The madhouse that is Modern Britain.
“Now we have press reporting on the huge scale of the crime committed by illegal immigrants housed in the Government’s own asylum hotels. The Sun found 339 charges in the last six months based on only half the hotels currently operated. The Mail on Sundayfound 708 charges based on only a third of those hotels. Those crimes included multiple cases of rape, sexual assault, violence, theft and arson, including the case that the Minister referred to in Epping, where a 38-year-old Ethiopian man has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. An illegal immigrant in Oxford has been convicted of raping a 20-year-old woman in a churchyard. A Sudanese man was convicted of strangling and attempting to rape a woman in a nightclub toilet in Wakefield. Violent protest in response to those appalling crimes is never justified. The public, though, are rightly sick of this illegal immigrant crime wave. It has to end.”
Chris Philp MP, Hansard, Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity debate, 21st July 2025.
There’s a curious peculiarity when it comes to progressive compassion. And it’s particularly obvious when it comes to the issue of asylum.
Think of the arguments advanced in favour of the provision of asylum for illegal migrants.
First, there is the presumption of normality (these are ordinary people fleeing terrible conditions, men, women and children just like us).
Second, there is the presumption of contribution (these are our future doctors, nurses and brain surgeons).
Third, there is the presumption of a moral duty of care (a civilised nation doesn’t turn away people in pain or need, it shelters and protects them).
Fourth, there is the presumption of noble intent (these people are just looking for a better life).
Fifth, there is the presumption of inexhaustible resources (we can easily accommodate and pay for these people, we are a rich nation).
It’s possible in some cases that one or more of these presumptions will prove accurate. It’s highly unlikely that in even a single asylum case they are all accurate. And it’s of course utterly impossible for them all to be accurate, in all cases.
Any minimally informed (let alone deeply informed) understanding of the nature of asylum arrivals suggests that all of these presumptions are ludicrously optimistic ones, or deliberately dishonest ones.
The majority of the people involved are fighting age young men, not old men, women or children. This suggests greater likelihood of these people being dangerous and potential harms to the society they join.
All illegal arrivals have shown already that they do not respect the laws of the nation they are entering, since they choose to enter that nation illegally. They are by definition already criminals who are prepared to break the law.
The majority of them come from nations and cultures with radically different, often diametrically opposed, values and customs compared to western society. If a person leaves a nation where the rape of women and children is much more common, and even condoned and celebrated as a cultural practice, and then comes to a nation where rape and child rape are abhorrent, he is less likely to agree that these things are abhorrent and more likely to do them, than someone raised in the culture that (correctly) sees these things as wrong. Migrants from ‘high rape’ societies have even argued, in court, that cultural norms in their homelands explain and excuse their crimes.
In Afghanistan for instance powerful men often keep small boys as sex slaves. In the West this is the behaviour of despicable, criminal, evil perverts. In Afghanistan it’s a cultural norm and an expected ‘perk’ of status and authority (the cultural practice of bacha bazi or ‘boy play’).
Similarly in the West we have come to regard women as equal to men and to enforce a strict division based on age of consent regarding children (who cannot be treated sexually) and adults (who can only be treated sexually by consent). In the entire Islamic world it is the religious and legal assumption that women are subservient to men, that men may beat and abuse their wives, that very coercive, controlling and abusive behaviour towards wives and daughters is acceptable, and that non Muslim women are girls have even less rights and are even more available for sexual and physical abuse than Muslim ones.
In Iran, for instance, the legal age for marriage is nine, following the example of Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha. What is extreme perversion and hideous evil in western culture, is a religiously endorsed normality that is sanctified by the behaviour of the holiest human being to ever live, in Islamic cultures like Iran.
In large parts of Africa, Muslim and otherwise, rape is commonplace. In South Africa, the woman who has never been raped is more likely the exception, rather than the rule. In the Congo, brutal war over generations of conflict included rape as a weapon of warfare, while rape jihad and the abduction of women and girls for sexual slavery is a common tactic of Islamic terrorist groups like Boko Haram active in Nigeria and other African nations.
All of these are factual realities that the presumptions of progressive ‘compassion’ and attitudes to asylum from ‘liberals’ and Globalists not only ignore, but deliberate minimise, conceal and lie about.
It is a simple and bleak truth that progressive compassion advocates the likely introduction of child rape, adult rape and excessive violence and criminality into host nations, while pretending that factual awareness of this is evil and that increasing the likelihood of children being raped is not evil (but rather, noble and good).
For the globalist progressive, one must assume that all asylum seekers are very good, even when they are coming from places that are very bad….and that their fellows (raised with the same general cultural lessons) made very bad. Now it’s true such failed states and degenerate and backward cultures are going to generate genuine and real victims who are innocent, and true too that these would seek to flee elsewhere.
But the globalist progressive doesn’t want any kind of check whatsoever to detect the difference between a person fleeing evil conditions while innocent, and a person bringing evil attitudes and behaviours with them. The assumption must always be the first….when the practical likelihood, more often, is the second.
Human beings learn by example. Those raised in cultures with depraved and backward attitudes or where savage actions and behaviours receive religious approval, are simply more likely to be dangerous than those who are not. And every honest analysis of crimes rates comparing those of asylum seekers and migrants from the Third World with First World populations, again and again, prove this to be true.
But in order to feel that they are good, the ideological bias of the progressive is that they are required to ignore reality, and assume that all migrants are good. The worst places on the Earth, in their worldview, must produce the very best people, and people inherently better than western people are. So much so that even child rapists or known gang members or people whose arrival coincides with rape and crime increases, must be assumed to be good and assumed to be deserving of more protection than existing western populations are.
“We have a responsibility to deal in the truth and to counter plainly false narratives. The Minister talked about the fact that this protest crossed over into mindless thuggery. Every one of us should stand up here and say that to our constituents or to anyone who gets in touch. People are spreading rumours that have no basis in the truth, including in my constituency, where last year a rumour went around about asylum seekers in hotels. It had absolutely no basis in the truth, but could have caused some sort of mob, like in Epping. This is dog-whistle politics. What is the Minister doing to tell people that, just as not everybody in any community in our country is a rapist, not everybody in migrant hotels is a rapist? We should do what we can to ensure that people are protected and decisions are made as quickly as possible.”
Kirsty Blackman MP, Hansard, Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity debate, 21st July 2025.
Now let us take all of those presumptions noted above and examine them in terms of progressive attitudes to western populations, to ordinary citizens in their own countries, to people who protest against asylum hotels or who oppose mass immigration, and in particular to those doing so while being white or working class or, worst of all, both of those things.
The difference is remarkable, and exactly reflects, as an opposite image, how the progressive views migrants and asylum seekers.
In the case of their own populace, the progressive assumes a harsh posture of condemnation.
First, there is a presumption of abnormality (anyone protesting against asylum and immigration must be a racist, a xenophobe, an uneducated thug, or some other demonising explanation).
Second, there is a presumption of lack of contribution (these are our embittered extremists, our underclass, our work-shy Britons).
Third, there is a presumption of a lack of a moral duty of care (the needs. wishes, votes and opinions of these people must be suppressed and ignored, the nation state and the government can ignore their safety and increase their risk and even legally enshrine the rights of non citizens above their safety).
Fourth, there is a presumption of malign intent (protesters are not concerned about their children’s safety, or female rights, or their own safety, but are ‘Far Right’ and motivated solely by hate or fascism).
Fifth, there is the presumption of finite resources (we can’t afford to waste money on protecting these people, money has to be taken from them and moved to others, they will have to pay higher taxes and accept worse conditions).
In every way then all of the presumptions of what is described as compassion, which MUST apply to asylum seekers and migrants, MUST NOT apply to ordinary existing citizens.
Citizenship become the marker of LOSING a right to protection, representation, support and compassion, rather than GAINING these things. Under progressive rule the duty of government, the police, the courts, the media, the entire system, is bent towards the non citizens, and deliberately removed from the existing citizen.
One must care beyond reason for the Other, and assume a position of heartless contemptuous disdain towards one’s Own People.
Under such rule, the asylum and immigration systems becomes an Open Asylum, a place designed by lunatics, for lunatics, where the authorities are the most dangerous inmates of all, possesed of the ability and intent to make the lives of the sane as miserable as possible.
But where does a sane English person, a member of the white working class, seek asylum from the asylum his country has become? Who offers him refuge? Who acknowledges his rights? Who stretches out a hand to lift him up, or lends him sword and shield to defend himself? Should the Englishman, with family in tow, flee to America, or Russia? The wealthy can flee, and the poor, largely, cannot.
If they had never known the land of their birth, and landed on its shores as an illegal invader, it would treat them with the kindness and respect it denies them now. Their crime is inheritance of a despised identity and a stolen heritage, their sin is their whiteness, their punishment, this governance. Peter Lynch was effectively murdered by the British state, for being British and speaking the truth. Thousands of girls were gang raped for being white. The courts and judges tell us we are legally inferior to asylum seekers who molest children. We have to read about 13 year old girls being raped, and 12 year old boys being stabbed to death, by migrants and asylum seekers our progressives consider better than us, more worthy than us, more valid and important than us.
If we aren’t ourselves the ones being attacked.
There are deaths that would not have happened, and crimes that would not have happened, and suffering that would not have happened, if our policies were different, Children like Leo Ross would still be alive if our priorities were different, and if our authorities were different. But we live in the broken rubble of Consequence, following their dishonest, terrible, hideous version of Progress. We bleed for their smug conceits, and see what was safe and ours turned to danger and ruin, owned and abused by their hands.
The only way a progressive can consider himself good, and receive the plaudits of his fellows, is by doing evil. By supporting,, excusing, condoning evil from favoured demographics, and by condemning and imprisoning those who want their children to live in a safe country where the government listens to them.
Daniel Jupp is a populist writer from Essex, England. His latest book is “Gates of Hell: Why Bill Gates is the Most Dangerous Man in the World.” Daniel’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support his work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to Jupplandia.