Labour government to take a closer look at the historic abuse is connected with the leftist prime minister's apparent failures of yesteryear.

"In the UK, serious crimes such as rape require the Crown Prosecution Service's approval for the police to charge suspects," Musk tweeted Wednesday. "Who was the head of the CPS when rape gangs were allowed to exploit young girls without facing justice? Keir Starmer, 2008-2013."

The Financial Times noted that during the time period highlighted by Musk, Starmer served as director of public prosecutions, getting around to prosecuting elements of the Rochdale rape gang only during his final year in the position — after the scandal in Greater Manchester became too great to ignore.

Starmer admitted in 2012 that the rapists had long escaped justice because police, prosecutors, and the courts had failed to understand the nature of the abuse.

"In a number of cases presented to us, particularly in cases involving groups, there's clearly an issue of ethnicity that has to be understood and addressed," Starmer said. "But if we're honest it’s the approach to the victims, the credibility issue, that caused these cases not to be prosecuted in the past. There was a lack of understanding."

The Financial Times indicated that the prime minister's office declined to comment on Musk's accusation.

Hours after suggesting Starmer failed to hold rapists to account as a prosecutor, Musk suggested Starmer's Labour government has since added insult to injury.

"Who is the boss of Jess Phillips right now? Keir Stamer," tweeted Musk. "The real reason she's refusing to investigate the rape gangs is that it would obviously lead to the blaming of Keir Stamer (head of the CPS at the time)."

Jess Phillips, whom Musk said "deserves to be in prison," has served as Starmer's parliamentary under-secretary of state for safeguarding and violence against women and girls since July.

'It's clear whose side she is on.'

GB News reported that Phillips turned down the Oldham Council executive's request for a formal public inquiry into child sexual exploitation in their borough. Shadow Home Office minister Chris Philp told the BBC that Conservatives backed Oldham Council's request.

In her response, Phillips reportedly suggested that she understands "the strength of feeling that a further inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Oldham should be undertaken" but that "it is for Oldham Council alone to decide to commission an inquiry into child sexual exploitation locally, rather than for the Government to intervene."

Former Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister Liz Truss noted, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs. Her title 'Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls' is a perversion of the English language. It's clear whose side she is on."

'2025 must be the year that the victims start to get justice.'

The Critic echoed Musk's suggestion that Phillips might oppose an inquiry for fear of uncovering "the extent of institutional complicity" but noted further that "one also can't help wondering if Phillips — who, at the last General Election, narrowly triumphed in her heavily Muslim Birmingham Yardley constituency over Jody McIntyre, a Muslim candidate campaigning on the issue of Gaza — fears upsetting her constituents."

Tom Jones, writing for Unherd, suggested that "the reasons for refusing a Government intervention can be disputed, but it cannot be disputed that it is reprehensible. The case for a centralized inquiry is clear: while this request was for Oldham alone, there has been a rape gang scandal in over 50 British towns and cities. This is a staggering scale of depravity, and most cases are marked by close resemblances in their systematic nature."

Jones noted further that the government has the resources, authority, and backing necessary to launch a proper inquiry, not to mention the distance that would be lacking should the council in Oldham investigate its own conduct.

While the Starmer government appears uninterested in pursuing answers in Oldham, Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative Party, noted Thursday morning, "The time is long overdue for a full national inquiry into the rape gangs scandal."

"Trials have taken place all over the country in recent years but no one in authority has joined the dots," wrote Badenoch. "2025 must be the year that the victims start to get justice."

Chris Philp told the BBC, "We need a proper national inquiry to look at all of these issues across all of the towns affected. And I'm afraid to say there are something like, you know, 15 to 25 different towns involved, covering thousands and thousands of victims."

Philp noted further that the inquiry should examine why the pedophile rape gangs were "overwhelmingly of South Asian background."

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

New Age Slogans And Social Justice Activism Sum Up Kamala Harris’ Religious Beliefs

Harris’ religious beliefs embody a syncretistic pluralism that appeals to the left’s perversely manipulative obsessions with identitarianism.

German politician convicted of hate crime after sounding alarm about Afghan rape gangs



A right-wing politician in Germany has been convicted of a hate crime and fined thousands of dollars for sharing statistics about the disproportionate number of gang rapes committed by immigrants, specifically Afghan nationals, and for questioning whether multiculturalism means accommodating rape culture.

Marie-Thérèse Kaiser is a member of the right-leaning Alternative for Germany. The 27-year-old women's safety advocate and former model serves as the party's only representative in the Rotenburg district council.

While campaigning during the 2021 federal election, Kaiser posted on social media, "Afghanistan refugees; Hamburg SPD mayor for 'unbureaucratic' acceptance; Welcoming culture for gang rape?"

The German newspaper Junge Freiheit reported that Kaiser was responding in August 2021 to socialist Hamburg Mayor Peter Tschentscher's announcement that he would take in 200 Afghan workers. Kaiser was evidently concerned about what impact the new cohort might have on local culture and safety.

Her post was reportedly accompanied by a graphic indicating that Afghan and African asylum seekers "are proportionally 40x and 70x more involved in gang rapes than Germans," citing government statistics.

— (@)

The then-AfD candidate cited the statistics to justify her concern over uncontrolled immigration and the possibility of rape by "culturally alien masses."

Background

Mass immigration to Germany from Middle Eastern nations such as Afghanistan has coincided in recent years with a massive spike in violent crime, including rape.

The Pew Research Center indicated that between 2010 and 2016, Germany accepted over 670,000 refugees and 680,000 non-refugee immigrants. Of the roughly 1.35 million immigrants who flooded into Germany during that period, an estimated 850,000 were Muslims.

A government-commissioned study revealed in early 2018 that there was a 10.4% increase in violent crime at the height of the immigration crisis overseen by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had circumvented EU rules and effectively opened the union's doors to immigrants from Syria and other oriental states. Deutsche Welle reported that 90% of this violent crime increase was attributable to immigrants, predominantly males between the ages of 14 and 30.

Despite altogether amounting to less than 2% of the overall population at the time, the BBC indicated that over 10% of murder suspects and 11.9% of sex offenders were asylum seekers and refugees in 2017.

The situation has not improved.

Reuters reported last month that the number of criminals with non-German backgrounds continues to climb. In 2023, there was a 5.5.% increase in overall crime and a 13.5% increase in the number of suspects with foreign backgrounds.

"What the AfD has warned about for years can no longer be hidden ... new crime statistics have triggered a debate on 'foreigner crime,'" said Richard Graupner of the AfD in Bavaria.

Imported criminality has not only victimized countless Germans but created horrible new customs.

New Year's Eve, for instance, appears to have become an annual night of immigrant riots and gang assaults on German women. Blaze News previously reported that two-thirds of the rioters detained in the most recent explosion of New Year's violence were non-citizens, including 27 Afghans and 21 Syrians.

German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser stated in the aftermath on Jan. 4, "Good politics must clearly state what is happening: In major German cities we have a problem with certain young men with a migrant background who despise our state, commit acts of violence and are hardly reached by education and integration programs."

Outrage over this imported phenomenon has coincided with the rise of the right-leaning AfD party, which has been critical of the country's immigration policies.

The BBC noted that various high-profile incidents, such as the brutal rape and murder of 19-year-old medical student Maria Ladenburger by an Afghan criminal in 2016, "helped boost the country's far right."

German officials appear to have instead treated the AfD as the problem, harassing and censoring party members. With the AfD polling second nationally and state elections scheduled for later this year, there have even been discussions of banning the party outright.

Free speech ends where inconvenience begins

Kaiser was reportedly charged and convicted with incitement to hatred after raising concerns about a very real problem gripping the nation. She indicated in February that she had appealed the ruling and was scheduled to appear in court in May.

"Simply naming numbers, dates and facts is to be declared a criminal offense just because the establishment does not want to face reality," she wrote on X. "I will not allow myself to be silenced."

A court in Lower Saxony upheld the guilty verdict Monday.

The court was unmoved by Kaiser's argument that freedom of expression in politics, particularly in electoral campaigns, must enjoy special latitude in the spirit of democracy. According to Lower Saxony's local news outlet, the presiding judge stated, "Freedom of expression ends where human dignity begins."

Kaiser, identified by the judge as an "exemplary defendant" during her sentencing, must now pay a fine of over $7,000.

Kaiser, who indicated on Instagram that the courtroom was packed full of supporters along with her parents, said of the verdict, "The whole world is amazed at this decision by the German courts. After even Elon Musk took up my case, I received numerous letters from supporters and press inquiries."

The politician was referencing Musk's Monday response in which he wrote, "Are you saying the fine was for repeating accurate government statistics? Was there anything inaccurate in what she said?"

"My trust in the German constitutional state was once again severely shaken yesterday, but all the letters give me courage and give me confidence," added Kaiser.

Marie-Thérèse Kaiser's original campaign video

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

Without Shared Culture And History, America Is A Shell Of Its Former Self

Driven by disdain for America's legacy, the left seeks to obliterate it by inviting migrants with no connection to our past and no inclination to embrace it.
The DUMBEST Takes on the Border Crisis Glenn Has Ever Heard | Glenn TV | Ep 308
play icon

The DUMBEST Takes on the Border Crisis Glenn Has Ever Heard | Glenn TV | Ep 308

British home secretary enrages UN by telling Americans that 'misguided dogma of multiculturalism' has 'failed'



British Home Secretary Suella Braverman issued a blistering speech in Washington Tuesday, denouncing the "failed" and "outdated" immigration policies that have compromised the stability, security, and sovereignty of Western nations.

The conservative politician drew a parallel between the crises at the U.S. southern border and in the Mediterranean, stressing in her American Enterprise Institute keynote address that "uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration, and a misguided dogma of multiculturalism have proven a toxic combination" for the West.

The British government indicated that in the year ending June 2023, 52,530 illegal aliens stole into the U.K. — four nations with a collective population of roughly 67 million souls. About 85% of these illegal migrants arrived by boat. The U.K. also received 74,751 asylum claims.

Under President Joe Biden, the United States — a nation with a population of over 335 million — saw over 232,000 illegal aliens steal into the nation just last month.

The Independent reported that Braverman, born to migrants from Mauritius and Kenya, recognizes the benefits of legal immigration. However, she emphasized Tuesday that such benefits rely upon the integration of migrants into the culture of their newfound homelands — a feat she prides her parents on having achieved "wholeheartedly."

"Multiculturalism makes no demands of the incomer to integrate," said Braverman. "It has failed because it allowed people to come to our society and live parallel lives in it. They could be in the society but not of the society."

For instance, the U.K. has observed the emergence of a parallel legal system in its midst, taking the form of Sharia councils.

The European Conservative noted in April that estimates put the number of Sharia councils in England and Wales at around 80, with more on the way. Braverman's predecessor noted that these councils have subjected various British women to discriminatory decisions that wouldn't otherwise fly under the legitimate law of the land.

"And, in extreme cases," continued Braverman, these balkanized migrant populations "could pursue lives aimed at undermining the stability and threatening the security of society."

Braverman referenced Leicester, England, in her speech as a prime example of how multiculturalism contra monocultural multiracialism has proven ruinous.

The English city has been a hotbed for tribal violence, particularly between Hindus and Muslims.

Just as with the Eritrean-Ethiopian violence that Western nations have unwittingly imported, the New York Times highlighted last year that Indian civil strife has found asylum in Leicester along with waves of warring migrants.

According to Braverman, the influx of migrants to the U.K. and the European continent "has been too much, too quick, with too little thought given to integration and the impact on social cohesion."

"If cultural change is too rapid and too big, then what was already there is diluted," continued Braverman. "Eventually it will disappear."

France is among the European nations to have recently paid a price for its failure to integrate new residents. In the wake of a police-involved shooting of a motorist of Algerian descent, riots swept the nation, leaving thousand of buildings torched, thousands of businesses looted, historical sites razed, and memorials desecrated.

Italy too has reaped the whirlwind, just last week seeing its island of Lampedusa, which has a native population of 6,000 residents, inundated with well over 8,500 illegal aliens, many of whom were military-age single men who had set sail from Libya.

Extra to stressing that illegal immigration and a failure to integrate pose an "existential challenge" to the U.S. and U.K. alike, Braverman questioned whether the United Nation's 1951 Refugee Convention was "fit for our modern age," noting that laws once intended to protect people from persecution have been transmogrified to protect people from bias. She suggested that "we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if, in effect, simply being gay or a woman or fearful of discrimination in your country of origin is sufficient to qualify for protection."

Braverman's speech and her suggestion that she will look into reforming the European Convention on Human Rights and the U.N. Refugee Convention with her peers at home and in the U.S. — reforms she indicated others have failed to pursue for fear of being called "racist or illiberal" — have driven leftists and the U.N. up the wall.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, whose organization relies upon British pounds to stay afloat, rebuked the home secretary's remarks, stating, "The refugee convention remains as relevant today as when it was adopted. Where individuals are at risk of persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, it is crucial that they are able to seek safety and protection."

"An appropriate response to the increase in arrivals and to the U.K.’s current asylum backlog would include strengthening and expediting decision-making procedures," added the UNHCR. "The need is not for reform, or more restrictive interpretation, but for stronger and more consistent application of the Convention and its underlying principle of responsibility-sharing"

LGBT activist and London assembly member Andrew Boff, whose city has a foreign-born population of 37% and a non-British population of 22%, said that Braverman should stop engaging in "dog whistle" politics, adding that "talking about the victims of persecution as if they are the problem is incredibly unhelpful and really paints us as an uncaring party. I'm deeply unhappy with it."

Despite receiving overwhelming criticism from various bureaucrats and leftist politicians, Braverman has so far held her ground.

Listen to Braverman's remarks in full:

Keynote Address by UK Home Secretary Suella Bravermanyoutu.be

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